The Inaugural and early Eucharists

[hansard]

This has, no doubt, been addressed before, but anyway…

Was transubstantiation achieved at the Last Supper, or were Jesus’ words a precursor to the sacrament? Did he really mean (words to the effect of) “From here after, this is my body…”? Like, in saying “Do this in memory of me,” did he really postpone the miracle for the next time the ceremony was done, after his death, when he was, technically, a memory to them?

It’s long puzzled me, as it seems a stretch for the bread and wine to become his body and blood, especially as those items were already present in the form of… well, in the form of Jesus himself.

And a further question, if no-one minds (which, of course, you don’t): when the early church “performed” the Eucharist, what form of words would they have used?
The Gospels were some years away from being written, and there would have been no formal or universally-recognised text from the Last Supper, and very little church tradition to call upon.
I suppose they must have relied on oral tradition?

 

[Eucharisted]

Jesus celebrated the first Mass. So yes He changed the bread and wine into Himself.

A body cannot exist in more than one place, except by a miracle that is. Transubstantiation is a great miracle that requires great faith to believe in.

 

[hansard]

Thanks for the reply, Eucharisted (gosh, what an appropriate name!).
You’ll have to forgive me one query:
I thought the Eucharist was to serve in Christ’s physical absence. After all, he didn’t institute this until the night before he died.He didn’t do it at the start of his ministry, for example, or at any other prior point. It seems like it was designed as a means of maintaining his physical presence when he knew he wouldn’t be around much longer.
Does that make sense?
Also, he was speaking in mixed tenses: “…this IS my body, which WILL BE given up for you…” Umm, it’s hard to explain, but I’m getting at the idea that he had to have died before the miracle was achieved. The Eucharist can only be a valid experience AFTER the death of Christ, when notions of his flesh and blood took on a whole visceral reality.
When Jesus was walking the earth, we had his physical presence. 2000-odd years later, we have the presence in a metaphysical way, but only after his death.

Anyway, I’m probably way off base, but these things do need to be discussed and thought about. I’m sure the Lord doesn’t want us to be a bunch of mushrooms!

 

[hansard]

Jesus celebrated the first Mass. So yes He changed the bread and wine into Himself.

A body cannot exist in more than one place, except by a miracle that is. Transubstantiation is a great miracle that requires great faith to believe in.

Great faith, indeed! This is the greatest barrier to my reunion with the Church (well, that and the role of Mary–another story), yet I believed it without question as a youth.
How CAN people just believe it, without much thought or questioning? How can this just be something you accept?
(And I’m NOT arguing against it. That’s clearly not the purpose of the thread, so stand down, soldiers.)

Anyway, the question remains: was the miracle at the Last Supper or on the next occasion?
Eucharisted thinks it was at the last supper. I suppose this was the perfect occasion for such a miracle.

Any other ideas? Or scripture? Or Church rulings?

 

[Cluny]

Or were the words, “This is My Body… My Blood” a declaration of what had already happened when He blessed them?

That’s a question to keep you up at night.