Jesus at the Last Supper

[Medic_Mark]

How do Catholic’s deal with the following question:

How can Jesus be really present in the Eucharist he instituted at the last supper if he hasn’t died yet? It is said that this is evidence of symbolic communion.

 

[Robbinson]

How do Catholic’s deal with the following question:

How can Jesus be really present in the Eucharist he instituted at the last supper if he hasn’t died yet? It is said that this is evidence of symbolic communion.

If Jesus could turn water into wine at Chana (the first miracle in his ministry), do you not think that Jesus could turn the bread and wine at the last supper into his divine blood and body without re-sacrificing Jesus? The ability to do this would not be impacted by the fact that his sacrifice had not yet happened in “time” yet as it is a making of that sacrifice present to the apostles in an unbloody manner. Similarly, when we participate in the Eucharist now (after Jesus death), we are partaking of his divine blood and body by participating in the one and only sacrifice which is made “present” for us (though He is not resacrificed).

Regarding the doctrine of the real presence generally - it is based upon a combination of the literal words in the institution of the Eucharist at the last supper (luke 22:19), the literal words and context of Jesus discussions with the disciples in John 6:35-66); paul’s warning regarding partaking without discerning the body, etc (1 cor 11:23-29 and 10 Cor 10:16-19) and the writings of the earliest church fathers (from the 2nd century through the Reformation) attesting to the real presence in the Eucharist and distinguishing that belief from heretics who denied it.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[teachccd]

How do Catholic’s deal with the following question:

How can Jesus be really present in the Eucharist he instituted at the last supper if he hasn’t died yet? It is said that this is evidence of symbolic communion.

Jesus is fully man and fully God. Since the very nature of God has no time everything is present to Him eternally. Theologians refer to this as the “eternal now”. The chronological events pertaining to His suffering, death, and resurrection corresponds to our understanding of time and had to occur in time. Jesus’ passion transcends time and so He could hold His sacrificed Body and Blood “before” His actual crucifixion and that would be a valid presence in the bread and the wine. His words were, " this is my body which will be given up for you". Jesus maintains our understanding of time with these words even though in reality the Last Supper was the institution of HIs perpetual Sacrifice accomplished by Jesus on the cross.

I am not sure who it is who says that this is evidence of a symbolic communion. When you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers you will see an overwhelming understanding of the Real Presence. Even St. Paul recalls that participate in the Body and Blood of Christ when we receive Communion. ( 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:23-34)

Nothing is impossible for God and I would be very hesitant to place such boundaries on what it is that He can do. Anyone doing a typological study of the Passover meal and the institution of the Eucharist will see the transformation of the saving power of God in the exodus to the saving power of God in the Eucharist. Just as the Israelites were not brought to the promised land by a symbolic journey we cannot be brought to our promised land by a symbolic communion… God bless… teachccd

 

[teachccd]

If Jesus could turn water into wine at Chana (the first miracle in his ministry), do you not think that Jesus could turn the bread and wine at the last supper into his divine blood and body without re-sacrificing Jesus? The ability to do this would not be impacted by the fact that his sacrifice had not yet happened in “time” yet as it is a making of that sacrifice present to the apostles in an unbloody manner. Similarly, when we participate in the Eucharist now (after Jesus death), we are partaking of his divine blood and body by participating in the one and only sacrifice which is made “present” for us (though He is not resacrificed).

Regarding the doctrine of the real presence generally - it is based upon a combination of the literal words in the institution of the Eucharist at the last supper (luke 22:19), the literal words and context of Jesus discussions with the disciples in John 6:35-66); paul’s warning regarding partaking without discerning the body, etc (1 cor 11:23-29 and 10 Cor 10:16-19) and the writings of the earliest church fathers (from the 2nd century through the Reformation) attesting to the real presence in the Eucharist and distinguishing that belief from heretics who denied it.

Blessings,

Brian

Great post!!

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The answer to that question is contained in the Bible. You see, we accept that Jesus meant exactly what he said, when he stated, “This is my body”.

He did not say, “This represents my body”, or “This is to commemorate my body”.

He made a simple, very clear, declarative sentence: “This IS my body”.

He then took the cup, and stated, “This is the cup of my blood”. Once again, he did not say, OR imply, that this was in any way symbolic. He stated very affirmatively that this was His Body and this was His Blood"

He then commanded the Apostles to, “Do this in memory of me.”

He did not command them, “Do this as a reminder that i was once here”, or “Do this so others will remember me”. He told them very clearly, very simply and without any reservations at all, “Do this in memory of me”.

Now, it essentially comes down to this. Either you believe that Jesus meant exactly what he said, or you do not.

Roman Catholics believe that he meant exactly what he said, and that he gave the power to do the same exact thing to his Apostles, who passed that power on to their disciples, and so on.

