EUCHARIST – Fr. Manny Cruz
n EUCHARIST:
n Eucharist in The Life of the Church
The church is not a church without a Eucharist and vice-versa
This is the symbiotic relationship of the two.
n COUNCIL OF TRENT
One of the issues attached by the reformers was the Eucharist- the Holy Sacrifice
The author of the Eucharist, God is present before and after communion
Communion- the presence of God is not finished but it continues
n Vatican II Sacrosanctum Concilium #2:
The work of our redemption is accomplished in the celebration of the Eucharist. Mystery of Christ and the true nature of the church are manifested.
#10: the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life. It speaks of the Anabatic and Catabatic relationship.
God reaching out or sanctifying the people and the church praises God as a response
All activities directed to the Eucharist. (end)
n Presbeterorum Ordinis #5
The other sacraments are bound up toward the Eucharist. It contains the whole Spiritual Treasure of the Church.
Christ himself- the most living bread- here the flesh that is given life and giving life for the church.
n GIRM #1:
High point of the word that Christ accomplishes for us – the high point of church worship which man is sanctified and God is glorified.
n NATURE OF THE LAST SUPPER ACCOUNTS
1. Nature of the Last Supper Accounts
n Four NT texts report the institution of the Eucharist:
Mt 26:26-29 Mk 14:22-25
Lk 22:15-20 1 Cor 11:23 ff.
n They are regarded in all Christian Churches as the historical and theological basis for the Eucharist.
The disciples have already an understanding of the first Eucharist, which is the last supper
They are regarded in all Christian churches as the historical and theological basis for the Eucharist.
The first name is “breaking of the bread”- was used to designate the Eucharist celebration
n HOWEVER, these texts ARE NOT historical reports (in the strict sense used by historians)
n They presuppose the earliest Christian liturgy, the assembly gathered
+ in the name of Jesus and in faith in his real presence
They have already the conviction of the presence of Christ. There’s no such term as transubstantiation but they believe of the presence of Christ in the bread and wine
+ in memory of that which God accomplished in him
+ and in the experience of real community with him, with hope of a continuing communion with him (Vorgrimler, 138)
He is within us as we received him and he can not deny us as he becomes part of our system.
n They are valuable reflections of the way in which the early Churches celebrated the supper of the Lord
n Their resemblances and differences are explained by this origin.
n The very Aramaic wording of MARK can be a reproduction of the Palestinian tradition
Mark remained faithful to the Jews
n PAUL’s redaction, a bit more Greek, would reflect the tradition of the churches of Antioch or Asia Minor
Antioch- were the first people who were called Christians.
n MATTHEW undoubtedly represents the same tradition as Mark with some variants or additions which also may have a liturgical origin
n LUKE has another form of the tradition of the Hellenistic churches, making a third liturgical witness alongside Mk/Mt and 1 Cor. (cf. Xavier Leon-Dufour, Dictionary of Biblical Theology)
2. Historical Framework
n Historically, the Eucharist goes back to that last meal Jesus ate with his most intimate circle of disciples on the evening before his death
n It may be regarded as historically certain also that Jesus had at least a strong premonition of his approaching violent death
Jesus was not unconscious or ignorant of what was awaiting him after that supper
The language he used at that supper would expressed what he understood or felt of what would happen to him
What distinguished this meal from other meal was his consciousness of his very near death.
n It is scarcely disputed that it was Jesus’ expectation and interpretation of his violent death that distinguished this meal from his other meals
n Jesus couched this meal within Jewish table liturgy. He combined the breaking and giving of bread and the offering of the blessed cup with interpretive words
He interpreted the Passover meal and covenant with God at the last supper until he died
n In the actions of bread and cup Jesus conveyed the significance of his surrender to death as a prophetic sign of fulfillment, which was understood only in the light of Easter
n Jesus could have spoken words of interpretation when giving the bread: THIS IS MY BODY; for the cup: THIS CUP IS MY BLOOD FOR MANY- Jesus was owning the event and experience
n The saying over the bread, with the Aramaic word “GUFA,” would refer to the whole, historically existing person
“GUFA”- “BODY” – this does not only refer to the physical part. He is referring to whole person.- “Ito ang aking pagkatao.”
