Please help me understand the first Eucharist

[danzibr]

Lengthy background:
Well, this is my first post here. I grew up with not much religion at all, at least that I can recall. Admittedly I have a poor memory. I remember going to a Methodist church a few times. When I was about 21 or so I went to grad school and I became friends with some guy who made it his goal to convert me to Christianity. We talked off an on for several years, me doing reading and research and thinking, and last year I decided to become Christian. I didn’t know much about different branches of Christianity and joined a nearby Baptist church (technically nondenominational but… basically Baptist). A few months passed and my wife and I did more research and learned how deeply flawed Protestantism is. Ultimately we decided to become Catholic.

So I broke the news to my buddy and he seemed understanding. Now we go back and forth discussing various religious things. For example, recently we discussed Matthew 16:16 and thereabouts, but that’s also another story.
Approaching my question:
I asked him if he believed Jesus was being literal or figurative when he said, “This is my body, broken for you” (paraphrasing). He believes it’s figurative and I believe it’s literal. Now here I have to be more precise (and I’m sure many of you Catholics know far more than I; I’m just in RCIA).

And please correct me if I’m wrong!

No, I don’t think the bread turns into flesh. I believe the bread is Jesus’s body in the following sense: He is every bit as present in the bread as He was in front of His apostles at the Last Supper. Alternatively, the bread becomes the resurrected body of Jesus. I believe there is a difference in the body of Jesus before his resurrection and after; for example, His apostles didn’t recognize Him after the resurrection, so He probably looked different at the least.

On the topic of Eucharist, I also have the following understanding: just as we must each normal food to nourish our physical bodies, we must eat the bread (and/or drink the cup) to nourish our spirits. I mean, I don’t think God’s going to send a Catholic to Hell for not partaking of Eucharist (or are they really Catholic if they don’t?), so it seems I sit on the fence on whether it’s necessary for salvation or not, at least for Catholics, but I do believe we should do it.
My questions:

1. Was Jesus giving the bread and cup at the Last Supper the first Eucharist?

1a) If so, how do you explain Jesus standing there and the bread being His body?

1b) If not, when was the first Eucharist?

1. Do you think Jesus was being literal or figurative when he said, "This is my body, broken for you’?

2a) If you said literal, was Jesus both present as Himself at the Last Supper and in the bread?

2a.i) How do you explain this?

2a.ii) If you believe He was being figurative the first time and only after His resurrection His words should be taken literally, can you explain why?

2b) If you said figurative, why?
My attempt at answers:

1. Yes.

1a) Jesus was standing there. His resurrected body was in the bread/became the bread. He was predicting that he was about to die, I think. I find this totally possible. God transcends time; I certainly wouldn’t put this past him.

1. Literal.

2a) Yes. See the answer to 1a.

2a.i) This is also contained in the answer to 1a.

2b) I find this one funny under certain circumstances. Some people seem to believe that every word of the Bible is literally true, for example that the universe was created in six 24-hour periods, but that what Jesus said should not be taken literally. In particular, the Baptist church I was temporarily a member of believed this. Silly.

Sorry if some of this doesn’t make sense. I’m very tired at the moment. If anything needs clarifying please let me know and I’ll come back tomorrow.

Lastly, I am very interested in everyone’s opinions of my answers in addition to being interested in everyone’s answers themselves. Of course, please tell me why you believe these things, whether it’s justified by the Bible, Catechism, logical, or whatever else.

 

[sowinskija]

A Priest could answer all of your questions. I cant. Here’s what I can tell you.

From the Catechism:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

I highly recommend you look for these answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the Vatican address)

 

[JerryZ]

Lengthy background:
Well, this is my first post here. I grew up with not much religion at all, at least that I can recall. Admittedly I have a poor memory. I remember going to a Methodist church a few times. When I was about 21 or so I went to grad school and I became friends with some guy who made it his goal to convert me to Christianity. We talked off an on for several years, me doing reading and research and thinking, and last year I decided to become Christian. I didn’t know much about different branches of Christianity and joined a nearby Baptist church (technically nondenominational but… basically Baptist). A few months passed and my wife and I did more research and learned how deeply flawed Protestantism is. Ultimately we decided to become Catholic.

