What do non-Catholics do with the "leftovers" from their Eucharist or Lord's Supper?

[mcq72]

But the Biblical account of the Last Supper is very plain and concise in the instruction to both eat and drink of it.
What would be the basis of determining which wine can be used

I dont recall how a discussion ended up about wether they drank wine or grape juice ( alcoholic content, mustum etc.)… not sure how many growing season of grapes you can have in moderate climate. a land flowing with milk and honey…Jesus did refer to the cup (s) as " fruit of the vine", which to me can be zero alcohol to normal fermentation.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

But the Biblical account of the Last Supper is very plain and concise in the instruction to both eat and drink of it.
What would be the basis of determining which wine can be used

The wine has to have at least a trace of alcohol content, or at least the fermentation process has to have “begun” (i.e., nothing done to keep it from taking place naturally) to be considered valid matter for the Precious Blood. This excludes a pasteurized non-alcoholic squeezing of the grape. Technically speaking, the conditions for fermentation exist as soon as the grape has the natural juice squeezed out of it. I think mustum must stand for a certain period of time (don’t know how long) to ensure that we can presume fermentation has begun.

I would welcome someone weighing in (preferably a priest) who can tell us just how long mustum has to stand before it can be valid matter. I have to think it cannot be fifteen minutes before Mass.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Must - Wikipedia

I may stand partially corrected. If you want to get super-technical about it (and this is “angels dancing on the head of a pin” territory), fermentation may “begin” the moment that the grape juice is squeezed. Fresh mustum would be valid but illicit. And according to this, fermentation, once begun, may be “arrested” by refrigerating, freezing, and so on.

I refer to fermentation having begun by natural sweetness — any non-pasteurized sugared beverage will “get hard” if it is allowed to sit long enough in conditions that allow the sugar to start breaking down into alcohol (apple cider, etc.). Adding yeast isn’t necessary.

(Full disclosure: I used to make home-brewed beer all the time. It can be exquisite, or it can be vile, depending on conditions. I once inadvertently made some beer that had a kick like a mule! And I have had the misfortune to make some that turned out like panther pee.)

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

In extension then, for Protestants to worship something not sacred, is idolatry. That’s why they have to say, for them, it’s merely a symbol

Is that like saying the elements have to be changed, to “Real Presence”, because otherwise your worship would be idolatrous?

When Jesus said to His apostles, while instituting the Eucharist, “Do This In Memory of Me”, I’ve shown in previous posts, the Greek word for “DO” this……. ποιεῖτε means to make something into something else. Yes the elements are changed. It also refers to ordination of the ones doing the changing… Therefore, Jesus is giving them (the apostles) the power, He is ordaining them, to DO what Jesus did. Namely, to change one thing into another, To Change the elements He used, unleavened bread into His body, and the wine into His blood.

As I said previously, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, uses those same elements.

 

[mcq72]

Ok…could be …i mean you can change ordinary cotton and some dye and change into a country flag…symbolism is not mere but really brings a different reality to something otherwise.

 

[steve-b]

What I wrote in previous posts was all properly referenced from scripture, and ecumenical Church councils.

unleavened bread is what Jesus used Here THAT is why the Roman/Latin rite (approx 98%) of the Catholic Church, uses unleavened bread.

THEN

I posted to you, in 1439 the issue of leavened vs unleavened bread came up in the Council of Florence, BTW, (an ecumenical council).

The council stated HERE

Since you said you knew what the Council stated, I asked you why then are you still asking the questions? HERE

You use leavened bread, I’m showing you why the Latin rite uses, unleavened bread. It’s because THAT is what Jesus used.

 

[steve-b]

Ok…could be …i mean you can change ordinary cotton and some dye and change into a country flag…symbolism is not mere but really brings a different reality to something otherwise.

sooooooo,
are you on board or not? Do you agree with what was said or is it sorta maybe, ?

 

[tafan2]

You are assuming the Last Supper was a Passover meal, as described in the Synoptic Gospels, but in John it is not.
Pope Benidict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week gives a very good discussion on this point.

 

[steve-b]

because

you drew a specific point, that what I said was NOT universally true with Churches in union with Rome. HERE

"Not universally true with all the Churches in communion with Rome, leavened bread is used in some of the particular Churches."

So I wasn’t disagreeing with your point, as you could see, I merely put some clarification to the point.

 

[steve-b]

You are assuming the Last Supper was a Passover meal, as described in the Synoptic Gospels, but in John it is not.

Pope Benidict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week gives a very good discussion on this point.

This is a good place to give your reference…properly referenced.

As for my response,

I assumed nothing. My references, were ALL direct quotes, properly linked, from both the OT & NT ,

Are you suggesting John contradicts the quotes I used?

 

[steve-b]

I answered this already.

 

[tafan2]

Sorry, I gave the reference as well as my I could. Yes, John 13:1 specifically says the Last Supper was before the feast of the Passover. And John 19:42 states that Jesus was buried the day before the Passover.

 

[steve-b]

Sorry, I gave the reference as well as my I could. Yes, John 13:1 specifically says the Last Supper was before the feast of the Passover. And John 19:42 states that Jesus was buried the day before the Passover.

Your answer HERE

I would just add, the washing of the feet occurred before the meal. In Israel, days begin or end at sundown. So

for example, of the Last Supper,

if the washing of the feet happened before sundown, that was on Thursday. If sundown was 30 minutes later, THAT was a new day. That was then Friday. Just like, Jesus had to be taken down from the Cross on Friday afternoon, then buried, all before Friday at sundown. Because sundown, was then Saturday, the Sabbath.

