Communion

[Anastasia13]

In the Reasons to Not Be a Catholic thread, I posted these about communion. While submitting to church teachings would make one not contradict these, I am ill equipped as to how to explain these to someone who does not respect church authority. Please offer some insights.

 

17. The Eucharist as it is practiced now is not the way we were taught in in the scriptures where context shows that it was Passover seder.

 

18. Jesus was a good Jew who respected God’s commandments, and thus kept Torah. He would not cause another to sin. Thus, He would not have literally given his body and blood to his disciples as that is not Kosher even by mere Biblical rather than Talmudic standards.  If He is really the living word, then it is more reasonable to believe that He was referring to Himself as the living Torah, and we have life from it just as the woman at the well was not thirsty again in a spiritual sense rather than a literal sense from the water that He gave that was not literal water.

[Papist]

It was hard for Jesus' followers to take him literally, and they were standing in front of Jesus as He told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood.  If fact, they couldn't believe Him and He had to repeat Himself more than once. And they still walked away.  I don't think Jesus was saying to eat the Torah.

[Archaeology cat]

Your second reason was a stumbling block for me at first, until I read John 6 more closely and reexamined the dietary laws. The law stated tht you couldn't consume blood because the life was in the blood. Jesus then said you must consume His blood to have life. They understood the reference and understood it to be literal, and He just became more emphatic.

[sixpence]

17. Didn't he break bread with them Again after the Resurrection?  Also, I think Catholics are only technically required to receive once a year at Easter.

 

18. Also, don't forget about Luke 6:1-11... Jesus is allowing the disciples to do something "unlawful" (picking grain) because 1. He is the bridegroom 2. He is the Word of God (and as such, whatever he says is what should be done whether or not it might conflict with the old law).

 

Edit- I just remembered that there is a book called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist which may or may not be helpful?

Edited January 18, 2013 by sixpence

[A Yearning Heart]

Yes, Jesus was a good practising Jew-he was circumcised, went to synagoges, celebrated Passover, and had great respect for the Law in often telling those he had healed to go show the priests, and claimed that He didn't come to abolish the Law, He came to fulfill it.

 

He also turned the tables over and ran the money changers out of the Temple, claiming it was His fathers house, and challenged how the Law was seen.

 

So I think this comes down to the question of whether or not Jesus had the authority to alter the Passover practise.

 

For authority

*He clarifies the Law in Matt (5:22 onwards) for things like murder, adultery, love of enemies:

"you have heard is said you shall not murder, but I say to you whoever is angry shall be liable for judgement".

 

He clarifies what marriage is: for your hardness of heart, Moses allowed you to divorce, but from the beginning it was not so.

 

He forgive sins: for instance, with the paralytic: to show you the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins...pick you your mat and go home (Matt 9:1-8)

 

So Jesus has authority.

 

As for the Passover:

-there is a lamb sacrificed

-the lamb is eaten by the people

-bread is also eaten

 

John the Baptist points at Jesus and says the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29)

St Paul tells us that Jesus is the new passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7).

Jesus tells us He is the living bread come down from heaven (Jn 6:51)

 

Now, particularly you asked about blood, and this is linked with being a Covenant in 4 of the institution narratives (1 Cor 11:25, Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24, Lk 22:15-20). What does blood as covenant mean?

 

In the covenant at Mt Sinai, mediated between God and the people by Moses, an animal was sacrificed and the blood was a sign of the covenant being made:

-‘this is the blood of the covenant’ (Ex 24:8)

So Jesus is setting up a new covenant built on the old; that of Abraham and Moses hasn't been broken, but each build on the next, with a more specific and deeper covenant given.

-the blood was considered the life force of the animal sacrificed in atonement for their sins-and given to god.

-Jesus gives us life, He is sacrificed for us, and gives Himself to us-to give us life.

 

The author of Hebrews compares the covenant of Mt Sinai with that of the one made by Jesus-and claims Him to be a new high priest and shows the inadequecies of the old: with a yearly sacrifice that needs to be reoffered and that cleanses sins outwardly but not inwardly in our consciences; and it is discussed how Jesus' sacrifice is more effective, and only offered once. However, The Day of Atonement sacrifices were not complete until the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the mercy seat IN the holy of Holies. So Jesus had to ascend to the sanctuary not made by human hands (heaven) to atone for the sins of the world. (See Heb 9:11-12, 23-24) and complete and present His sacrifice to the Father.

 

Then the question comes as to why bread and wine.

 

Melchizedek, priest and king who made an offering of bread and wine (Gen 14:18)

For you are a priest forever of the Order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4)

Link of Melchizedek priesthood and Jesus’ permanent priesthood is discussed in Heb (Chapter 7)

-offering of Jesus is bread and wine

 

The manna given by God to feed His people while they journeyed through the desert to the promised land (Deut 8:3)

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Jn 6:51)”Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (v52). Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (v 53)

...

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." (v58)

 

St Paul reiterates this meaning of it really being the Lord in 1 Cor 11 in warning them to eat first at home, discern properly the Body and blood of the Lord-or be guilty of profaning it. If it was symbolic, that warning wouldn't have been given.

 

There is a question as to why is it not symbolic like the woman at the well. At the well, when Jesus says he will give living water if she asked for it, when she did the first thing he discussed was how many hushands she had-that is, He went to discussing sins. He didn't pick up her pale and draw water from the well.  For the Last supper, Jesus took the bread, and said 'this is my body', similarly with the cup.  Combined with Jn 6, when the Jews asked for clarification about it, Jesus didn't clarifiy the discussion on their sins or anything else, but reinforced the same message as the first. Many went away after that, and even the disciples questioned it, not understanding. They didn't understand, but they stayed and believed  because 'you Lord, have the words of everlasting life'.