The Last Supper

[Faith1960]

So I suppose the debate in this thread surrounding whether the Last Supper was the First Mass could be seen simply as an issue of semantics?

If I am in a church at the moment when the priest says “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum”, I am indeed “at Mass.” Even if I left for some reason before the Sacrifice was completed, I was at a Mass so long as it was completed.

So the Last Supper could be said to be the “First Mass” insofar as when Jesus and the Apostles were there, Jesus consecrated the bread and wine into Himself .

And He could do this because Hes God, correct?

 

[Tim_D]

And He could do this because Hes God, correct?

Are you in doubt that Jesus is God?

 

[Faith1960]

Are you in doubt that Jesus is God?

No, not at all.I’m not asking if Hes God, I’m asking if His divine, Godly power is what turned the bread and wine into His body and blood during the Last Supper.

 

[CB_Catholic]

No, not at all.I’m not asking if Hes God, I’m asking if His divine, Godly power is what turned the bread and wine into His body and blood during the Last Supper.

Yes, what else would it be?

 

[Faith1960]

Yes, what else would it be?

The power of a glorified bread and wine which apparently is wrong

 

[Tim_D]

The power of a glorified bread and wine which apparently is wrong

To say the least.

 

[guanophore]

At the last supper, Jesus Christ said that his body would be broken and his blood would be shed. That is future tense. Since Jesus had not yet been glorified through resurrection his body and blood were not then the glorified form.

Jesus was in His glorified body at the transfiguration.

How would you explain away this statement of St. Augustine?

" that most earnest defender of the Catholic faith, always taught, particularly when, in his explanation of the title of the thirty-third Psalm, he says: To carry himself in his own hands, is impossible to man, and suited to Christ alone, for he was carried in his own hands, when, dispensing his body, he said, This is my body."

BTW, when was the first mass?
Emmaus?? I think so.

Fran

I used to think this too, until I read the Fathers, and realized that, when Jesus said “this is my Body” He meant it literally in the moment. I remember how shocked I was that “transubstantiation” had occurred in that moment. I agree that this is a profound mystery that it is difficult to explain and understand, but by faith we can accept the words of our saviour. There, in the Upper Room, He mystically held Himself in His own hands.

Is not the Last Supper considered the first Mass?

This is the Teaching of the Church, yes.

Spiderweb,

It couldn’t have been the first Mass because Jesus was still alive.

If you believe this, then you cannot also affirm the immaculate conception.

God acts outside of the space/time continuum.

The Mass is a remembrance of something.  What were they remembering at the Last Supper?

As you correctly state below, the Passover.

Certainly not Jesus death on the cross since it hadn’t happened yet! He INSTITUTED the mass at this time, it wasn’t CELEBRATED. I’d say that was at Emmaus, or possibly in Acts 2:42 and feven before then. Most of the priests I know think it was at Emmaus and I agree. Jesus broke the bread and drank the wine with the two disciples for the first time.

Except that it was no longer Bread and Wine, but His Body and Blood.

 So here's an article from the internet written by priests.  I believe it's called Word Press.  I'm not good at saving the site yet, but I'm learning!

I dunno, Fran. It looks to me like they are students.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Why the Last Supper Was Not the First Mass

It would only lead to heresy,** in my opinion**, to posit that when Jesus said at the Last Supper: “This is my body,” the bread became his body.
ONE

These theology students seem to be bound to the space/time contunuum. They also, to be consistent, would have to reject the immaculate conception. Interesting you would post this on just this feast day!

TWO

1. A Mass requires the sending of the Holy Spirit. Without an Epiclesis, there is no Mass. yet, according to whichever tradition you prefer, the Holy Spirit was not sent until, in John’s gospel, Jesus died and rose, and in Luke’s gospel, until the feast of Pentecost. Either way, while the traditions don’t agree completely with one another, they do agree that Christ sent his Spirit. And that Spirit is the one who transforms both the eucharistic elements and us into the living body and blood of Jesus.

This is certainly a crock of hooey. Anyone who claims that the HS was not active in salvation history before the resurrection obviously has not read the OT.