 

[tafan2]

Thanks for that,. But it’s not that simple. Pope Benedict spent quite a few pages going through the various theories which try to reconcile the contradiction and presents problems with all of them. His conclusion was that it likely was a Passover meal, but we just can’t know for sure. Also, John 19:14 says explicitly it was the day of preparation of the Passover, not if the Sabbath.

It’s worth noting that the events given in Luke, appearing before Pilate, the Herod, then Pilate again, and the scourging, would have been difficult if not impossible in one morning. So that is another discrepancy.

 

[steve-b]

Thanks for that,. But it’s not that simple. Pope Benedict spent quite a few pages going through the various theories which try to reconcile the contradiction and presents problems with all of them. His conclusion was that it likely was a Passover meal, but we just can’t know for sure. Also, John 19:14 says explicitly it was the day of preparation of the Passover, not if the Sabbath.

Earlier you said to me

"You are assuming the Last Supper was a Passover meal, as described in the Synoptic Gospels, but in John it is not. Pope Benidict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week gives a very good discussion on this point."

That is suggesting that Benedict XVI is going to support the point of the last supper NOT being the Passover meal.

I’d still like to see the reference.

tafan2:

It’s worth noting that the events given in Luke, appearing before Pilate, the Herod, then Pilate again, and the scourging, would have been difficult if not impossible in one morning. So that is another discrepancy.

Jesus was arrested during His agony in the garden, maybe around midnight. Remember, Friday started at sundown Thursday. Between the time of the Last Supper and Jesus arrest, was Approx 7 hours. From Midnight till Jesus was on the cross was approx 12 hrs. That means There was plenty of time to try, scourge, crown with thorns, then giving Jesus the cross to carry to Calvary.

 

[tafan2]

That is suggesting that Benedict XVI is going to support the point of NOT being the Passover.

Sorry, I did not mean that, only that Pope Benedict XVI discusses the conflict between the Gospels.

I’d still like to see the reference.

Well, not every reference is online. Sorry, some of us still use books. Do you want page numbers?

Between the time of the Last Supper and Jesus arrest, was Approx 7 hours. From Midnight till Jesus was on the cross was approx 12 hrs. That means There was plenty of time to try, scourge, crown with thorns, then giving Jesus the cross to carry to Calvary.

Well, we can assume Pilate was not available until the morning. Then travel time to and from Herod’s palace, plus the scourging and final trial and carrying the cross. Not plenty of time.

 

[tafan2]

BTW, I forgot about John 18:28 where it says specifically the Jewish leaders did not enter Pilate’s praetorium specifically so they could eat the Passover later.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That is suggesting that Benedict XVI is going to support the point of NOT being the Passover.

Sorry, I did not mean that, only that Pope Benedict XVI discusses the conflict between the Gospels.

I’d still like to see the reference.

Well, not every reference is online. Sorry, some of us still use books. Do you want page numbers?

Between the time of the Last Supper and Jesus arrest, was Approx 7 hours. From Midnight till Jesus was on the cross was approx 12 hrs. That means There was plenty of time to try, scourge, crown with thorns, then giving Jesus the cross to carry to Calvary.

Well, we can assume Pilate was not available until the morning. Then travel time to and from Herod’s palace, plus the scourging and final trial and carrying the cross. Not plenty of time.

I’ve been to the old city of Jerusalem. It’s NOT that big. And trials in this case didn’t take long.

 

[steve-b]

BTW, I forgot about John 18:28 where it says specifically the Jewish leaders did not enter Pilate’s praetorium specifically so they could eat the Passover later.

That was already handled in the link I gave HERE

"Regarding John 18:28, if the term “Passover” is again taken as a reference to the whole festal cycle, then the Jewish leaders’ fear that they would not be able to “eat the Passover” could be a reference to being unable to participate in the continuing festivities of that day. However, there is a more probable alternative. As we noted, there were two lambs, known as chagigah , which were killed and eaten. The first lamb was killed on the afternoon of 14 Nisan and eaten that night (15 Nisan) as the lamb of the Passover seder. However, the second lamb was eaten during the day of 15 Nisan and, like the first one, was also called a Passover. Thus the leaders were afraid they would not be able to eat the second Passover — the lamb eaten during the day of the 15th.

We can be certain, however, that the Jewish leaders were not afraid that they would be unable to eat the Passover seder proper because the defilement caused by entering a Gentile’s dwelling required a ritual bath and then ceased at sundown. Since the Passover seder was held after sundown, the leaders would have been able to eat it with no problem if this were occurring on the 14th of Nisan. However, if it were occurring during the daytime on the 15th of Nisan, they would not have been able to eat the second Passover, the second chagigah because they would be unclean until the evening of that day, and it was eaten during the daytime."

 

[tafan2]

Very possible you are correct. Still seems like a lot had to happen in 3 or 4 hours.

Thus the leaders were afraid they would not be able to eat the second Passover — the lamb eaten during the day of the 15th.

See, if John had only mentioned something about the Passover being after the crucification once, an answer like this would suffice. But he mentions it 4 or 5 times, and each time it takes a long winded explanation to show he did not mean what it seems apparent he meant. It becomes a lot less convincing. In addition he never once calls the Last Supper a Passover meal.
So we can only conclude that we are not for sure. It is likely it was a Passover meal, but we must admit that John says it wasn’t.

BTW, Read Benedict’s books on Jesus of Nazareth, they are really good, even if you do disagree with him on this point.