n The word over the cup “extends” the movement of Jesus’ life for others, and particularly for those who are far from God, even unto death
My blood for the many- this death will be for the many
n The presentation of gifts thus interpreted in the context of MEAL promises: that beyond Jesus’ death, community will be maintained with him, with his whole person and not only with his cause, and that the community of those who partake in the meal will be possible in view of that for which Jesus lived and died, namely, the reign of God (Vorgrimler, 138-139)
3. Historical Problem
n When did that last supper of Jesus with his disciples and consequently Jesus’ crucifixion take place? – that would be Friday after sunset
n Was that last supper really a Passover meal?
n For the SYNOPTICS, it was certainly a Passover (paschal) meal (Mt 14:12-16//)
n But according to JOHN (18:28; 19:14,31), the Passover was not celebrated until the following day (i.e., Friday evening)- Christ died just before the evening
n And so John holds that Jesus died on the Day of the Preparation, not during the Passover as maintained by the Synoptics.
n Explanations vary:
n Some place the “blame” on John who put it a day back in order to obtain the symbolism of Jesus dying at the hour of the immolation of the paschal lamb
n Some claim that the Passover that year was celebrated on Thursday and on Friday by different groups of Jews
n Some suggest that Jesus might have celebrated the Pasch on Tuesday evening following the Essene calendar
n JBC: The simplest hypothesis may be to conclude that the tradition in John’s community was that Jesus had been crucified on Friday, Nisan 14, the day before Passover
n Vorgrimler: There is no tradition of Jesus’ giving an interpretation in terms of Passover. Only later did theologians think it proper to devalue the Jewish Passover as a mere foreshadowing of the “Paschal mystery” of Jesus
The last supper can stand even without the Passover – what is important is the thinking of Jesus about his death
n According to Xavier Leon-Dufour:
n The best explanation is certainly to admit that Jesus, knowing that he would die at the very moment of the Pasch, anticipated a day
n His own last supper then called to mind the paschal rite sufficiently for him to graft upon it his own new rite which would be the paschal rite of the New Testament
Jesus was using the Passover to establish that there is something new covenant and sacrificial lamb
n This solution respects the chronology of John and gives a satisfactory account of the Synoptic presentation
4. THE ACCOUNTS
n The reports in Mark (14:22-25) and in Paul’s 1 Corinthians (11:23-26) are regarded by scholars today as ancient versions
n They are two major traditions (Markan and Pauline) independent of one another, drawn from an original version that is no longer extant
n Being more Semitic, the Markan (and Matthean) version seems closer to its roots, more literally faithful to the words pronounced by Jesus.
n Still, in its essential fidelity, Paul’s version is no less solidly attested by the tradition from which it emerges, although it does manifest a greater adaptation to the language and culture of the Greek milieu
n Especially, Paul has an order of repetition that can have been included only because it came from Jesus himself
n That order has not been adopted in Mark and Matthew, probably because in their tradition it was taken for granted: the Eucharist could be celebrated only by imitation of what Christ had done at the Last Supper
n The fact remains that, on this point, the tradition reported by Paul is more complete – more integrally faithful to the event and the words pronounced by Jesus
n However, each version shows some liturgical and redactional influences, and so NO one version can claim to be the exact formulation of Jesus
There’s already existing liturgy during the time of Paul and Mark that is why no one can claim who is more complete
n The four accounts can help us better to rediscover the authentic origin of the Eucharist. Each has a value of its own
n There is also JOHN (6:51… the bread that I will give is my flesh) which may reflect more literally a Semitic original
n Probably Jesus’ words ran something like: This is my flesh (body) and this cup is the covenant sealed by my blood (echo of Exodus 24:8)
n Jesus therefore interpreted his death as the sacrificial and atoning means by which God would restore the covenant with Israel at Sinai
Jesus saw the gathering of the Jewish people
n Even unto his death, Jesus saw his mission as the re-gathering and saving of all Israel in the final hour of its history
n Jesus also saw this supper as the last – the last in a whole series of meals he had shared with his disciples and sinners alike during his life
Meal- it is his own Passover- that all who will become part of his Passover
It was a simple meal
Jesus was always the one talking
It was during these meals that Jesus was talking about God who always be with
his people and he will never abandon them
Jesus came again to bring back the original friendship in the context of meal- especially for the outcasts- he ate meals with them
n These meals prior to the last meal “proleptically” (in anticipation) communicated God’s forgiveness and salvation
It was during these moments that Jesus was telling his stories and other teachings
As he was telling those stories, Jesus was also delivering God’s friendship
n The last meal was a pledge that, despite the apparent failure of his mission, God would vindicate Jesus even beyond death and bring him and his followers to the eschatological banquet
This friendship leads us to heaven (Vindication). His friendship is oriented to the kingdom of God
Kingdom of God is the highest plan of God in friendship
The biological fulfillment done during the meals is just a foretaste of the fulfillment after death- fulfillment happens with the GRACE of God.