Don’t Jesuits partake of the Liturgy of the Hours? How can anyone who engages in this practice think that the HS was not present and active prior to Christ?

 

[ProVobis]

If I am in a church at the moment when the priest says “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum”, I am indeed “at Mass.” Even if I left for some reason before the Sacrifice was completed, I was at a Mass so long as it was completed.

Technically, the Sacrifice is completed when the priest consumes (part of) the Victim.

Also, not that you implied it but the consecration isn’t a magical act, but a Divine one. The prayers of the priest do the rest, pleading for God to accept the Sacrifice as Most Pleasing to Him. It all fits in so nicely with the Old Testament. In an unbloody manner, of course, though that could easily lead into another debate.

 

[adrift]

At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).

 

[guanophore]

1. A Mass requires… a Mass. I’m not trying to be snarky here. My point is that, just as we have to be very careful about, say, calling Peter the “first pope,” or the first disciples of Jesus “the first Catholics,” so in a similar way, we should be careful — but even more so, in view of the arguments above — about calling the Last Supper the “first Mass.”

Well, Fran, if this site is where you are getting your theology, it explains a lot.

A Prayer for Discernment
January 24, 2013

Over the next several weeks, I would like to share with you all some of my reflections on the three weeks that I recently spent in India on a theological immersion into Hinduism. These reflections are both spiritual and theological, personal and social. The purpose is to clarify my own very undeveloped thoughts on many of these matters, so I wholeheartedly welcome comments and dialogue for clarification.

I applied for this course along with the trip to India for one reason: to reflect academically and spiritually on the presence of God,** on the “rays of truth” as Nostra Aetate puts it, that are to be found in the Hindu religion**. I went to India convinced that discernment of those rays is no mere academic exercise. Unless one is willing to pray with those of other religions, one will never be able to discover the presence of God within them.

And yet I went with some trepidation as well. Although I have studied Islam briefly previously, I really have very little experience of other religions. And while Islam worships the historical God of Abraham**, Allah, to whom I’ve never had any trouble praying,** the Hindu pantheon of gods presents to me a greater challenge. What I needed was wisdom and discernment, and for this throughout the trip I prayed.

Who writes for this blog?

About seven guys write for this blog. All of us belong to a Catholic religious order for men called The Society of Jesus (aka Jesuits). We are spread throughout the United States working in schools or studying theology.

Are you sure you want to use this cadre to support your contradiction of the Catholic faith?

"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).

Honestly, Tim. How can Sacrosanctum Concilium 47 stand against “seven guys” who are theology students writing a blog?

Tim D

Instituted is different from Celebrated.

I can accept that there might be a difference in these two, but clearly the Church has always believed and taught that when He said “this is my Body” he was not making a symbolic gesture.

How could we catholics disagree on EVERYTHING??

We don’t. We just disagree when Catholics post anti-Catholic drivel.

I posted what I had to post.

It makes perfect sense to me.

No, Fran, you don’t have to post non-Catholic answers. If you have a compulsion to contradict the teachings of the Church in a public forum, you might want to consider what would motivate such a compulsion.

You could consider that you might be in error, and adopt a docile attitude toward learning.

You could take it up with the priests who wrote the article.

Fran

What evidence do you have that any of these 'seven guys" are priests? Their self identification does not say they are, and the Society of Jesus has priests and brothers. What if they are not even ordained theology students? Do you still give them more credence than official magisterial documents?

 

[guanophore]

Are you suggesting that the opinion of a priest “who wrote the article” trumps the teaching authority of the Church as summarized in Sacrosanct Concilium?

Even the classic Catholic Encyclopedia says the same.

How is that they are all wrong, yet you are correct?

Fran has the courage of her convictions.

Bl. Pope Paul VI wrote in his Credo:

1. We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence"

Credo of the People of God Bl. Pope Paul VI Emp added…

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html

Wow. Fran’s “seven guys” theology students even trump the Pope!

Are you suggesting that this means that the Last Supper was some sort of “dry run” for the apostles?

I think this is exactly what is being stated by Fran and her “seven guys” theology students.

