Do Catholics teach and believe the Last Supper was propitiatory?

[Wesrock]

I say God’s wrath was appeased only on the Cross because of what Christ did.
You are saying God’s wrath was appeased at the Last Supper.

I maintain that between the Last Supper and Cross, God’s wrath was still un-appeased.
You believe that between the Last Supper and Cross, God’s wrath was already appeased.

Did i correctly state your view?

I know this isn’t directed me, but no, that is not correct. There is a union between the Cross and the Eucharist that you are ignoring, but with the Cross being primary and the Eucharist in a sense being secondary and dependent on it. Step outside the bounds of temporal thinking for a bit. If there was a “Last Supper” but no Cross, the last supper would not have “appeased” anything. But they could not have separate. God knew what would happen and what did happen. The Last Supper and all Eucharist celebrations are entirely tied to the cross (and Resurrection, really) and lose their meaning without it. The Last Supper could not have been pleasing in and of itself. Jesus could not have done it, then said. “Hey, guess there doesn’t need to be a cross or resurrection after all.”

 

[Duane1966]

nope: factually not true.
when I get a moment I can show specific Biblical examples on “how are covenants sealed on the OT” (or just google that question)

Nevertheless; not all covenants are propitiatory.

I say God’s wrath was appeased only on the Cross because of what Christ did.
You are saying God’s wrath was appeased at the Last Supper.

I maintain that between the Last Supper and Cross, God’s wrath was still un-appeased.
You believe that between the Last Supper and Cross, God’s wrath was already appeased.

Did i correctly state your view?

Nope, you did not correctly state my view. You asked if the Last Supper was propitiatory. I say yes. But it is because from the Last Supper through the Resurrection, it is ONE event. You try to separate what happened on Friday from everything else. This cannot be done. For Catholics, the Last Supper is the start of the sacrifice.

Without the Last Supper, there is no crucifixion. Covenants between God and man were confirmed with a meal.

You have said that the people were safe, as soon as they put the blood on the door posts in Exodus, and that it did not matter whether they ate the lamb or not. This is false. By your logic, since that really didn’t matter, then it shouldn’t matter if the person decided to sacrifice a goat instead, as long as there was blood on the door posts.

 

[rcwitness]

I think so often we all talk past each other.

Yes. I have tried to explain the nature of His Eucharist here. Alwayswill does not want to listen to the fact that The Lord’s Supper is a participation in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. The Last Supper preceded the event of the sacrifice. This only means that the Apostles did not understand that Jesus was about to be killed. Nevertheless, they were receiving the sacrifice of the New Covenant. Jesus was not confined to time. Before Abraham was, He is. He displayed His glorified body at the Transfiguration. He did not enter into eternity when He died or rose or ascended, but He always was. The Supper of the Mass transcends time. It’s also how Jesus was able to tell individuals that their sins were forgiven, even though He did not yet experience the event of propitiation at the cross.

Eating the bread and drinking the wine in a framework of the words He spoke and with sincere desire to follow Him is participation in those things you mention.

But Evangelicals do not believe what I mentioned. I mentioned actually receiving the sacrifice. The sacrifice was not bread and wine.

You would be invited to join with me at the table in my church based on what you profess above.I also understand, really I do, that you would probably not find the fulfillment in our communion that you experience at Mass.

I realize many churches have looser boundaries, regarding who should participate. And how can they not? If they cannot offer the true sacrifice of Jesus, they can’t expect an assent of faith in receiving His sacrifice.

We are all conditioned to our understanding. Maybe the only thing we can agree on 100% is that someday , maybe sooner than later, we will find out how Jesus really meant it all to be, and what variations we brought to the scene were acceptable to Him.

Christ calls us to one mind, one judgment, one body, one faith, one baptism here and now. This is not dependant on our understanding, but our understanding is dependant on our following.

 

[GKC]

… The Lord’s Supper is a participation in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. The Last Supper preceded the event of the sacrifice. This only means that the Apostles did not understand that Jesus was about to be killed. Nevertheless, they were receiving the sacrifice of the New Covenant. Jesus was not confined to time. Before Abraham was, He is. He displayed His glorified body at the Transfiguration. He did not enter into eternity when He died or rose or ascended, but He always was. The Supper of the Mass transcends time. It’s also how Jesus was able to tell individuals that their sins were forgiven, even though He did not yet experience the event of propitiation at the cross.