Most Protestants do not believe that Jesus meant exactly what he said.

 

[beafedor]

How do Catholic’s deal with the following question:

How can Jesus be really present in the Eucharist he instituted at the last supper if he hasn’t died yet? It is said that this is evidence of symbolic communion.

I have attended a conference where Scott Hahn explained that the people who witnessed the Crucifixion couldn’t possibly understand that they were witnessing a sacrifice. Jesus was arrested, tried, convicted and punished like a criminal and that’s all the people could see. Only in the light of the Last Supper can we understand that He gave His life freely for us.

 

[TimothyH]

How do Catholic’s deal with the following question:

How can Jesus be really present in the Eucharist he instituted at the last supper if he hasn’t died yet? It is said that this is evidence of symbolic communion.

The question posed by the non-Catholic shows a very shallow understanding of the Trinity and of the incarnation. From an apologetic standpoint, it is a very weak argument.

God, specifically the second person of the Trinity, became man. The man which God became was Jesus and he was fully man, 100% human. He got tired and hungry, he cried and he loved his friends. That human, Jesus Christ, was beaten, nailed to a cross and died, after which he was placed in a tomb. Jesus died. That’s all there is to it. He rose from the dead of course and still lives, but to say that Jesus “hasn’t died yet” is completely incorrect. To say that Jesus hasn’t died yet is to deny the humanity of Jesus or to ignore the ending of all four Gospels.

*When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. (John 19:30)*I’m tempted to ask what in the world someone who claims Jesus “hasn’t died yet” is talking about! Given this obvious error, I’d question the entire logic of their argument. I might try to find a charitable way of saying, “Jesus hasn’t died yet??? Are you nuts?”

Putting aside the error for a moment, the non-Catholic who asks original question has little or no understanding of the sacramental nature of the Eucharist. Sacramental presence is an order above physical presence. Jesus can be sacramentally present - the entire substance of his body and blood really and truly present - in many different places and at many different times, even though he was only physcially present at one place and at one time while he walked the earth. There is a difference between physcial presence and sacramental presence. Both are real, but sacramental presence is different, better, of a higher order.

Suggest to the sceptic that if Jesus could be present, have made his abode, in every Christian whoever lived all at one time, then he could be present in the Eucharist at many different times and places if that what he wanted to do.

-Tim-

 

[Medic_Mark]

The question posed by the non-Catholic shows a very shallow understanding of the Trinity and of the incarnation. From an apologetic standpoint, it is a very weak argument.

God, specifically the second person of the Trinity, became man. The man which God became was Jesus and he was fully man, 100% human. He got tired and hungry, he cried and he loved his friends. That human, Jesus Christ, was beaten, nailed to a cross and died, after which he was placed in a tomb. Jesus died. That’s all there is to it. He rose from the dead of course and still lives, but to say that Jesus “hasn’t died yet” is completely incorrect. To say that Jesus hasn’t died yet is to deny the humanity of Jesus or to ignore the ending of all four Gospels.

They are referring to that the night before he died. They know he died, but the issue at hand is that he was still alive when he instituted Communion.

teachccd:

Jesus is fully man and fully God. Since the very nature of God has no time everything is present to Him eternally. Theologians refer to this as the “eternal now”. The chronological events pertaining to His suffering, death, and resurrection corresponds to our understanding of time and had to occur in time. Jesus’ passion transcends time and so He could hold His sacrificed Body and Blood “before” His actual crucifixion and that would be a valid presence in the bread and the wine. His words were, " this is my body which will be given up for you". Jesus maintains our understanding of time with these words even though in reality the Last Supper was the institution of HIs perpetual Sacrifice accomplished by Jesus on the cross.

Interesting. I’ll be reading up more on this subject. Thanks everybody.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I would suggest that this isn’t really an issue at all, but rather a philospophical presupposition. People tend to pick and choose what they question God’s ability on. I think we can all agree on a few things, however.

1. Jesus was God.
2. God can do it.
3. Jesus did it.

So the issue isn’t really if God can do it, but why. The how is a silly question to ask, because there is no way to know unless you are God. However, I will throw some musings on my end out there:

Many people tend to confuse temporal timelines with the eternal realm. The cross was a one time temporal event, and yet is an eternal reality. There is no reason to think that the Eucharist as a temporal event cannot tap into the same eternally present sacrifice as the cross does. Both are temporal, and yet in the eternal realm are connected. This is the essence of sacramental presence. This is why God can look through the eyes of grace on those in the Old Testament, even thought the cross hadn’t happened yet temporally. It’s because eternally, as Revelation and Hebrews makes clear, Jesus is in some sense offering his sacrifice outside of time. I will leave you with the words of Saint Augustine:

“And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.” Homilies on the Psalms, Psalm XX (3)