I kind of thought priests knew what they were talking about but apparently Tim doesn’t.

Good night
Fran

Priests are not infallible, and they do make mistakes. There is also no evidence that the youngsters you are quoting are priests. They claim to be theology students.

I take it that since the sacrifice had not happened yet, it could not be memeorialized.

Clearly this position is contrary to the teaching of the Church.Catholics believe that Jesus is God, and as such, is not confined to teh space time contimuum.

I don’t really use webpages for my information. I started to copy and paste recently because I realize that my words are really insufficient.

Especially when they contradict the Teaching of the Church.

However, I’m beginning to realize that this is also of no value.

Where I actually get my information from is teaching priests who tell catechists what they’re supposed to, in turn, teach kids. I guess I shouldn’t trust them anymore…

Fran

I doubt that kids are able to grasp a difference between institution and celebration. The difference here is that you are pandering these ideas to adults who are passionate and well educated about the faith. You can’t get away with promoting falsehoods about the faith here.

 

[adrift]

Wow. Fran’s “seven guys” theology students even trump the Pope!

.

It took a lot of digging but I finally pinned down who was the author Nathan O’Halloran, SJ :

 

[Catholic4Christ]

Technically, the Sacrifice is completed when the priest consumes (part of) the Victim.

Yeah, that’s what I was getting at, though I should have said it more fully as: “If I am in a church at the moment when the priest says “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum”, I am indeed “at Mass.” Even if I left for some reason after this but before the priest consumed the Eucharist, ie before the Sacrifice was completed, I was at a Mass so long as it was completed.”

 

[adrift]

It took a lot of digging but I finally pinned down who was the author Nathan O’Halloran, SJ :

I believe that this answer to one of the questions pose in the FAQ should be posted

Are you official spokespeople for the Roman Catholic Church and The Society of Jesus?

Nope. While we do have the permission of our religious superiors to create this blog, in no way do any of us, individually or collectively, speak for the Society of Jesus or the Catholic Church. Indeed, we submit all we do here to the loving gaze of both

 

[adrift]

This is correct, of course.

Think of the New Covenant. Another word for Covenants is Testament.
As in Last Will and Testament.

WHEN does the New Covenant/Testament take affect? AFTER Jesus dies. It cannot be effective before then because the person making out the will is still living –

So at the Last Supper Jesus INSTITUTES communion. The eating of the bread and drinking of the blood that WILL BE done in His memory. In the future, as Vico says.

So I’d have to say it wasn’t glorified then as it is at Mass.

BTW, when was the first mass?
Emmaus?? I think so.

Fran

Testament in reference to Covenant is not the same as Testament in law.

Covenant is a contract. The Catechism speaks of the Old Covenant and the New. The Catechism when speaking of Testament refers to the Old and New as in scripture.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Testament in reference to Covenant is not the same as Testament in law.

Covenant is a contract. The Catechism speaks of the Old Covenant and the New. The Catechism when speaking of Testament refers to the Old and New as in scripture.

Adrift,

A covenant is NOT a contract.

A contract is for services, exchange of property or goods
You fix my car
I pay you money.

I want your house
I’ll pay you the price

A contract creates customers, clients, employees, etc.

A Covenant is between man and God. (God doesn’t sign contracts)
I’ll be your God
You be my people.

I am yours
You are mine see £x 6:7, Lev 26:12 Jer 30:32

Covenants create spouses, parents, sons, it forms a binding family relationship.

A Covenant is a Testament. God makes us sons. An accord between God and Man in which God takes the initiative.

Some are conditional:
Edenic
Mosaic
Some are unconditional
Adamic, Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, New

There are many more covenants than I have listed.

Some are King to Servant
Some are Sovereign to Vassel

There are different types, as above:
Royal Grant
Parity
Suzerain-Vassel

The unconditional depend only on God
The conditional depend on some action from man.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So thanks for the lesson. I’ll remember it the next time I teach the covenants.
BTW, did you know that there’s also a difference between a promise and an oath?

As far as the first Mass, I will be looking into that.

