The Last supper and consecration

[Against_Heresy]

We believe as Christians that the sacrifice of the mass is the RE-PRESENTATION of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross.

So at the last supper when Christ consecrated the bread and wine into his body, would it not be considered the sacrifice which is the same as the masses sacrifice.

yet Christ had not yet died upon the cross before the the last supper, that came after.

So how can Christ “re-present” the sacrifice upon the cross when he consecrated the bread and wine at the last supper when his death upon the cross had not happened yet.

Pretty confusing question.

 

[JL2011]

I submitted the same question to the apologists yesterday. I hope we can get an answer from them.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

We believe as Christians that the sacrifice of the mass is the RE-PRESENTATION of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross.

So at the last supper when Christ consecrated the bread and wine into his body, would it not be considered the sacrifice which is the same as the masses sacrifice.

yet Christ had not yet died upon the cross before the the last supper, that came after.

So how can Christ “re-present” the sacrifice upon the cross when he consecrated the bread and wine at the last supper when his death upon the cross had not happened yet.

Pretty confusing question.

Remember, you are talking about God.
For Him there is no time.
It is as difficult to go back on time as to go forward!
For me it would be pretty difficult to go back in time. So, I think that if i could do that, I could go forward in time too.
Fom the beginning of times, God thought on you.
When something good or bad happens to my family, I sometimes sigh: “From the beginning of times, God had in mind this empty space lot in the parking lot”. It is too ordinary, yet, it is true.

Remember that ALL MEN before Christ were saved for the FUTURE deeds and merits of Jesus Crhist.

 

[novusCatholic]

Christ’s sacrifice is eternal and is therefore outside of time. It was once and for all time.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said this “is” my body. Not “will be”.

After the cross - In Revelation, John sees Christ in Heaven as a standing Paschal Lamb, looking as though it had been slain, still being offered as a sacrifice.

Before the cross - In explaining Mary’s being preserved from original sin, it has been said that the merits of Christ’s sacrifice were applied in advance to her.

Our small brains cannot begin to understand the infinite…

 

[Spencerian]

We believe as Christians that the sacrifice of the mass is the RE-PRESENTATION of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross.

So at the last supper when Christ consecrated the bread and wine into his body, would it not be considered the sacrifice which is the same as the masses sacrifice.

yet Christ had not yet died upon the cross before the the last supper, that came after.

So how can Christ “re-present” the sacrifice upon the cross when he consecrated the bread and wine at the last supper when his death upon the cross had not happened yet.

Pretty confusing question.

Hi.

The parallel between Christ and his One Sacrifice and the Passover of the Lord is clear when one looks it from a non-linear standpoint. The Jews that surrounded Christ at the Last Supper picked up on it right away, for they were celebrating Passover at that moment.

In Jewish tradition during Passover, a young participant is instructed to ask the question, “Why is this night different from all other nights?” The question shows that the Jews see the Passover in the present tense, as if they were being protected by God at that moment, celebrating the very moment of the Passover. See this post from a deacon that summarizes this point. You may also find this Catholic Update article helpful.

Likewise, in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we celebrate the One True Sacrifice as if we were at the foot of Calvary *and *at the table of the Lord at those one moments, where the Twelve also received the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God. Time was not an issue for the celebration of the Passover of the Lord, nor is it an issue for the Offering of the Lamb of God.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

We believe as Christians that the sacrifice of the mass is the RE-PRESENTATION of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross.
. . .
So how can Christ “re-present” the sacrifice upon the cross when he consecrated the bread and wine at the last supper when his death upon the cross had not happened yet.

AH,

My provisional response to the question “How can Christ ‘re-present’ the sacrifice upon the cross at the Last Supper before His death had happened” is that it depends on what you mean by “re-present” and what you think “Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross” means in this context.

I see a few possible ways this might be taken, each requiring a different response:

A. “Re-present” means “to make present again”; “Christ’s sacrifice” means the actual historical events of Calvary.

In this case I think it would be confusing (nonsense?) to say that Christ makes present again the historical event of Calvary. This is because, as you say, you can’t make present again something that hasn’t happened yet. Because “again” is a time-loaded word, it necessitates a consistent temporal view. And you can’t make present again something that hasn’t happened yet.