Yep.

 

[Reuben_J]

nope: factually not true.
when I get a moment I can show specific Biblical examples on “how are covenants sealed on the OT” (or just google that question)

Nevertheless; not all covenants are propitiatory.

I say God’s wrath was appeased only on the Cross because of what Christ did.
You are saying God’s wrath was appeased at the Last Supper.

I maintain that between the Last Supper and Cross, God’s wrath was still un-appeased.
You believe that between the Last Supper and Cross, God’s wrath was already appeased.

Did i correctly state your view?

By your post, are you saying that when Jesus said to eat his body and drink his blood at the Last Supper that He did not refer to his death and resurrection? That His invitation to eat and drink was just that … an ordinary meal with no significance at all?

It is only on this understanding that the Last Supper would not be appeasing the wrath of God because at that point in time no sacrifice was made.

As has been explained, this is not what the mass was about nor the understanding of Catholics on the Last Supper.

I think this is the difference between those who believe in the Real Presence and those who don’t.

If that is the case, there is no amount of explanation of the Eucharist that will make sense to you.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I didn’t respond to this thread initially because as soon as I saw it, I knew it was the typical James White ‘gotcha’ moment he likes to pull.

But as pointed out, you can’t separate the last supper from the crucifixion anymore than you can separate the Father from the Son. This was one continuous event and like many other aspects, we can sum it up as a mystery of faith.

I think Wannano rightly pointed out that we sort of talk past each other instead of just trying to REALLY understand the other guy’s POV.

 

[rcwitness]

The Mass is propitiatory in the sense that His sacrifice of Calvary is applied through His body and blood offered.

 

[Cathoholic]

Alwayswill. You asked:

QUOTE:
if Mass was not celebrated; would God’s wrath become un-appeased.

You could ask the same thing about the sending of The Paraclete (Counselor), The Holy Spirit.

If Jesus didn’t send the Paraclete (to apply His Sacrifice on Calvary) “would God’s wrath become un-appeased?”

JOHN 16:7 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

The fact is, the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary was complete.

But the fact ALSO remains, that complete “once for all” Sacrifice now needs to be applied.

That’s probably part of the reason WHY even AFTER Calvary . . . . St. Paul can say Jesus was RAISED for our justification. (“Wasn’t Calvary enough?”)

ROMANS 4:24b-25 Jesus our Lord, 25 who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

You also asked:

QUOTE:
would the propitiation that was accomplished on the Cross be undone?

The propitiation would be rejected, not “undone”.

You also asked:

QUOTE:
The night Jesus instituted the Supper was not the moment Jesus actually died.
therefore
The night Jesus instituted the Supper was not the moment propitiation was made:

why is that view wrong?

It is wrong because it is incomplete.

It’s wrong because it doesn’t allow for the Sacrifice of Jesus transcending time BOTH WAYS (which is a subtle denial of the Divine nature of Christ who is “I AM”).

It’s wrong because it is a subtle denial of what our Lord Jesus (who is True God and True man) taught.

1st CORINTHIANS 11:23-30 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

You would like these verses to say something different. But they don’t say something different.

Here is NOT what the verses say . . . .

NOT 1st CORINTHIANS 11 (Phantom Verse) 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This WILL BE my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup WILL BE the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

 

[John_Martin]

“Wrath” is not a state of mind or emotion in God, but is an operation of chastising someone for their being “off the mark” of where they ought to be.

Here is ‘I AM’ through Isaiah:
“For a brief moment I abandoned you,
but with great tenderness I will take you back.
In an outburst of wrath, for a moment
I hid my face from you;
But with enduring love I take pity on you,
says ‘I AM’, your redeemer.”
The cross, His death of sacrifice, given to us to eat and drink in the Mass, is the great tenderness of taking us back - this is his operation of taking us back.
His wrath is appeased, ended, by his taking us back in our union with Jesus.
In himself, as an angry parent might do, he inflicts punishment (wrath), but then also in himself, knowing that the punishment is long enough, begins doing things that look loving again, and helps his child feel the love.
With the cross and the Mass, he gives the Love to us, and individually, in our eating and drinking, so that we know the friendship.