Eucharist why does he say this

[Chuck1]

why does Jesus say " do this in memory of me" if he is actually present ?
the sentance seems more symbolic if he said memory in referring to past tense ?
thanks chuck

 

[Big_Feet]

why does Jesus say " do this in memory of me" if he is actually present ?
the sentance seems more symbolic if he said memory in referring to past tense ?
thanks chuck

This is his instruction to participate in the Eucharistic celebration that he just gave his apostles after he had left.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1322 - 1381.

For those who may not know, the Catechism is online at many websites, including vatican.va and scborromeo.org.

 

[Anthony_V]

why does Jesus say " do this in memory of me" if he is actually present ?
the sentance seems more symbolic if he said memory in referring to past tense ?
thanks chuck

The actual verse in latin is hoc facite in meam commemorationem, literally meaning “do this for a commemoration of me.” We are told to do this so that we may remember him. Why would Jesus be telling us to come to him in the Eucharist so that we may remember him? In understanding this, you must think like an ancient semite-- who were not legal in their approach to philosophy like us latins were/are. Jesus couldn’t have been speaking to his disciples merely about remembering his passion, because he hadn’t gone through it yet! He was speaking twofold. Firstly, to his disciples as an instruction. Secondly, to us that we may remember his passion, know he is with us, and remember him in times to come; that the Eucharist will provide us with the grace to persevere in faith. Notice how he doesn’t say “do this to remember me”. He says “do this so you will remember me.” He is saying that the Eucharist imparts grace upon the communicant!

EDIT
As Mr. Dandy pointed out above, the CCC really highlights this twofold action in 1341:

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words “until he comes” does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.

 

[Gem]

Hi Chuck,

He said this knowing that he was about to be killed (He even says so, "He who dips his hand with me into the dish…). He means, “after I am gone, do this in the same way that I am doing it”. Jesus reinforces this teaching when he meets two apostles on the road to Emmaus, and He explains the Scriptures to them, but they do not recognize Him until the breaking of the bread.

The “breaking of the bread” was what the early church called Eucharist, but there is no doubt as to the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of the Lord. Read John 6. “Amen, I say that you have no life within you unless to eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” And to the aposltes after many disciples left because of the difficulty in believing in the Eucharist, He says, “Will you also go away?” Peter says, “Lord, to whom will we go? You have the words of everlasting life”. They didn’t understand very well at first either, but they persisted in faith. Their understanding improved at Pentecost witht he coming of the Holy Spirit.

Also read any early church father: Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Iraeneus. Some of these learned directly from the apostles, or from the second generation, and they teach that the Eucharist is not symbolic, that the Body and Blood of the Lord give grace and spiritual life.

St. Paul as well teaches in a letter that to recevie the Eucharist unworthily (in a state of sin) is “to eat and drink condemnation upon oneself”. If it were symbolic, it would not matter.

God bless you on your faith journey.

Gem

 

[Lancer]

Catechism has the answer
Pax Christi

**The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church
[see paras. 1362-1372]
**
1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

 

[willofgods]

From the Haydock commentary of the Douay Rheims Bible (Luke 22:19):

Christ does not command them to remember him, but to take his body and blood with a remembrance of him, and his benefits: this is the [significance]* of all the words, put together. This is my body: this is my blood: do this in, for, or with a remembrance of me…] But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed.

*I replaced the original word “import” for a dictionary definition so that anyone could read and understand (I had to look it up as for me “import” calls to mind a good beer )

 

[Chuck1]

Okay thanks guys I see what your saying now thanksgiving again !

 

[MarcusAndreas]

The Jewish understanding of a memorial is that a memorial is the bringing of a past event into the present.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Jewish understanding of a memorial is that a memorial is the bringing of a past event into the present.

Yes, when we are at Mass, we are literally kneeling at Calvary.

 

[White_Peony]

When Jesus said, “do this in memory of Me” He did not mean it symbolically.
I’ve noticed a lot of Catholics are indifferent when receiving the Eucharist. They do it because of duty, not out of love for Jesus. Are they doing it in memory of Him? In the blessed Sacrament, Jesus is showing love in an intimiate way by giving us His body. We hold Love in our unworthy hands. When we realize this, are we doing it in memory of Him?

