Last supper, first mass

[Rebecca_Fleming]

As stated by Patrick Madrid on open line the other day Christ actually consecrated the bread and wine at the last supper creating the first mass. Did he consume the eucharist then, thus consuming himself?

 

[Ferds_Guiang]

I believe that since Christ is God he has the power to be in the Eucharist and also in the form of a human person simultaneously thus even if He ate the bread this eucharistic presence became part of his human form.

 

[NeedImprovement]

As stated by Patrick Madrid on open line the other day Christ actually consecrated the bread and wine at the last supper creating the first mass. Did he consume the eucharist then, thus consuming himself?

Anything else would seem to suggest an incompleteness … something unfinished.

This “…Did he consume the Eucharist then…”] is a great question with the potential to open us up for reflection.

We call this the event where Christ instituted the Eucharist ; so it is when He initiated it or began it.

Because we humans are in time, things need to follow a chronological order. Initially we may admit that, at that moment, the Sacrifice of Calvary had not yet been offered, yet it is this same Sacrifice’s memorial and *re-presentation *(being made present again) which is effected in the celebration of the Mass. So one might additionally ponder alongside the original question “How could something which had not even yet been made present be *re-presented *?”

And wouldn’t it seem even more difficult to grasp if it had been after His Resurrection that Christ had instituted the Eucharist ? It sort of suggests that instead of “Do this in memory of me” we would be presented with, “Remember me…? …This is what I want you to do.”

If the Eucharist is a living memorial, then it would make sense that He give us this Holy Gift of Himself before suffering His Passion…before leaving us…before dying for us. It is a much clearer ,deeper expression of His love for us - of his desire to be with us always, if He gives the Gift to us before departing.

In the institution of the Holy Eucharist we see a perfect reconciliation of two passages of scripture which otherwise can appear somewhat contradictory:

[John 16:7] "But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go…”

[Matt 28:20] “… And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

It is only because we are in the dimension of time that these questions arise. However, we acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God and Lord of time. We humans must obey time, so to speak, but time must obey God.

If one is seeking a shorter answer w/o any reflection , then Luke 22:15 tells us that Christ , in all likelihood , did consume the Eucharist.

**Luke 22:15 **

He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to **eat **this Passover with you before I suffer.”

 

[NHInsider]

I remember struggling with this one in a university theology class. When we receive, we partake of the Heavenly Sacrifice. To the extent that we can get our brains around any of the mystery, we can usually understand that His glorified Body is not limited by time and space. But when the Apostles received at the Last Supper, He was still in the pre-resurrection flesh. Could He feel them chewing on Him, we wondered? It is a very weird concept. But somehow, I think, the Apostles still received the Heavenly Manna, as we do - because that sacrifice is outside of time/space. And so He could also partake of that.

 

[puzzleannie]

I remember struggling with this one in a university theology class. When we receive, we partake of the Heavenly Sacrifice. To the extent that we can get our brains around any of the mystery, we can usually understand that His glorified Body is not limited by time and space. But when the Apostles received at the Last Supper, He was still in the pre-resurrection flesh. Could He feel them chewing on Him, we wondered? It is a very weird concept. But somehow, I think, the Apostles still received the Heavenly Manna, as we do - because that sacrifice is outside of time/space. And so He could also partake of that.

this ignores the fundamental element which is at the root of most misunderstandings of the Eucharist and also the Immaculate Conception, which doctrine flows directly from it. You have to unwrap yourself from the notion of earthly time in considering eternal actions. Christ can make himself present and act when, where and how He wishes, throught the Holy Spirit to accomplish the will of the Father. yes the Last Supper was unfinished and completed through the passion, death resurrection AND ascension. The apostles and others experienced these events serial style in linear forward-moving earth time and human history. Christ acted in eternity and his eternal presence is real in the Last Supper and also anticipated in its completeness with events yet to be known by the apostles. That is the root of our difficulty in understanding these mysteries, remaining locked in human notions of time, sense perception and assuming all reality is contained in what can be observed and tested within limits of human senses, intellect and understanding.

but I think OP is asking simply, did Jesus consume the consecrated bread and wine Himself at the Last Supper, I have not time now for a careful reading of the synoptic gospel accounts but since he says I will not drink this AGAIN with you until I drink it with you in the kingdom, that he did drink, and therefore also ate, and if so, yes he consumed Eucharistic species which, just like what we are familiar with, retained the appearance, taste, accidents etc. of bread and wine while having become in substance, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord through the action of the Trinity.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Did he consume the eucharist then, thus consuming himself?