B. “Re-present” means “to make present”; “Christ’s sacrifice” means the actual historical evens of Calvary.

Here I think we see a more accurate rendering of the word “Re-present”. As far as I can discern, the “re” in represent (from the Latin repraesentare) is a “intensive prefix” which stresses the act of making present. There isn’t the sense of “again” as we often see “re” used in English. Another example of an “intensive prefix” is in the word “inflammable” which, of course, means “really flammable.”

So, could Christ have made present the actual historical event of Calvary? Some think He could have. I think this has become a popular way of thinking about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is recent years. I, personally, don’t prefer it. In fact, I think it is severely lacking in some respects.

C. “Re-present” means “to make present again”; “Christ’s sacrifice” means the action and disposition of Christ giving Himself up as a sacrifice (which reached a culmination at Calvary).

In this case, there isn’t a difficulty of taking “re-present” as “to make present again” (though I don’t think this is the actual usage that the Church envisions) because if Christ’s sacrificial will is what is involved, that he makes that act of will numerous times throughout His life (and continues to do so). In some sense you can say that Christ’s sacrifice began at the Incarnation. Thus, he can make any prior act of will (a self-donation) present again at any moment after the Incarnation, by incorporating it into a present moment of self-donation.

I think this is a possible way of understanding it, but I don’t think it is the best way. There seems to be some unnecessary confusion in this view, in addition to my concern regarding the meaning of the word “re-presents.”

D. “Re-present” means “to make present”; “Christ’s sacrifice” means the action and disposition of Christ giving Himself up as a sacrifice (which reached a culmination at Calvary).

I favor this sense. Here, I think we stay true to the precise meaning of the word “re-presents” which is to “to place before” or “to manifest” or to “show forth”. Here also we avoid the difficulties posed by the “timewarp” type theories that are very popular today. Here we have Christ showing forth *in anticipation * of the historical Calvary what was to take place on Calvary in a bloody way – a complete self donation. Here, Christ makes sacrifice in an unbloody way, through forms that anticipate His bloody sacrifice. Here we have the same priest and the same offering.

Please note: This is a complex topic. What I write above is, to the best of my knowledge, not contrary to the teaching of the Church. I’ve come to these opinions through a diligent study of the theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and you can find the substance of what I am referring to in many places. It is somewhat tricky to identify because you have to “read between the lines” a bit, especially because the more modern view has so captured the public imagination that it’s difficult to read writers without reading into them. I recognize that sometimes these sorts of things “strike a nerve” especially if one is accustomed to thinking about and articulating a theological concept a certain way, and have been taught that way.

If you or anyone is interested in this topic, I’d be happy to join in a conversation.

Thanks,
VC

 

[Third_Day]

As St. Augustine said Jesus held Himself in His own hands at the Last Supper. According to scripture Christ’s death is outside of time:
According to the Greek the following translations of Revelation 13:8 are correct:

King James
“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”.

Douay
“And all the dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world”

NIV
“All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast–all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world”.

SInce the death of Christ was in time historically and also from the creation of the world then Christ could hold His glorified resurrected body in His hands at the Last Supper.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

As St. Augustine said Jesus held Himself in His own hands at the Last Supper. . . . SInce the death of Christ was in time historically and also from the creation of the world then Christ could hold His glorified resurrected body in His hands at the Last Supper.

Third Day,

Excellent quotes, thank you.

As a counterpoint, I’d like to point out that Aquinas actually makes the direct assertion that it wasn’t Christ’s glorified body that Christ held in His Sacred Hands, but His mortal, passible, non-glorified Body.

I believe this view receives the more general theological consensus, which you can track throughout the Church’s teaching. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is very consistent with the mind of the Church or at the very least not contrary to the mind of the Church to hold that Christ gave His apostles His mortal body at the Last Supper.

(in fact, as an aside, I think the notion that Christ gave His apostles His glorified body is one of the reasons that the “time warp theory” of the Sacrifice of the Mass has been given traction.)

VC