More on the Eucharist

[Cattitude]

I discussing the Eucharist on another forum I came across a couple of points I was not completely comfortable articulating and could use some help.

Why are these statements incorrect?

One was this:

At the last supper, how could the disciples have actually been eating the body of Jesus when he was still alive in the flesh?

Here, I’m thinking that the sacrifice on the cross has eternal consequences that extend from the beginning of time to the end of time. That’s why we are able to participate in the sacrifice today. Anything I’m missing here?

and this:

*At what is called the Last Supper:
IF Jesus’ BODY was actually broken instead of bread…
And IF Jesus’ blood was shed instead of juice…
And IF they both could be consumed physically and spiritually be eating bread (that is called his body) and drinking juice (that is called his blood) …
Then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR JESUS TO GO TO THE CROSS.
But then, being religious… it is always a matter of pointing to religious ritual instead of Jesus Christ. *

I know this is just not right, but I’m stuck on explaining it…

No need to go into the whole juice vs wine discussion.

 

[Teflon93]

Protestants simply love to have it both ways.

In this case, the Protestant claims that Mary had no merit whatsoever for the grace she received from God----it was all Christ’s merits, despite the fact that the incarnation (indeed, the conception through the holy spirit) had not yet occurred, much less the Cross.

However, the Protestant will claim that when Christ said “This is my body” and “This is my blood” at the Last Supper it couldn’t have been since that was on “this side of the Cross.”

The miracle of the loaves and fishes and the miracle of the wine at Cana really ought to have confirmed that Christ had the power of creating ex nihilo. Do Protestants now doubt God’s omnipotence?

 

[JimG]

When thinking about the Eucharist, we must avoid temporal, linear, thinking. Jesus’ sacrifice is not limited by space or by time. If it were, none of us could be saved. We were not there.

Jesus has only one body. He is only one Person. The same person who died on the cross is present in his own body in the Eucharist–not only the Eucharist celebrated at the Last Supper, but the Eucharist celebrated in every Catholic church every day of the year. He does not multiply himself; he allows his one unitary self to be present under a multiplicity of accidents throughout time and space. Because of the Eucharist, we are there.

 

[Teflon93]

Indeed, for people who claim to believe that Christ is present whenever two or more of them are gathered in his name, if not present as they go about their daily drudgery, it is an odd argument that Christ simply cannot be present as he said he would be in the Eucharist.

But the Reformers were always far more concerned with developing novel reasons to reject papal authority than with logical consistency.

 

[promethius]

At the last supper, how could the disciples have actually been eating the body of Jesus when he was still alive in the flesh?

anyone who thinks that God is constrained by time and therefore unable to act outside chronological flows doesn’t recognize an omnipotent God. in other words, if someone brings this up to you, tell them that they’re not true christians
At what is called the Last Supper:
IF Jesus’ BODY was actually broken instead of bread…
And IF Jesus’ blood was shed instead of juice…
And IF they both could be consumed physically and spiritually be eating bread (that is called his body) and drinking juice (that is called his blood) …
Then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR JESUS TO GO TO THE CROSS.
*But then, being religious… it is always a matter of pointing to religious ritual instead of Jesus Christ. **

Again, only someone totally ignorant of the history of God’s interaction with the world could make a stupid point like this. We must remember that remittance of the punishment of sin under the old covenant was done through the passover sacrifice. As such, Christ IS the Final Passover Sacrifice. This means that the means in which Christ was put to death follow the strictures established by God Himself for the observance.

In other words, in order for the sacrifice to be considered effective, participants had to meet two conditions: sacrifice the lamb AND consume the flesh and blood of the sacrificed lamb. As such, it is ignorant to say that if Christ could provide His Body and Blood at the last supper that the ACTUAL death of Christ was not needed.

 

[Teflon93]

Yes, and since Christ descended to the dead, his sacrifice freed the righteous of all time.

Note Elijah and Moses at the Transfiguration.

God is not timebound.

 

[Cattitude]

Thanks for the replies so far.

So basically it comes down to the fact that even though the actual crucifixion occurred once in time, the ramifications or effects of the work done on the cross are eternal.

Of course, these comments come from people who think that the Eucharist is focusing on what we do rather than what Christ did.

 

[mmmcounts]

Hey, here’s a thought. Very simple explanation. The bread is bread, the wine is wine, and transubstantiation is very silly. Come now, it’s that simple. Oh, and Mary sinned at some point in her life. Every single person EVER (except for Jesus) is a SINNER. The Bile says it. I don’t know why Catholics don’t believe it.

 

[Teflon93]

Hey, here’s a thought. Very simple explanation. The bread is bread, the wine is wine, and transubstantiation is very silly. Come now, it’s that simple. Oh, and Mary sinned at some point in her life. Every single person EVER (except for Jesus) is a SINNER. The Bile says it. I don’t know why Catholics don’t believe it.

Oh, the Bile says it alright. Freudian slip, huh?