The purpose of the Last Supper was to socialize?

[CRW]

Heavens above! - you will probably want to edit out the word ‘socializing’.

I said that socialising is an integral part of the Mass not the sole purpose for it. I believe that Jesus intended it that way.

I have never attained a Mass to socialize and those that do should stay home and socialize at the local bar of pub, IMHO. Socializing is why our Lord’s House is no longer a House of Prayer.

“I don’t think that **Jesus’ primary **purpose in gathering the Disciples together on His last day of life was purely social entertainment.” I don’t think it was His 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or any intention of our Lord on this most Holy of Holy days in our Church…

 

[Caesar]

A few points to bring up here:

• The Dolorous Passion is a work of fiction.

Actualy it is based on the visions recieved by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and compiled by Klemens Brentano. While the Church has not officialy declared her visions to be true, they are widely regarded as fact and the Church has supported the publication of the Dolorous Passion and her other works. Also, her status as a Beati should give some influence as to whether or not the work is factual.

So no, it is not a work of fiction any more then the secrets of Fatima.

 

[Hesychios]

… Also, her status as a Beati should give some influence as to whether or not the work is factual.

So no, it is not a work of fiction any more then the secrets of Fatima.

Well, there you have it!

 

[Cristiano]

Etymology for social: Middle English, from Latin socialis, from socius companion, ally, associate; akin to Old English secg man, companion, Latin sequi to follow –

I see the whole thread about the “misuse” or “misunderstanding” of the word socialize. I personally did not understand the quote in the OP as “socializing=being buddies” but more as communion and that is what the Church is about. On the other side Puzzleannie et al. have a different take because of the present usage of the word and that is fine with me. If I follow their definition then they are right.

Probably we should all look at the word as coming from the Latin sequi (follow), where the disciples were instructed to follow Christ as member of a social group, and not as individuals searching their own personal salvation alone. That instruction showed how to do it through the use of the sacrament being instituted at that time. The washing of the feet was a social event where they were taught that we (the Church) are one body where no one is better then the other.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The washing of the feet was a social event where they were taught that we (the Church) are one body where no one is better then the other

That’s one take on it–and a very ‘egalitarian’ take it is, fitting in very well with contemporary social (or societal) thought, going all the way back to Lord Oliver Cromwell’s “plain man, warts and all” philosophy.

Not to be picky (I hope) but rather than thinking that “no one is better than the other” I believe the Church take is slightly different while not actually contradicting that above statement. While we are indeed all ‘equal’ as to soul, we are not at all equal otherwise. (Indeed, last Sunday’s gospel regarding the parts of the body proves just that. A foot does not equal a hand, but both are ‘parts of the body’. Paul even speaks of lesser parts needing greater protection!)

As for the ‘foot washing’ I believe this was done not to give the disciples a sense of ‘you are equals’ but instead, “you are servants”. That is a distinction which has very much gone into obscurity–the idea that we are to be servants of each other–in essence, to consider ourselves as low and others as greater. However, that distinction and idea is very prevalent not only in the gospels but in great Catholic works (St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Thomas A Kempis, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Louis Grignon de Montfort, et. al.)

So I’d have to say that while I agree we are all ‘equal’ in our souls, I’m not in agreement that Christ through the foot washing in particular is specifically teaching us, through foot washing, that “we in the Church are all equal”. I do, for example, think that the saints were ‘better’ than say, I myself, and that’s why I look to them for guidance and help. I might never have the personal qualities of, say, the intellect of Aquinas (he will always be superior in that regard). But insofar as my limited intellect goes, I may be able to go as far in my ‘lesser’ ability to equal or even surpass St. Thomas’ ‘greater ability’. So while we are not ‘equal’ in ability, we are perhaps equal in faith or in desire to please God.

(As an aside–the ‘foot washing’ has become such a hot button topic in the U.S. that probably unfairly it has come to have meanings that were never part of it. Look at how many people now yammer to have “womens’ feet washed” --usually on the grounds of ‘equality’ to boot–no pun intended.)

 

[Cristiano]

That’s one take on it–and a very ‘egalitarian’ take it is, fitting in very well with contemporary social (or societal) thought, going all the way back to Lord Oliver Cromwell’s “plain man, warts and all” philosophy.

Not to be picky (I hope) but rather than thinking that “no one is better than the other” I believe the Church take is slightly different while not actually contradicting that above statement. While we are indeed all ‘equal’ as to soul, we are not at all equal otherwise. (Indeed, last Sunday’s gospel regarding the parts of the body proves just that. A foot does not equal a hand, but both are ‘parts of the body’. Paul even speaks of lesser parts needing greater protection!)

As for the ‘foot washing’ I believe this was done not to give the disciples a sense of ‘you are equals’ but instead, “you are servants”. That is a distinction which has very much gone into obscurity–the idea that we are to be servants of each other–in essence, to consider ourselves as low and others as greater. However, that distinction and idea is very prevalent not only in the gospels but in great Catholic works (St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Thomas A Kempis, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Louis Grignon de Montfort, et. al.)

So I’d have to say that while I agree we are all ‘equal’ in our souls, I’m not in agreement that Christ through the foot washing in particular is specifically teaching us, through foot washing, that “we in the Church are all equal”. I do, for example, think that the saints were ‘better’ than say, I myself, and that’s why I look to them for guidance and help. I might never have the personal qualities of, say, the intellect of Aquinas (he will always be superior in that regard). But insofar as my limited intellect goes, I may be able to go as far in my ‘lesser’ ability to equal or even surpass St. Thomas’ ‘greater ability’. So while we are not ‘equal’ in ability, we are perhaps equal in faith or in desire to please God.

(As an aside–the ‘foot washing’ has become such a hot button topic in the U.S. that probably unfairly it has come to have meanings that were never part of it. Look at how many people now yammer to have “womens’ feet washed” --usually on the grounds of ‘equality’ to boot–no pun intended.)

My statement was quite simplistic, I just wanted to use it as an example. I was thinking more in the terms of the fact that we have been given the same dignity and we all are servants. Your comments are quite to the point and they make sense to me.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Funny…no one has ever found that camera!

Well, some of my Protestant friends have said: “Hey, everyone who wants to get in the picture, get on this side of the table”.

[ACTUALLY, there may be evidence that the Shroud of Turin may actually have been the table cloth of the Last Supper, based on size and thread count. Anyway, there may be evidence of circles along one side of the Shroud of Turin, suggestive of stains from dishes. Typically, the dinner guests sat / reclined along one side of the table and the servers approached the table from the other side / the open side. Interesting speculation. ]

 

[JimR-OCDS]

“The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17).

Paul was speaking to the Church in Rome, where many were using the breaking of the bread(the Liturgy) as a social dining and drinking event.

The Last Supper was not a social event, but a sacramental event.

Jim

 

[SMHW]

This was a difficult thread to understand, until I found the thread from which it branched off and read though it. The title was obviously a reactionary statement to something and just screamed, “Out of context,” to me.

I can only assume that the reference is NOT to a party but rather to a communal experience.

My thought is that saying, “The purpose of the Last Supper was to socialize,” is kind of like saying that the purpose of a fish is to swim. A fish exists because God created it and it gives glory to God by its very existence. But the nature of that existence is that the fish will swim.

The PURPOSE of the Last Supper may not have been to bring together the apostles but the nature of the Last Supper was that it was a communal experience. We likewise do not assist at Mass in order to be a community but when we assist at Mass we do so as a community --the Church–, whether it is our intention to be one or not.