So I broke the news to my buddy and he seemed understanding. Now we go back and forth discussing various religious things. For example, recently we discussed Matthew 16:16 and thereabouts, but that’s also another story.
Approaching my question:
I asked him if he believed Jesus was being literal or figurative when he said, “This is my body, broken for you” (paraphrasing). He believes it’s figurative and I believe it’s literal. Now here I have to be more precise (and I’m sure many of you Catholics know far more than I; I’m just in RCIA).

And please correct me if I’m wrong!

No, I don’t think the bread turns into flesh. I believe the bread is Jesus’s body in the following sense: He is every bit as present in the bread as He was in front of His apostles at the Last Supper. Alternatively, the bread becomes the resurrected body of Jesus. I believe there is a difference in the body of Jesus before his resurrection and after; for example, His apostles didn’t recognize Him after the resurrection, so He probably looked different at the least.

On the topic of Eucharist, I also have the following understanding: just as we must each normal food to nourish our physical bodies, we must eat the bread (and/or drink the cup) to nourish our spirits. I mean, I don’t think God’s going to send a Catholic to Hell for not partaking of Eucharist (or are they really Catholic if they don’t?), so it seems I sit on the fence on whether it’s necessary for salvation or not, at least for Catholics, but I do believe we should do it.
My questions:

1. Was Jesus giving the bread and cup at the Last Supper the first Eucharist?

1a) If so, how do you explain Jesus standing there and the bread being His body?

1b) If not, when was the first Eucharist?

1. Do you think Jesus was being literal or figurative when he said, "This is my body, broken for you’?

2a) If you said literal, was Jesus both present as Himself at the Last Supper and in the bread?

2a.i) How do you explain this?

2a.ii) If you believe He was being figurative the first time and only after His resurrection His words should be taken literally, can you explain why?

2b) If you said figurative, why?
My attempt at answers:

1. Yes.

1a) Jesus was standing there. His resurrected body was in the bread/became the bread. He was predicting that he was about to die, I think. I find this totally possible. God transcends time; I certainly wouldn’t put this past him.

1. Literal.

2a) Yes. See the answer to 1a.

2a.i) This is also contained in the answer to 1a.

2b) I find this one funny under certain circumstances. Some people seem to believe that every word of the Bible is literally true, for example that the universe was created in six 24-hour periods, but that what Jesus said should not be taken literally. In particular, the Baptist church I was temporarily a member of believed this. Silly.

Sorry if some of this doesn’t make sense. I’m very tired at the moment. If anything needs clarifying please let me know and I’ll come back tomorrow.

Lastly, I am very interested in everyone’s opinions of my answers in addition to being interested in everyone’s answers themselves. Of course, please tell me why you believe these things, whether it’s justified by the Bible, Catechism, logical, or whatever else.

There are many threads in this forum on “Real Prescence”

But just recapping, Jesus went to great lenght to tell them that “His Bread” is Real Flesh and we need to eat of it in order to achieve salvation, yes it is nourishment for our souls not for our flesh, although in Church History there have been Saints that lived on it alone.

Also there are many miracles that address this subject “Eucharist Miracles” very often they came about because the celebrant priest had doubts in his heart at the moment he confected the sacrifice, I would suggest you do a search on those.

Also you are quite correct in saying that Jesus was present phisically both in his actual body and in the Bread and Wine he consacrated at the last supper.

He is the Supreme Priest and His sacrifice is perfect and trascends time.

Proof of that is that he saved with his sacrifice not only us that came after Him but also all the faithful to God that had died prior to His coming.

 

[themonk86]

Hey danzibr I would first off like to welcome you to catholic answer’s forums and congratulate you and your wife on becoming Catholic. Now to your question,

No, I don’t think the bread turns into flesh. I believe the bread is Jesus’s body in the following sense: He is every bit as present in the bread as He was in front of His apostles at the Last Supper. Alternatively, the bread becomes the resurrected body of Jesus. I believe there is a difference in the body of Jesus before his resurrection and after; for example, His apostles didn’t recognize Him after the resurrection, so He probably looked different at the least.

