Last Supper + Real Presence

[Dutch_H]

Hello my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am a Catholic who believes in the real presence. I came across some posts and articles regarding the Protestant argument of cannibalism regarding the Eucharist. I understand we reply to that with the Eucharist it is his resurrected body in glory from Heaven.

How does this relate to the last supper, the first Mass? As Christ had not died and been raised yet? How would I reconcile this theologically? I suppose I shouldn’t be looking at it in a linear way? Same as you would look at the people born before Christ on earth being saved by his future atonement as God is outside time.

I guess the only thing I am pondering over is at the time of the last supper Christ himself is within linear time bodily.

Anyway advice or feedback would be appreciated.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Jesus can do ANYTHING and is not bound by time as we are.

The Eucharist WAS instituted at the Last Supper, The Apostles did receive Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.

Think of it as:
How are you able to pay someone in advance of them actually completing a job?
If you have the power to do so, you can pay someone in advance.

And God is infinite in power and not bound by human time.
God did institute the Eucharist in advance of the Passion and Resurrection.

Jesus is the Word of God, Second Person of the Trinity, He was able to institute the Eucharist prior to His Passion and Resurrection, because He is God.

As the bible says: ‘Our God can do impossible things.’

 

[Rob2]

Anyway advice or feedback would be appreciated.

@Dutch_H , here is a quote and a link to a short piece I have come across .

“When we say that Jesus is sacramentally present in the Eucharist, we are careful to not say “physically present”–even though the appearances of bread and wine are physical. The Church does not teach that we are consuming an ear or blood vessal when we receive Holy Communion. We are truly receiving His Body and Blood, but in a sacramental way.”

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=432037&language=en

 

[po18guy]

I know that a good defense is critical, but…

Turn the tables on them! They are the accusers. Ask them who the accuser is in scripture. Who opposes everything that our Lord does? Or says?

The burden is upon them to show that Jesus said it was “symbolic” - He did not. That is adding to scripture. Ask them why Jesus revealed Himself in the breaking of the bread at Emmaus (Luke 24:35). That was not a symbol - that was Christ!

Christ used sacrificial language at the institution of the Eucharist. He was in effect prophesying His own death - which He had on several occasions. He said, in plain Aramaic, “Do this”

Do what? “Take”, “Eat” - not bread, or he would have said “bread”. Remember that Christ can neither deceive nor be deceived. Even Luther defended Him saying “Hoc est Corpus Meum” - This is My Body.

Ask them how one can eat and drink damnation unto oneself for unworthy reception of the “symbolic” Eucharist (1 Cor 11). As them why Paul called it a “participation” in the Body and Blood of the Lord, and NOT a symbol (1 Cor 10).

Ask them what Christians did from 33 AD to 1517 AD. Big gap to explain there…

Anyway, they are woefully ignorant of scripture (Luke 24:25 - another Emmaus moment) as they zero in on Romans to the detriment of all other scripture.

Full story, bro’

p.s. cannibalism is the killing and taking. We are commanded by Christ to receive - not take.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I would add that Jesus instituted the Eucharist as the New Covenant sacrifice to replace the Old Covenant lamb sacrifices at the Temple. The true Lamb of God being sacrificed for the sins of the world. Most Jews at the time did not believe it, even after the Temple veil was torn in two, but it became obvious after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

 

[po18guy]

For a fact, the New Testament (the book) is called that for two reasons:

1 It is the new “covenant” as modern bibles translate it.
2. First and foremost, because the Holy Eucharist is the “New Testament” - the only place in all of the scriptures where that term is used. To wit:

(Knox) Drink, all of you, of this; 28 for this is my blood, of the new testament, shed for many, to the remission of sins.

(Douay-Rheims) And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

(King James Version) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

That is why it is called what it is called.*

• Gotta trust Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. on this one.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I would give them these scriptures taken out of the King James bible for them to reflect upon, and see if? their Sola Fide can reach deep into these mysteries. The Protestant who dares to enter into the mysteries of God, where Angels fear to tread. You will get no such cannibal or symbolic Jesus response.

Revelation 13; 8 (taken from their own King James Bible)
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

1Peter 1:20 (taken from their own King James Bible)
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Don’t ask them to interpret the scriptures, Just reflect upon on it and then read the last supper scene.
peace be with you

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Protestant scholars will generally not tell you this, but there’s a major Protestant Bible Translating Handbook UBS that says the Greek words of Luke 22:19 “this is my body WHICH IS BEING GIVEN UP FOR YOU” are in the Present-Tense. This means that per the plain teaching of Scripture, Jesus was plainly saying He was giving up His life AT THAT VERY MOMENT of instituting the Eucharist and this would continue onto the next day. This seems like a strong basis to connect the Mass to the Cross as one and the same event, rather than something just to remember what Jesus did.