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

[steve-b]

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

steve-b:

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.

John was at the Last Supper. He knew what Jesus said in the quotes I gave previously about celebrating the Passover. How could John be in conflict over this? The conflict only appears to be a conflict. Just like the way protestants accuse Paul and James of being in conflict with each other over works.

 

[tafan2]

Yes, John was there, as was Mathew. Yet Mathew says it was a Passover, John says it was not. Just like John describes Jesus public ministry as one year, and the Synoptics describe it as 3.
So we don’t know for sure, it doesn’t mean anything besides the authors were not that preoccupied in getting every detail correct.

 

[steve-b]

Yes, John was there, as was Mathew. Yet Mathew says it was a Passover, John says it was not. Just like John describes Jesus public ministry as one year, and the Synoptics describe it as 3.
So we don’t know for sure, it doesn’t mean anything besides the authors were not that preoccupied in getting every detail correct.

Yet The Church who by definition was there at the table as well, tells us it was a Passover meal… Besides, it looks like people misread John

 

[tafan2]

I did not know the Church had a definitive teaching on this matter,.

 

[steve-b]

I did not know the Church had a definitive teaching on this matter,.

Take a guess on how far back it goes

 

[tafan2]

So strange that Pope Benedict XVI considered it an open question.

 

[steve-b]

So strange that Pope Benedict XVI considered it an open question.

You said ’His conclusion was that it likely was a Passover meal, but we just can’t know for sure".
HERE

No reference to that, followed.

 

[tafan2]

I have pointed out the book multiple times. That’s called a reference. I will try to find my English translation tomorrow and type in the precise quote in Monday.

 

[mcq72]

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

Not really on board with transubstantiation and necesity of priest for such transformation…but agree to a change of sorts,as Martyr says, not mere bread anymore, but still bread despite taking on representative reality.

I believe in retaining a Hebrew approach, less Hellenistic. Agree to a more covenant and future aspect, this “doing” in hopes of a better reality still to come, a better presence to come.

Also believe in a less sacrificial communion, one that can be done at home, with family or several families, or small group of believers, much like OT passover, or even a Jewish meal ( and earliest church) with Christ having done the priestly work already. We come to give a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, emphasis being eucharist, the verb, not a capital noun, which it later in history became.

 

[mcq72]

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

Just read this article:

Was Jesus' Last Supper a Seder? - Biblical Archaeology Society

 

[tafan2]

@steve-b,

Ok, I have the book of Pope Benedict XVI at hand and I will try to address the issue from his point of view. I will start out by admitting I was wrong on his summary, when I said that Pope Benedict XVI considered it most likely to have been a Jewish Passover meal, he actually said the opposite. So in what follows, because I know it is important to you that I provide references, all quotes are coming from “Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection”, by Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, Published 2011 by Libreia Editrice Vaticana, Translated by Philip J Whitmore. Pages 106- 114 , The Dating of the Last Supper.

I will back up and address some of your questions again.

Are you suggesting John contradicts the quotes I used?

Yes, John contradicts the Synoptic Gospels.

“The problem of dating Jesus’ Last Supper arises from the contradiction on this point between the Synoptic Gospels, on the one hand, and Saint John’s Gospel, on the other” Page 106

“Let us not turn to John’s chronology. John goes to great lengths to indicate that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal” Page 108

So where does Pope Benedict XVI think the answer resides:

“This theologically significant connection, that Jesus’s death coincides with the slaughter of the Passover lambs, has led many scholars to dismiss John’s presentation as a theological chronology. John, they claim, altered the chronology in order to create this theological connection, which admittedly is not made explicit in the Gospel. Today, thought, it is becoming increasingly clear that John’s chronology is more probably historically than the Synoptic chronology. For as mentioned earlier, trial and execution on the feast seem scarcely conceivable. On the other hand, Jesus’s Last Supper seems so closely tied to the Passover tradition that to deny its Passover character is problematic”. Page 108-109.

He goes on to express two scholar’s viewpoint trying to reconcile the two: Annie Jaubert who approached the issue from the use of various calendars, hence saying Jesus and the disciples used one calendar for the feast and the Jewish leaders used another. He finds this unconvincing. Then he presents John Meier view from the book “A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus”. Meier argues that the weight of evidence favors the Gospel of John and Pope Benedict semms to find that convincing.

“We have to ask, though, what Jesus’s Last Supper actually was. And how did it acquire its undoubtedly early attrition of Passover character? The answer given by Meier is astonishingly simple and in many ways convincing: Jesus knew that he was about to die. He knew that he would not be able to eat the Passover again. Fully aware of this, he invited his disciples to a Last Supper of a special kind, one that followed no specific Jewish ritual but, rather, constituted his farewell; during the meal he gave them something new: he gave them something new: he gave them himself as the true Lamb and thereby instituted his Passover.” Page 113

 

[HeDa]

Everything from pouring the grape juice into the sink to pouring it out in the blueberry shrubs and put the hosts back in the tubes they were delivered in, or if there was a piece broken it was thrown into the litter, to leaving the bread in the blueberry shrubs (to let the birds have a party) so that the bread can return to earth. It was just bread and vine (grape juice) and could be left on the communion table for an hour while the “sacristan” had tea/coffee with the rest of the parish members. It was unthought of to consume the “leftovers”.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

Not really on board with transubstantiation and necesity of priest for such transformation…but agree to a change of sorts,as Martyr says, not mere bread anymore, but still bread despite taking on representative reality.

