The Eucharist in the Last Supper

[savedbychrist]

Jesus instituted the Holy Mass in the Last Supper. Can it be seen as the first Mass? If so, the consecration of the bread and wine should be valid, transubstantiation had indeed occurred. Then here comes two questions:

1. It was instituted before the crucifixion. How could the Apostles have eaten Jesus’ flesh and blood, when He hadn’t finish sacrificing them on the cross?
2. Did Jesus also receive the Communion Himself? If yes, then how could Jesus have eaten Himself in the Eucharist? Wouldn’t this be self-cannibalism?

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I’ll keep my answers brief and let others supplement. If you were to utilize the search here, you’d probably find all the answers you seek.

Jesus instituted the Holy Mass in the Last Supper. Can it be seen as the first Mass?

Yes.

1. It was instituted before the crucifixion. How could the Apostles have eaten Jesus’ flesh and blood, when He hadn’t finish sacrificing them on the cross?

As with many of the things Jesus did while walking the earth, the answer is that this was a miraculous event. Why couldn’t this have happened? God’s divinity isn’t bound by time. Just as Mary was made sinless by the death and resurrection of Jesus before her birth, so too could the Apostles receive the first Eucharist.

1. Did Jesus also receive the Communion Himself? If yes, then how could Jesus have eaten Himself in the Eucharist? Wouldn’t this be self-cannibalism?

It’s the same at every Mass now. The priest, in persona Christi, receives the Eucharist. The Eucharist is never cannibalism, and we are (by virtue of baptism) all one body called to communion.

 

[MortimusCatholicus]

Holy Thursday mass was a precursor to future masses. St. Thomas Aquinas said that Jesus held himself in His hands on that day.

He and the apostles received Jesus Christ in that Eucharist. How? Jesus is God and since time and space were made through Him, He is not bound by them.

Aquinas also dealt with a question of a holy mass on Saturday. He responded that if you had mass on Saturday after death and before resurrection, you would receive Jesus body, blood and divinity, but not His soul since His soul was in sheol.

Food for thought.

Pax

 

[Gorgias]

Can it be seen as the first Mass? If so, the consecration of the bread and wine should be valid, transubstantiation had indeed occurred.

I don’t know that I’d call it the “Mass”. It was, however, as you say, the first instance at which a valid Eucharist was confected.

How could the Apostles have eaten Jesus’ flesh and blood, when He hadn’t finish sacrificing them on the cross?

You’re not eating “the crucified flesh and blood of Jesus”. Rather, you’re eating the substance of Jesus, sacramentally present. The crucifixion isn’t what makes the Eucharist “Eucharist”. Jesus is what makes it so.

Did Jesus also receive the Communion Himself?

Yes.

If yes, then how could Jesus have eaten Himself in the Eucharist? Wouldn’t this be self-cannibalism?

If we aren’t cannibals when we consume the Eucharist, then how could Jesus be a cannibal when doing the same thing?

 

[savedbychrist]

If we aren’t cannibals when we consume the Eucharist, then how could Jesus be a cannibal when doing the same thing?

We possess only humanity (body, blood and soul); while Jesus possesses divinity and humanity. Therefore, we who are fully man, consuming He who is fully man plus fully God, is not considered cannibalism (consuming the same species).

But Jesus in the form of a man and Jesus in the form of the Eucharist, though they look different, they are identical in substance, both possessing the fullness of body, blood, soul and divinity. Therefore I wonder, would the act of Jesus consuming the Eucharist be considered cannibalism.

 

[catholic-heart]

It’s not cannibalism. We are not eating Jesus’ bloody body; the eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice. Jesus did not take a bite of his arm; he consumed himself in the Eucharist in an unbloody, miraculous manner the same way we do.

 

[otjm]

Let’s try it a bit differently. The Eucharist is the Resurrected Christ, present body, blood, soul and divinity present in substance but not in accidents, sacramentally.

As to the Last Supper, 1) God acts outside of time; the other event in time was Mary’s Immaculate Conception, as noted by Duns Scotus, gifted to her prior to the Crucifixion and Resurrection. God is not bound by time. 2) There is no indication in any of the Gospel accounts that Christ ate or drank after consecrating the bread and the wine; He may have, or He may have consecrated and passed out the elements while not consuming them. We simply do not know.

 

[EndTimes]

Did Jesus also receive the Communion Himself? If yes, then how could Jesus have eaten Himself in the Eucharist? Wouldn’t this be self-cannibalism?

Wouldn’t everyone be involved in “cannabalism”?

It’s not 'cannabalism" in the sense of what occurred/occurs amongst some folks. .

Since it’s OK however one cares to speak of it - no negative view could hold water… .

Jesus was asked this question re: Eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood
and He responded,

 

[Gorgias]

Therefore, we who are fully man, consuming He who is fully man plus fully God, is not considered cannibalism (consuming the same species).

But Jesus in the form of a man and Jesus in the form of the Eucharist, though they look different, they are identical in substance, both possessing the fullness of body, blood, soul and divinity. Therefore I wonder, would the act of Jesus consuming the Eucharist be considered cannibalism.

I’m not sure your assertion holds up. Essentially, it asserts that those who consume some, but not all, of a person, don’t engage in cannibalism.

By that standard, if I look at you (body, blood, soul) and only consume your flesh but not your blood, then I don’t commit cannibalism. Right? That just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

No… rather, we don’t participate in cannibalism, nor did Jesus.

However, if you wish to continue in your assertion, perhaps it might be helpful for the discussion for you to define what “cannibalism” means…