 

[bmullins]

Another important observation from the SS is the institution of the Jewish Passover. Jesus was using words that would also echo to their Jewish roots.

Exodus 12:14 This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD—a lasting ordinance.

Jesus language would have been an indicator for the Apostles to realize that there was an ordinance being given in liturgical language for the future Passover celebration.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yes, when we are at Mass, we are literally kneeling at Calvary.

Hi Jim,

Can you explain what you mean more by “literally kneeling at Calvary” (especially the meaning of “literally” and “at Calvary”)?

Thanks!
VC

 

[bmullins]

Mass is not a re-sacrifice, nor is it simply a new sacrifice, but it is THE sacrifice of Christ. When we are there we are transported through time to the actual event at Calvary. We are glimpsing Christ on the cross in every single mass, not a new Christ, not a reenactment, but the actual event.

If you haven’t read the Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn, that book has an amazing way of conveying that simple truth.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Mass is not a re-sacrifice, nor is it simply a new sacrifice, but it is THE sacrifice of Christ. When we are there we are transported through time to the actual event at Calvary. We are glimpsing Christ on the cross in every single mass, not a new Christ, not a reenactment, but the actual event.

If you haven’t read the Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn, that book has an amazing way of conveying that simple truth.

Hi bmullins,

Yes, I’ve read Dr. Hahn’s work.

I was wondering what Jim meant, but do you suppose you’ve characterized his position pretty accurately?

Assuming you have, maybe you can clarify some things for me.

Do you feel that we are in the presence of the soldiers as well? What part of of the actual event of Calvary are we present at? All of it? From what point to what point in (Calvary) time? Do the different points in time take place at different point in time at the Liturgy, or are the events of Calvary compressed into one moment in the Liturgy? Are we present at Christ’s actual, literal, suffering occurring? Are we present for the blasphemies heaped upon him? Are we present at the actual, literal moment of death?

Any opinons?

Thanks,
VC

 

[bmullins]

My understanding of it, and I am no theologian, but my understanding is that the sacrifice at the cross transcends time. That just as we see in revelations the lamb standing at the alter as slain, Jesus is a perpetual sacrifice that transcends all of time. That at the moment we participate in the Eucharist, Heaven touches earth and we are transported through time or rather even outside of time… that for just a moment we are in Heaven, with Jesus at the altar offering himself forever for us.

So we are at Calvary but not, in Heaven but not. I think that to me is where the concept of ‘mystery’ comes in. That we can understand it, but our minds have trouble completely wrapping around it.

This quote describes it likely more succinctly than I can:

The Mass is the re-presentation of Christ’s death at Calvary. In one sense this occurred at one time in one place, Jerusalem in about 30 A.D. In another sense, since this was God’s redemptive act for all of mankind, it occurs outside of space and time and is eternal. It is a single act of God and space and time have no relevance. The Mass therefore, in this sense, either transports us back to the foot of the Cross on Calvary or it brings Calvary into our midst; it makes no difference. The Mass is a means by which our finite existence touches this infinite act. Since sacraments are signs established by Christ that give grace, the signs in this sacrament of the Eucharist are the bread and the wine and the words of the priest at the consecration. The first Mass was the Last Supper when Christ changed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. There is a argument that scoffs at this by saying, “How can He do this when His body and blood are sitting there in person; how can the bread and wine and Christ be His Body and Blood simultaneously?” But anything is possible to God. Christ gave His Body and Blood on the cross at Calvary and this gift is transmitted to us via this Supper. The Mass is often referred to as a supper. The Crucifixion and Consecration come together as one in the Mass, at the Consecration.

This page here does a very good job of going through the scriptural and traditional references that build up this concept.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

My understanding of it, and I am no theologian, but my understanding is that the sacrifice at the cross transcends time. That just as we see in revelations the lamb standing at the alter as slain, Jesus is a perpetual sacrifice that transcends all of time. That at the moment we participate in the Eucharist, Heaven touches earth and we are transported through time or rather even outside of time… that for just a moment we are in Heaven, with Jesus at the altar offering himself forever for us.

