Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle
of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics
--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--
is the literal meaning of the text.
Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV, September 15, 1920)
As Jerome insisted, all biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense ...
Divino Afflante Spiritu (Pius XII, September 30, 1943)
... discern and define that sense of the biblical words which is called literal ... so that the mind of the author may be made clear. ... the exegete must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures. The definition of the literal sense: The sense which the human author directly intended and which his words convey.The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
1 Cor 11:23 I received from the Lord what I handed on to you, namely, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper, he took the cup saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." Every time then, you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes! This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first; only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself. (NAB)The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
Mk 14:22 During the meal he (Jesus) took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. "Take this," he said, "this is my body." He likewise took a cup, gave thanks and passed it to them: "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many." (NAB)The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70s.
Mt 26:26 During the meal, Jesus took bread, blessed it, and gave it to his disciples. "Take this and eat it," he said, "this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them. "All of you must drink from it," he said, "for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (NAB)Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. Luke also write in the 70s.
Lk 22:19 He (Jesus) said to them: "I have greatly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. I tell you, I will not eat again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Then taking a cup he offered a blessing in thanks and said: "Take this and divide it among you; I tell you, from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the coming reign of God." Then, taking bread and giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them saying: "This is my body to be given for you. Do this as a remembrance of me." He did the same with the cup after eating, saying as he did so, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you." (NAB)The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers wrote his Gospel in the 90s. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper.
Jo 6:22-71 ... Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. ... (NAB)Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
Jo 6:51 If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. (NAB) Jo 6:53 If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you. (NAB) Jo 6:54 He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. (NAB) Jo 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. (NAB) Jo 6:56 The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (NAB)The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Jo 6:60 After hearing his words, many of his disciples remarked, "This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?" ... From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer. (NAB)Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup.
But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
1 Cor 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread we break a sharing in the body of Christ? (NAB)The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical.
Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as a sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me"
Vatican II strongly reaffirmed the True Presence of Jesus in the
Holy Eucharist.
return to http://catholicparish.netfirms.com