Fran
P.S. A covenant is a testament, which is why I’m having difficulty accepting that the Last Supper was the first Mass, apart from the fact that this is what I’ve been taught. Jesus says in Luke that it’s the New Covenant, or testament, but He hasn’t died yet. The N.C. takes effect after His death.

 

[Vico]

Jesus was in His glorified body at the transfiguration.

How would you explain away this statement of St. Augustine?

" that most earnest defender of the Catholic faith, always taught, particularly when, in his explanation of the title of the thirty-third Psalm, he says: To carry himself in his own hands, is impossible to man, and suited to Christ alone, for he was carried in his own hands, when, dispensing his body, he said, This is my body."
…

I will answer with St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 45. Christ’s transfiguration. Article 2. Whether this clarity was the clarity of glory?

Objection 1. It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of glory. For a gloss of Bede on Matthew 17:2, “He was transfigured before them,” says: “In His mortal body He shows forth, not the state of immortality, but clarity like to that of future immortality.” But the clarity of glory is the clarity of immortality. Therefore the clarity which Christ showed to His disciples was not the clarity of glory.

Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted prove, not that the clarity of Christ was not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a glorified body, since Christ’s body was not as yet immortal. And just as it was by dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow into the body so was it possible that by dispensation it might overflow as to the gift of clarity and not as to that of impassibility.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Guanophore

You have a short memory. I don’t teach children anymore but adults.

You know very well that I don’t use the internet for learning my faith - you’ve criticized me for this and look what happened when I tried to post something from there!

Thirdly, why did the conversation shift from the question of when the first Mass was to which site I used? I used it because it said in words that are not in my vocabulary what I intended to say.

You know full well that different church fathers don’t always agree with each other. You know full well that the CCC is not easy to “translate” and you know full well that any encyclical could be interpreted differently.

I’ll be looking into the first Mass question.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

How could Jesus have been the Eucharist, the way we understand it, at the Last Supper?
For all the reasons I’ve stated in previous posts.

What you have stated, Fran, is that God is bound by time and space the same way we are as creatures, and therefore, He is incapable of doing a miracle that has implications forward or back in time.

In taking this position, you are also rejecting the immaculate conception.

At this point He was just telling the apostles what was going to happen and to remember it for all time.

This position is contrary to the Teaching of the Church.

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

He’s saying that the cup that is poured out for you is the New Covenant. I think I already said how a Covenant is a Testament and only becomes valid once Jesus had died. A last will and testament is not valid while the person signing it is still alive.

This is called eisegesis, Fran, when one injects their ideas into the text. There are many covenants in scripture where no one dies. The text nowhere says it is His “last will”.

In any case, if Jesus wants to anticipate the shedding of His own covenant, ,who are we to say He cannot?

I can’t think of anywhere this is spoken of, but I don’t see how anything else could make any sense.

I think this is where the problem lies, Fran. You and your 'seven guys" are trying to understand with human perception what is far beyond the rational comprehension of the puny human mind.

When Jesus says “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” He is not merely symbolizing, practicing, or teaching what is about to happen. It is what He says it is.

I will keep following.

Trust me I have gotten a lot of errant theology straightened out here on CAF.

It took a lot of digging but I finally pinned down who was the author Nathan O’Halloran, SJ :

Well bless his dear Cathlic heart! He seems like a really nice chap.

I will answer with St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 45. Christ’s transfiguration. Article 2. Whether this clarity was the clarity of glory?

Objection 1. It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of glory. For a gloss of Bede on Matthew 17:2, “He was transfigured before them,” says: “In His mortal body He shows forth, not the state of immortality, but clarity like to that of future immortality.” But the clarity of glory is the clarity of immortality. Therefore the clarity which Christ showed to His disciples was not the clarity of glory.

Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted prove, not that the clarity of Christ was not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a glorified body, since Christ’s body was not as yet immortal. And just as it was by dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow into the body so was it possible that by dispensation it might overflow as to the gift of clarity and not as to that of impassibility.

Well okay!

I confess that the whole affair of the eucharist is a mystery beyond me.

But I believe that Jesus meant what He said at the last supper.