So we are at Calvary but not, in Heaven but not. I think that to me is where the concept of ‘mystery’ comes in. That we can understand it, but our minds have trouble completely wrapping around it.

Thank you for the quote and link.

The thing that interests me is that I’m not sure that it gives a reason for the necessity of actually being present at the actual events of Calvary (either we there or it here). It seems to me that you don’t have to postulate that kind of thing in order to explain what happens at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Further, I continue to wonder about what, exactly is happening in this view. On the one hand there is thread in Catholic theology that (to my mind rightly) stresses that there is no “real” shedding of blood at the Mass. But on the other hand, proponent of the view that we are speaking of above seem to be saying that there is the real shedding of the blood at the Mass.

I find that odd. If it was just a discussion about the merits of Christ’s bloodshed being applied to us at the Mass, and that those merits are not confined to time, that would be easy to affirm (it has always been so affirmed, it is, after all, a core concept of the Mass). But in order to apply the merits of Christ’s bloodshed we don’t need to be “there” somehow.

I understand that you aren’t a theologian – so please don’t think I’m taking you to task on this. And perhaps you are learning more about it as you go.

For my part I was just wondering what proponents of this theory understand it mean.

Thank you for the discussion!
VC

 

[bmullins]

For me, as an ex-protestant, the necessity for this discussion is the SS stating that:

“So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time he shall appear without sin to them that expect him unto salvation.” Hebrew 9:28

A common argument against the Mass in protestant circles is that Catholics are offering Christ again, and again, and again. If that were true, our Mass would contradict the scriptures. Another thought that occurs to me is that there is indeed blood being shed at the Mass.

“In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” Luke 22:20

Jesus very words indicate that the cup we partake of in the Eucharistic meal is indeed the blood being poured out on the altar for us. (The same blood which poured out on the altar of the cross at Calvary.) In order for the blood to be poured out to cover us, it must be shed first from the Lamb.

Those are just the thoughts that occur to me when I read them. I hope if I am wrong in those thoughts that someone more versed in Tradition and theology will correct me.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

b,

Let me just say, at the outset, that I firmly believe that whatever objections whatsoever there are to the Mass are soluble and that it doesn’t contradict our scriptural data whatsoever.

I just wanted to affirm that – because it might be the case that one or another explanation may or may not be best, but let’s rest assured that there is an explanation that harmonizes everything.

Another thought that occurs to me is that there is indeed blood being shed at the Mass.

“In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” Luke 22:20

Jesus very words indicate that the cup we partake of in the Eucharistic meal is indeed the blood being poured out on the altar for us. (The same blood which poured out on the altar of the cross at Calvary.) In order for the blood to be poured out to cover us, it must be shed first from the Lamb.

Those are just the thoughts that occur to me when I read them. I hope if I am wrong in those thoughts that someone more versed in Tradition and theology will correct me.

The interesting thing, for me, is that the Eucharist is Christ as He is. And the way He is is in Heaven, glorified, and alive. So, the Eucharist that we have at Mass is the living, whole, and glorified Christ. In such a case, there is no “real” pouring of blood in the sense that Christ’s blood isn’t and can’t be separated from Him. This part of why I find it odd to talk about the “real” pouring of blood happening at the Mass in some other way (i.e. at Calvary).

You see, much of the problem goes away when if we say that devotionally, or metaphorically, or “as it were” we are at Calvary. But when we take a hyper-realistic view and say that we are “actually” present at Calvary, some questions arise for me.

I’m quite fond of the devotional language of “as if, as it were, we are present at Calvary”. A number of writers have used this language – but, until rather recently I think, it was always used in a devotional way and not put forth as tangible reality, and also not as an explanation for what the Mass is in its essence.

VC

 

[bmullins]

If Christ is standing at the Altar offering Himself then isn’t He both? Both complete and resurrected in Heaven and the offering on the Altar? If He is outside of time, is it not also possible for Him to be present in Heaven as the sacrifice, and the Priest?

Thank you for the food for thought. I know in the Lamb’s Supper, Scott Hahn presents this as not a new idea, but one that has been around since the early church. I’m off to try and find answers for myself