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

[steve-b]

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.

I obviously can’t speak for Tim Staples.

I think Tim explained the differences well between the Sadducee and the Pharisee celebration of the Passover. We see “Blessing” in English translations, we don’t see the name “Eucharist” . We get the name Eucharist from the Greek translation, εὐχαριστήσας that we see in the synoptic gospels account of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. .

 

[tafan2]

No one denies that the Last Supper was the institution of the new Passover, the Eucharist. It has a definite Passover character. But the issue we are discussing is whether or not the Last Supper was an actual Jewish Passover meal. We don’t know that. This started because you made a historical claim about the type of bread Jesus used in instituting the Eucharist. Now, you very well may be right, and if it was a Jewish Passover meal, you almost certainly are right. But my point is, we do not know that. We have conflicting gospel accounts. And you cannot say it is just an “apparent discrepancy”. The two accounts are in conflict on this point. Staples is wrong, John does describe the Last Supper, at least Jesus’s words at it (omitting the actual institution of the Eucharist).
I will add, if everyone has always been for sure it was a Passover meal, as you claim the Church was there and has always told us so, then it would make little sense that almost all Eastern Churches do not use unleavened bread.

 

[steve-b]

No one denies that the Last Supper was the institution of the new Passover, the Eucharist. It has a definite Passover character. But the issue we are discussing is whether or not the Last Supper was an actual Jewish Passover meal. We don’t know that. This started because you made a historical claim about the type of bread Jesus used in instituting the Eucharist. Now, you very well may be right, and if it was a Jewish Passover meal, you almost certainly are right. But my point is, we do not know that. We have conflicting gospel accounts. And you cannot say it is just an “apparent discrepancy”. The two accounts are in conflict on this point. Staples is wrong, John does describe the Last Supper, at least Jesus’s words at it (omitting the actual institution of the Eucharist).
I will add, if everyone has always been for sure it was a Passover meal, as you claim the Church was there and has always told us so, then it would make little sense that almost all Eastern Churches do not use unleavened bread.

To your points, and for some reading

re: “Passover Meal”​

Short answer:

leavened vs unleavened bread, Eastern vs Western practice HERE

Longer Answer: HERE

Not all Easterners use leavened bread HERE

History of Leavened vs unleavened,​

Eastern / Western HERE scroll down to leavened and unleavened

Pasch = Passover: why unleavened HERE

To our conversation, ​

Re: Our Lord’s Last Meal, HERE

 

[tafan2]

Thanks, will review.

 

[mcq72]

Now,

Where did you get your views?

Well, in this post a bit of scripture, and some Didache and some Martyr, the Spirit bearing undertsanding, and lest I be in a vacuum, others in the body also bearing same witness.

Such an answer (to how we get a “view”) is not contary to CC teaching, though we view the body, the church, differently.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Now,

Where did you get your views?

Well, in this post a bit of scripture, and some Didache and some Martyr, the Spirit bearing undertsanding, and lest I be in a vacuum, others in the body also bearing same witness.

Such an answer (to how we get a “view”) is not contary to CC teaching, though we view the body, the church, differently.

OK

can you be more specific in what you mean by

1. “bit of scripture” you’re referring to
2. the section of the Didache you’re referring to
3. “the spirit bearing understanding”

 

[steve-b]

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.

Consider all the following

It comes from John. John actually addresses the subject we’re talking about, (Passover supper) way more than he is given credit for.
After the supper, they go into the garden

Jn 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. 11 Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?”

One has to ask, what cup is John referring to when John records what Jesus says here?

The Passover meal was a liturgy. It had a specific form to follow, And it had 4 cups.

So?

Explained here, short version 4th Cup by Scott Hahn and what He says about John’s account. Scott shows how John actually explains another aspect of the supper, which is fantastic.

AND

longer version

Scott Hahn, 4th cup, 55 min. youtube explanation it’s an outstanding explanation and a wonderful way to spend an hour.