It was during this meal that he related his death- his death was his most crazy story he told- a death not for death but for life.
n Hence, Jesus insisted that the disciples all share his one cup rather than drink from their own cups
All the meals happened are salvific
He used food to extend salvation to people or communicate love, salvation and compassion to the recipient
Meals are also relational
n They were to hold fast to their fellowship with Jesus as he died, so that they might share his triumph in the Kingdom
MARK (14:22-25)
n For the Last Supper, Mark drew on a very ancient liturgical formula, one whose Greek wording stands close to the Hebrew or Aramaic original. For this reason, the formula is considered to be of Palestinian origin
n From a linguistic point of view, the liturgical formula in Mark is the oldest in the NT
n But from a structural point of view, the formula reflects a later stage of development, when the Eucharist no longer included a full meal (There was no meal mentioned there)
n The formula in Mk 14:22-25 presupposes the meal has been eliminated. At one time, the bread formula was spoken at the beginning of the meal and the cup formula after the meal, as can be seen in 1 Cor 11:25 and Lk 22:20
n When Christians celebrated the Eucharist without a full meal, the two formulas were brought together and their wording was made parallel to one another
n In Mark, the words “this is my body” and “this is my blood” are perfectly parallel. In Paul, the corresponding words are far from parallel. When the formulas were separated by a full meal, there was no need to make them parallel
n Take, this is my body … (This is absent in the account of Luke)
n This invitation is absent in the accounts of Paul and Luke (but it surely corresponds to Jesus’ intent)
n The disciples are invited to share in Jesus’ sacrificial death
n Translations such as this “represents” or “symbolizes” my body fail to do justice to the realism of the words
n The universal character of the invitation harmonizes altogether particularly with the words over the cup, which declare that the blood of Christ is shed for the multitude, that is, for all human beings
Multitude-refers to humanity- this is for all and not only for the few
n Since the sacrifice of the Savior is offered for all humanity, all human beings are invited to take part in the Eucharistic meal at which Christ’s blood is given as drink
All are invited but we remember that it is an invitation for Christian initiation
n The invitation to eat, and then to drink, has the effect of calling attention to Christ’s desire to nourish believers with his body and to slake their thirst with his blood
n It is he who organizes the Eucharistic banquet, and it is he who personally invites all persons to take advantage of it
There will always be one offering and being offered and he is Jesus
Priest- preside of the rite of offering in which the offerer is present
n The invitation resembles the one addressed by the king who has set a table for the wedding of his son: “Everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet” (Mt 22:4)
n Taking the cup…
n At a Passover meal the bread would be shared toward the beginning and the cup (actually 3 cups) in the course of it
n Here the cup follows after the bread which suggests that it was not an official Passover meal
n This is my blood of the covenant, poured out for many…
n The “blood of the covenant” alludes to Exodus 24:8, where Moses seals the covenant by sprinkling the blood of sacrificial animals on Israel
Blood+life+sacrifice for others
Concomittance- bread/wine- the whole Christ is there- you can receive either of them
Double species- the usual way of receiving communion
Eating the body and blood of Christ is the most intimate that had happened in the history of salvation.