First I would say that I understand why you think the bread doesn’t turn into his flesh since you come from a protestant background. My fiance, who comes from the Methodist tradition, felt the same way. I would like to point to John 6 when Jesus gave the bread of life discourse. I feel this verse shows Jesus,the apostles, and the early church understanding that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. I would encourage you to read John 6: 22-59 and pray about it.

Now John 6:51 says: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever, and the bread which i shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The word eats in the Greek is phago which means to eat, but if you compare the words “eat” in verses 53-56:

So Jesus said to them. "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

the word eat is different, it is trogo which means to gnaw, crunch, or chew. So if you look at the whole narrative you see that in verse 51 he uses the word eat, but right after that the Jews murmur against Jesus because they understood him to be speaking literally. Jesus then knowing what they thought used a different word to eat in verses 53-56 to mean gnaw. So Jesus knowing what they thought chose to use a more literal word to show the Jews he was speaking literally not figuratively. In seeing this part in John’s gospel I would say Jesus was definitely speaking literally and not figuratively. When you read the whole of the bread of life discourse (verses 60-71 especially) you see that Jesus was speaking literally and that’s how the Jews and even some of his follows understood him. And Jesus responds to his followers by letting them leave Him. He doesn’t try to down play to obvious literal meaning of what he says. Also I would say that St. Paul took the Eucharist literally as we seen in 1 Cor 11.27-29:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat eh bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

The key part is to look at verse 27. Now you can’t be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord unless it is present some way literally. If it were only present symbolically than you couldn’t really profane it.

so it seems I sit on the fence on whether it’s necessary for salvation or not, at least for Catholics, but I do believe we should do it.

Now the answer to this question is kind of hard. I personally feel that if a Catholic knows and believes that the Eucharist is the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ and knowingly and freely refuses to accept it than I feel he would be in grave sin since Jesus said John 6:54 “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Also receiving the Eucharist it a precept of the Church and to knowingly and freely refuse to follow the precepts I feel constitutes grave sin.

1. Was Jesus giving the bread and cup at the Last Supper the first Eucharist?

Yes and it was truly his body see the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1339. It’s free online at www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

) If so, how do you explain Jesus standing there and the bread being His body?

I would say you answer is correct because Jesus’s redemption transcends time and can be applied at any moment in history by God. That why in Genesis 5;24 and 2 Kings 2:11 Enoch and Elijah could be assumed in to heaven. Also Jesus was able to feed the 5,000 and 4,000 with a small amount of food, as Jesus said in Matt 19:26 “with God all things are possible”

1. Do you think Jesus was being literal or figurative when he said, "This is my body, broken for you’?

Literal

) If you said literal, was Jesus both present as Himself at the Last Supper and in the bread?

2a.i) How do you explain this?

Jesus was present both naturally and sacramentally at the last supper. Naturally in that he was there physically and sacramentally in that His resurrected and glorified body was there in the form of the Eucharist.

This is a great and large subject and I would encourage you to see what the early Christians thought about it. I would recommend you read from St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Ireneaus of Lyons letters and see what they said about Christ being truly present in the Eucharist.

Hope this helps and God Bless.

 

[thinkandmull]

So, according to the CCC, Jesus’s resurrected Body is received in communion. But at the Last Supper it was his pre-Passion Body? Hmmm…

 

[mab23]

there are plenty or threads and sources about answering your question

what really amazed me was when I read the “Didache” DID - UH - KEE

which is greek for “Teaching” it was the teaching of the apostles written down approx 70 A.D. which predates the bible some few hundred years and is what the earliest Christians beleived

newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

or

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html

translation of the “Didache” on the Eucharist

9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}

the Didache had a whole chapter on the Eucharist and the believed in the true presence which is why they didn’t give it to the unbaptized Christians because it would be degrading the body , blood , soul and divinity of Jesus our Lord

** “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor. 11:27–28). **

hope this helps OP

 

[Gorgias]

So, according to the CCC, Jesus’s resurrected Body is received in communion. But at the Last Supper it was his pre-Passion Body? Hmmm…

No. At the Last Supper, it was his glorified Body, just as it is for us in the Eucharist.

We reach into eternity in our memorial of Jesus’ sacrifice. Jesus’ first instantiation of that memorial, likewise, reached into eternity: his sacrifice was upcoming, but his creation of the obligation of a memorial wasn’t a “test run”, it was the first real instance of that memorial!