I believe in retaining a Hebrew approach, less Hellenistic. Agree to a more covenant and future aspect, this “doing” in hopes of a better reality still to come, a better presence to come.

Also believe in a less sacrificial communion, one that can be done at home, with family or several families, or small group of believers, much like OT passover, or even a Jewish meal ( and earliest church) with Christ having done the priestly work already. We come to give a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, emphasis being eucharist, the verb, not a capital noun, which it later in history became.

Now,

Where did you get your views?

 

[steve-b]

I will back up and address some of your questions again.

steve-b:

Are you suggesting John contradicts the quotes I used?

Yes, John contradicts the Synoptic Gospels.

“The problem of dating Jesus’ Last Supper arises from the contradiction on this point between the Synoptic Gospels, on the one hand, and Saint John’s Gospel, on the other” Page 106

“Let us not turn to John’s chronology. John goes to great lengths to indicate that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal” Page 108

So where does Pope Benedict XVI think the answer resides:

“This theologically significant connection, that Jesus’s death coincides with the slaughter of the Passover lambs, has led many scholars to dismiss John’s presentation as a theological chronology. John, they claim, altered the chronology in order to create this theological connection, which admittedly is not made explicit in the Gospel. Today, thought, it is becoming increasingly clear that John’s chronology is more probably historically than the Synoptic chronology. For as mentioned earlier, trial and execution on the feast seem scarcely conceivable. On the other hand, Jesus’s Last Supper seems so closely tied to the Passover tradition that to deny its Passover character is problematic”. Page 108-109.

He goes on to express two scholar’s viewpoint trying to reconcile the two: Annie Jaubert who approached the issue from the use of various calendars, hence saying Jesus and the disciples used one calendar for the feast and the Jewish leaders used another. He finds this unconvincing. Then he presents John Meier view from the book “A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus”. Meier argues that the weight of evidence favors the Gospel of John and Pope Benedict semms to find that convincing.

“We have to ask, though, what Jesus’s Last Supper actually was. And how did it acquire its undoubtedly early attrition of Passover character? The answer given by Meier is astonishingly simple and in many ways convincing: Jesus knew that he was about to die. He knew that he would not be able to eat the Passover again. Fully aware of this, he invited his disciples to a Last Supper of a special kind, one that followed no specific Jewish ritual but, rather, constituted his farewell; during the meal he gave them something new: he gave them something new: he gave them himself as the true Lamb and thereby instituted his Passover.” Page 113

Consider this explanation on the discrepancy HERE

 

[tafan2]

Yes, that is very similar to the solution to the problem that Benedict XVI describes in detail and attributes to Annie Jaubert from the early 50s. The varying calendar theory is not satisfactory to Benedict XVI. Again, you caught me without the book at hand so I cannot go into detail as to why Benedict does not accept it. He presents her theory, and it is not precisely Mr Staple’s, but very similar, in quite a bit of detail and shows it a lot of respect, but he favors the solution put forward my John Meier.

 

[steve-b]

Yes, that is very similar to the solution to the problem that Benedict XVI describes in detail and attributes to Annie Jaubert from the early 50s. The varying calendar theory is not satisfactory to Benedict XVI. Again, you caught me without the book at hand so I cannot go into detail as to why Benedict does not accept it. He presents her theory, and it is not precisely Mr Staple’s, but very similar, in quite a bit of detail and shows it a lot of respect, but he favors the solution put forward my John Meier.

I’m highly condensing the argument presented by Tim Staples , to a few lines, I hope I do it justice.

John is giving the Sadducee calendar, vs the Pharisee calendar for the Passover. They were different re: Preparation vs the actual event.

AND

Based on a detailed explanation of possible yrs/dates that Jesus was born,

THEN

Either Jesus died in 30 a.d. or 33 a.d. Both those yrs/dates, preparation is on Thursday, Passover begins Friday… considering the Pharisee timeline.

 

[tafan2]

Yes, I read the article you posted. That’s a decent summary. Again, probably not exactly the same as the Jaubert argument presented by Benedict XVI, but along the same lines, it was all an issue of different calendars.

 

[steve-b]

Yes, I read the article you posted. That’s a decent summary. Again, probably not exactly the same as the Jaubert argument presented by Benedict XVI, but along the same lines, it was all an issue of different calendars.

In extension,

It looks like the discrepancy then, was not with John, and the synoptic gospels, it was between the Sadducees and Pharisees and THEIR different timelines for the Passover, and John was reporting what the Sadducee timeline was, (they were the priestly class) HERE

 

[tafan2]

One thing that Staples writes that makes no sense to me at all is the following:

However, when John wrote about Christ’s passion, he does not put the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper that the synoptic Gospel writers do. In fact, he does not mention the Lord’s Supper at all. He emphasizes the crucifixion.

It makes one want to question if Mr Staples has even read the Gospel of John. The Last Supper is covered pretty much from Chapter 13 through Chapter 17. It has been called Jrsus’s Eucharistic Prayer (iirc, a term Benedict XVI did not agree with). But 4 chapters, and he says John doesn’t mention it at all? Makes zero sense and calls the whole article into question.

 

[tafan2]

No, if you think, that the it was a Jewish meal, it partly explains an apparent discrepancy. But if you accept John’s version, which again he goes out if his way to say it wasn’t a Passover, there is a definite discrepancy between John and the Synoptics. I agree with Benedict XVI, it is explained best by Meier.