That is why it is called a sacrament of union
n Jesus is not only the one who realizes the covenant foretold by the Hebrew prophets; He IS the covenant, struck at the price of his blood
n The “poured out for many” alludes to Isaiah 53:12 (a Suffering Servant passage) and gives the action a sacrificial dimension:
n Jesus is the servant of YHWH who, as mediator of the covenant, bore the sins of “the many” (of all) and who interceded for the guilty before God
n The two OT allusions serve to characterize the death of Jesus as a sacrifice for others
n The phrase “hyper pollon” (=for many) is based on the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:12, which means FOR ALL, not just for some or for a few
n The blood, which belongs to the Son of God, obtains, through its spilling, and more specifically through the generous love inspiring the offering, the salvation of the “multitude” – of the whole of humanity
n Besides the efficacy of the sacrifice for all human beings, there is also an efficacy of the meal for those who share in the Eucharist
n To drink the blood of Christ means to enter into the mystery of the redemptive sacrifice, through a most intimate union with the Savior
n ...until I drink it again in the Kingdom of God
This is the eschatological part
n This conclusion places the Last Supper in the context of the messianic banquet
n Rather than seeing the Last Supper (and the Eucharist) as an isolated event, it is important to connect it with Jesus’ earlier meals with tax collectors and sinners (cf. Mk 2:16) and to the future eschatological banquet
n The eschatological point of view (Mk 14:25; Mt 26:29; Lk 22:18), even if it does not go back to Jesus himself, bears the mark of his spirit; it reflects the certainty of Jesus’ conviction about the realization of the reign of God, and it reveals the confidence with which Jesus, as a just Jew, went to his death, in the firm faith that YHWH would not abandon those who are faithful (Vorgrimler, 140) (“Walang Iwanan”)
MATTHEW (26:26-29)
n Matthew’s report is completely dependent on Mark
n Matthew adds the command to “eat” (v.26) and to “drink” (v.27), strengthening the authority of Jesus and the impression of a liturgical rite
n …poured out for the forgiveness of sins
n Matthew adds this phrase derived remotely from Leviticus 17:11 (rules for sacrifice), to relate the eucharistic rite to the impending death on the cross, as of atoning saving significance (cf. Exo 24:8; Jer 31:31-34)
n Matthew denies this significance to John’s baptism in 3:2 (unlike Mk 1:4), in order to attach it to the cross and the Eucharist
n It is certain that the sacrifice of Calvary was intended to communicate abundant life (Jn 10:10-11) by securing the remission of sins
n The words reported by Matthew express an essential truth: the victory won by Christ over the forces of evil
n These words recall that the world is a sinful world, but one that has been saved
n Every Eucharist is stronger than all of the evil of the world
n Those who would be inclined to be impressed, indeed discouraged, by the manifestations of evil in the universe find in the Eucharist a response to their feelings of sorrow
n The Eucharist renews the Savior’s definitive victory over all the forces of evil and communicates, in abundance, a life of love whose bestowal is accompanied by the remission of sins
PAUL (1 COR 11:23-26)
n Chronologically, the testimonial of Paul is the most ancient (ca. 56-57); older than that of the gospels
n Antiquity aside, it must be noted that Paul indicates Jesus himself as origin of the tradition reported to him (I received from the Lord…), for the sake of a powerful emphasis on the indubitable authenticity of the truth being transmitted
Paul is not the source himself but Christ
n From this fact, based on the secure witness of tradition, Paul deduces a conclusion regarding the essential meaning of the Eucharist: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (v.26)
Paul is telling that he is not citing something that it did not come from the Lord
It is not remembering alone the Lord’s Day, but rather, to “proclaim”
n The circumstances of the meal (taking place on the night he was betrayed) + meaning of the words referring to the body offered for the disciples and the blood poured out in the new covenant shed light on the magnitude of a meal whose purpose was to proclaim Christ’s death, with a view to his coming in glory
We include o remember the circumstances when Christ was betrayed
Jesus was captured without any valid reason
The meaning of the words… to proclaim Christ’s death (his blood put zeal to his new covenant)
n Undoubtedly, Paul and the addressees of his letter share a belief in a real, “sacramental” presence of Jesus (Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord – v.27)
There were Eucharist happening during the time of Paul
The wine and bread they were eating were not just symbols
They have belief already in the transubstantiation
They believe that those were “real symbols”- only they could not explain
Real Symbol- not just a mere representation of a reality which is absent rather, it carries with it the “Real Presence”
The physical symbol is the vehicle for expressing the real presence that it symbolizes
The bread and wine express the real presence they signify
n The recipients of the letter evidently had a well-developed understanding of sacrament, BUT had forgotten that the Eucharistic meal involved a personal encounter with the Crucified, which presupposed and resulted in a companionable attitude in solidarity with others (Vorgrimler, 140)
The bread you received is not just bread
Therefore, the worthiness of receiving of the Eucharist is clear to the recipient that they are aware and believe that they will receive and encounter Christ
n Even though the ritual words were said, the lack of love meant in reality there was NO Eucharist
It is a betrayal against the meaning of the Eucharist when people don’t understand the sacrament
n Sacraments of the church work on EX OPERE OPERATO and EX OPERE OPERANTIS
EX OPERE OPERATO- Matter- proper materials to be used
Form- pronunciations of the words
EX OPERE OPERANTIS- accompanies the ex opera operato
This refers to the disposition of the presider as well as the recipients
n Paul’s account, closest to that of Luke, is not so much an eyewitness’ report as a quotation of a liturgical recitation of what the Lord did at the Last Supper, even with its directive rubric: Do this in memory of me (vv 24-25)
n In contrast to Luke (who mentions “anamnesis” only apropos of the bread), Paul also has an exhortation (for which he may be responsible) apropos of the cup
n Paul uses the word “memorial” (“anamnesis”) in order to point out that in this meal the event of the cross is made present, so that those who eat and drink may participate in it
Actively present- it’s not an ordinary remembrance
It is a means of bringing the past to the present
We make the past functional/operative/alive again here and now
n The immediate effect of the event of the cross is, according to the word over the cup, the NEW COVENANT in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah (31:31-34)
To make the past present, we make the past salvific that’s why every celebration is salvific
n The liturgy makes this covenant present, whenever it is celebrated, and thus keeps before our eyes the fact that God expects of the partners a particular ethical standard of behavior
Therefore the celebration must transform the participants of the celebration
n In this memorial-that-makes-present, the participants (if they celebrate the Eucharist “worthily” – v.26) proclaim “the death of the Lord until he comes”
LUKE (22:14-20)
n Luke’s version coincides with that of Paul, but with more stress on the intention of sacrifice.