 

[Gorgias]

danzibr,

It’s not surprising that you find yourself in RCIA; your understanding is the understanding that the Church has of the Last Supper and the Eucharist!

 

[thinkandmull]

1 Cor 11.27-29:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

John 6 makes the case for the EUcharest I think, but isn’t this paragraph liable to a Protestant interpretation. It would seem that one could profane Jesus’s body by blaspheming the very symbols instituted by Jesus. And “discerning the body” could mean “your own body”, considering the fleshy sins mentioned in those sections of 1 Cor. Any thoughts anyone??

 

[thinkandmull]

No. At the Last Supper, it was his glorified Body, just as it is for us in the Eucharist.

We reach into eternity in our memorial of Jesus’ sacrifice. Jesus’ first instantiation of that memorial, likewise, reached into eternity: his sacrifice was upcoming, but his creation of the obligation of a memorial wasn’t a “test run”, it was the first real instance of that memorial!

That seems to violate reason. Jesus, at the Last Supper, did not reach into eternity because His resurrection had not yet entered into eternity, as it did on Easter Sunday

 

[Nemo_Has]

Here’s my thoughts;

The Transubstantiation is when the bread and wine become the body and blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus. There is no physical change, the chemical makeup and structure remains that of the bread and wine. If it didn’t we’d be cannibals, haha! But the substance changes. So it wouldn’t have to be taken off Jesus, he didn’t suddenly lose flesh off his body at the Last Supper (which was the first Eucharist, yes).

As for the Eucharist being the flesh of the resurrected Jesus, I think this does not matter, as the resurrected body was indeed the glorified body of Christ and therefore perfect, but first of all, Christ was always perfect, and second, it’s not just the flesh of Christ, but the Soul and Divinity as well.

As fully human, Christ did experience time.

The Eucharist is meant to nourish us physically as well; it’s the most intimate way we can experience Christ here on earth!

 

[sowinskija]

That seems to violate reason. Jesus, at the Last Supper, did not reach into eternity because His resurrection had not yet entered into eternity, as it did on Easter Sunday

I dont know about that violating reason… God has full control over time.

 

[Gorgias]

That seems to violate reason. Jesus, at the Last Supper, did not reach into eternity because His resurrection had not yet entered into eternity, as it did on Easter Sunday

Eternity is eternity. Whatever is outside of time, is always outside of time. As humans, we were unable to reach outside of time prior to Christ’s sacrifice. However, to say that Christ couldn’t do so would seem to violate reason – that is, it seems to say that Christ (the Son of God and the second person of the Trinity) was unable to transcend the bounds of time.

Since, as God, he isn’t bound as we humans are to temporal constraints, it isn’t logically inconsistent to suggest that he would have been able to do so at the Last Supper.

 

[runningdude]

Lengthy background:
…
My questions:

1. Was Jesus giving the bread and cup at the Last Supper the first Eucharist?

Yes

1a) If so, how do you explain Jesus standing there and the bread being His body?

Jesus is God.

The Eucharist is indeed the resurrected body of Christ. It exists outside of time; as his death had not yet occurred.

-]1b) If not, when was the first Eucharist?/-]

No longer applicable

1. Do you think Jesus was being literal or figurative when he said, "This is my body, broken for you’?

Literal.

2a) If you said literal, was Jesus both present as Himself at the Last Supper and in the bread?

2a.i) How do you explain this?

Jesus was presenting both Himself in human form and bread form. He was speaking of his human body, which would be literally broken on the cross, and of the bread, which he broke to distribute, giving a tiny piece of Himself to his apostles, to share the graces he would win for them and for us on the cross.

-]2a.ii) If you believe He was being figurative the first time and only after His resurrection His words should be taken literally, can you explain why?

2b) If you said figurative, why?/-]

My attempt at answers:

1. Yes.
   1a) Jesus was standing there. His resurrected body was in the bread/became the bread. He was predicting that he was about to die, I think. I find this totally possible. God transcends time; I certainly wouldn’t put this past him.

1. Literal.

2a) Yes. See the answer to 1a.

2a.i) This is also contained in the answer to 1a.