Rebecca,

As far as I know, we don’t have any direct evidence – but as others have pointed out the inference is there and it is a strong one. St. Thomas Aquinas answers yes, he did consume the Eucharist.

But when the Apostles received at the Last Supper, He was still in the pre-resurrection flesh.

NHInsider, yes, I think that is the most probable opinion, and the one most consistent with the mind of the Church (again, St. Thomas).

Could He feel them chewing on Him, we wondered?

No! This is because of how Christ’s Body was present. Even though it was present in a passible, pre-resurrection, mortal way it was present in a manner that precluded any harm done to him or any sensation.

The fact that Christ has a glorified body now doesn’t make it possible for him to be present in the Eucharist. The glorified body isn’t what makes the Eucharist possible. And therefore giving the Apostles a non-glorified body in the Eucharist poses no problem.

VC

P.S. NeedImprovement, that was a very interesting relfection regarding the timing of the Last Supper (instead of the “First” Supper). Thank you!

 

[brb3]

But when the Apostles received at the Last Supper, He was still in the pre-resurrection flesh.

That first Supper may not of been efficacious, given Christ had yet to shed his blood/body. And, we know for Judas it clearly was not efficacious. It had the opposite effect … satan forthwith entered into him after receiving the bread morsel, and after earlier receiving the cup.

And, ALL the other 11 True Apostles fell away within short order, in less than 24 hrs. Peter protested he would never fall, would never deny Christ, yet Christ knew otherwise. Prophesy clearly stated the Shepherd would be struck, and the Sheep would be scattered. Prophesy must always be fulfilled.

But, after the Day of the Cross … the Cup & Bread had Miraculous properties, able to heal both body & souls of those who receive rightly.

We also see that immediately after receiving that first Lord’s Supper … the 11 True Sheep were still confused on who would be great in Christ’s coming Kingdom, argueing among themselves, with clearly wrong motivations. Perhaps, if that first Supper was efficacious, they had received wrongly [via understandable ignorance], and they were still with their sins.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

That first Supper may not of been efficacious

brb3,

I’ve never encountered that notion before. Do you have any sources that might share that view?

One possible difficulty with it, right of the bat, is that the Last Supper was the institution of the sacrament – and I’m not sure what it would mean to institute an inefficacious sacrament considering that a sacrament, by definition, is efficacious.

Thoughts?
VC

 

[NHInsider]

this ignores the fundamental element which is at the root of most misunderstandings of the Eucharist and also the Immaculate Conception, which doctrine flows directly from it. You have to unwrap yourself from the notion of earthly time in considering eternal actions. Christ can make himself present and act when, where and how He wishes, throught the Holy Spirit to accomplish the will of the Father.

Umm, I think that’s what I said.

 

[peary]

As stated by Patrick Madrid on open line the other day Christ actually consecrated the bread and wine at the last supper creating the first mass. Did he consume the eucharist then, thus consuming himself?

He gave the bread and wine to his disciples to eat and drink; Scripture says nothing that He consumed the bread and wine for Himself. In fact, His words negate that possibility.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

His words negate that possibility.

Hi peary,

Are you saying that one cannot read scripture in a way that allows for the possibility that Christ received himself in the Eucharist? Could you develop this for us?

Thanks,
VC

 

[NeedImprovement]

Rebecca,

…VC

P.S. NeedImprovement, that was a very interesting relfection regarding the timing of the Last Supper (instead of the “First” Supper). Thank you!

To share some of the credit, I don’t think I ever would have thought of it if Rebecca Fleming hadn’t asked the question VC … it was a great question.

Still, I had to stop writing when I began to see smoke coming out of my ears.