2b) I find this one funny under certain circumstances. Some people seem to believe that every word of the Bible is literally true, for example that the universe was created in six 24-hour periods, but that what Jesus said should not be taken literally. In particular, the Baptist church I was temporarily a member of believed this. Silly.

Sorry if some of this doesn’t make sense. I’m very tired at the moment. If anything needs clarifying please let me know and I’ll come back tomorrow.

Lastly, I am very interested in everyone’s opinions of my answers in addition to being interested in everyone’s answers themselves. Of course, please tell me why you believe these things, whether it’s justified by the Bible, Catechism, logical, or whatever else.

 

[thinkandmull]

Jesus’s resurrected Body didn’t exist yet. Your statements about “time” are not real. What it even means to exist outside of time is hardly, if even, conceivable, and certainly not the way you are trying to use it. If Jesus already experienced being in His resurrected body before the Passion, than all the glory of that moment of resurrection would be compromised

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus’s resurrected Body didn’t exist yet.

‘Yet’ is an expression bound up in time. If Jesus’ resurrected Body came into existence following his resurrection (remember his conversation with Mary Magdalene? ), then it came into existence in the presence of the Father – that is, it came into existence outside time!

Your statements about “time” are not real.

Hmm. I’m not sure what you mean by “real”. Could you elaborate?

Let’s think about it, though. God exists outside of time – that means that God isn’t ‘before’, ‘after’, or ‘during’ time: he’s outside of it. A (poor) analogy might be that of watching a movie. We’re not inside of the timeframe of the movie, so we’re not ‘before’ or ‘after’ the movie – we’re outside of it, so we aren’t affected by the events of the movie.

What it even means to exist outside of time is hardly, if even, conceivable, and certainly not the way you are trying to use it.

Why is that?

If Jesus already experienced being in His resurrected body before the Passion, than all the glory of that moment of resurrection would be compromised

He experienced it physically ‘at the time of’ the Resurrection. He experienced it sacramentally at the time of the Last Supper (just like we experience it sacramentally at each Mass).

 

[runningdude]

Jesus’s resurrected Body didn’t exist yet. Your statements about “time” are not real. What it even means to exist outside of time is hardly, if even, conceivable, and certainly not the way you are trying to use it. If Jesus already experienced being in His resurrected body before the Passion, than all the glory of that moment of resurrection would be compromised

God exists outside of time. To God, it doesn’t matter when Christ died, only that it happened. The “glory” of that moment is that God sacrificed himself for our salvation.

 

[po18guy]

Jesus’s resurrected Body didn’t exist yet. Your statements about “time” are not real. What it even means to exist outside of time is hardly, if even, conceivable, and certainly not the way you are trying to use it. If Jesus already experienced being in His resurrected body before the Passion, than all the glory of that moment of resurrection would be compromised

How did Jesus appear, in glorified form, at the transfiguration? Remember that we have a tendency to think as man does, and not s God does.

 

[JerryZ]

1 Cor 11.27-29:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

John 6 makes the case for the EUcharest I think, but isn’t this paragraph liable to a Protestant interpretation. It would seem that one could profane Jesus’s body by blaspheming the very symbols instituted by Jesus. And “discerning the body” could mean “your own body”, considering the fleshy sins mentioned in those sections of 1 Cor. Any thoughts anyone??

Paul is admonishing the Corintians that when they do eat they need to be worthy but also any one that eats and drinks not recognizing believing the true nature of what they are eating / drinking are in fact profaning the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

dis·cern/diˈsərn/
Verb:

Perceive or recognize (something).
Distinguish (someone or something) with difficulty by sight or with the other senses.

 

[danzibr]

Thanks for the responses all! They have been helpful. I have much reading to do.

Regarding the whole Jesus-time thing, I would highly suggest reading Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity. It is available here, for example.

I can’t write as well as Sheed, but basically he says we can’t apply our understanding of time to God. It simply doesn’t work. And before any naysayers quote me and try to tell me I’m wrong, please read chapter 4 of Theology and Sanity first.

Also, I can’t see how any Christian would say it would be impossible for the physical body of Jesus to be present physically with His apostles and the resurrected body of Jesus to be present in the bread. I mean… impossible? For Jesus?