n In the consecration of the bread, Paul’s brief formula: “This is my body that is for you,” is replaced by “This is my body, which is given for you.” In the sacrifice offered for the multitude, it is important to recognize the generosity of the gift, and this is what the Lukan text does: the body is “given,” first and foremost, not as food, but as a gift for the benefit of all
n In the same way, in the consecration of the cup, while Paul limits himself to defining it as “the new covenant in my blood,” Luke adds: “poured out for you”
n He makes this addition at the price of a difficult grammatical agreement, a sign that he was very concerned to complete a Pauline formula that he regarded as too brief
n The blood is poured out for the multitude, and therefore for the participants in the supper, just as the body is given for them
n I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer…
n The sequence of a first century Palestinian Passover meal will help illumine the complex sequence of vv. 15-20:
1. Berakah over the first ( unmixed) cup of wine
2. Guests wash hands in silence
3. Head of the family dips the bitter herbs (parsley) in vinegar (or salt water)
4. From the 3 matzoth set before him, the head of the family breaks the middle one and puts half aside to be eaten after supper
5. Berakah over broken matzoth
6. Second cup of wine is filled
7. The youngest present asks the 4 questions as to why this night is different from all others
8. The answer (Haggadah) is recounted
9. The head explains the matzoth, the bitter herbs, sings the first part of the Hallel psalms (113-114), raises the second cup of wine and says a blessing
10. All drink the wine
11. Guests wash their hands again while another blessing is said
12. The head says two blessings over the matzoth, which are eaten
13. The bitter herbs are dipped in haroseth (mixture of nuts, fruit and wine) and are eaten, with a blessing
14. The festive meal begins
15. After the meal, the reserved half of matzoth is distributed and eaten
16. The third cup of wine is poured, a prayer of thanksgiving said, and the wine is drunk
17. The fourth cup of wine is poured and drunk with a blessing
18. The rest of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118) and hymns are sung
19. Prayer for acceptance
n The above sequence can illumine vv 15-20 thus:
- vv 15-16 refer to the entire Passover meal about to take place
- vv 17-18 to the first (or second cup)
- v 19 refers to the bread (matzoth) with which the Passover meal proper begins
- v 20 refers to the cup of blessing after the meal
n Vv 15-18 are Jesus’ interpretation of the Passover in terms of God’s eschatological banquet
n Vv 19-20 are Jesus’ re-interpretation of the Passover in terms of the salvific meaning of his death, which inaugurates the new covenant
Eschatological theme- the parallelism of the covenant and paschal meal which are oriented to the Kingdom of God
n Take this…(vv 17-18)…Until his dying breath Jesus continues to feed his disciples; this (first/second) cup is a pledge that they will share life with him at the eschatological banquet
n He took bread (v 19)…In the Passover liturgy, the head of the house takes the bread for distribution as a symbol of how he provides for his own.
The head of the house is the one who takes the bread and distributes it because it symbolizes God who provides
n Jesus now provides not bread but himself for his own. This is the meaning of the Greek soma (= Aramaic gufa), which does not mean the mere human body, but one’s entire life, the whole human being
Gufa- sustains the whole life
n Do this in memory of me (v 19 – connected with the bread)…If one views this meal in a sequence of meals with sinners, then the word “this” should not be limited to mere repetition of Jesus’ words.
Not only repeating or actualizing what has been said in the paschal meal
Jesus understood this in view of his death which is and act of giving of himself for the multitude
n As Jesus has given up his entire life for others and has symbolized that by sharing meals with them, so too must disciples give their lives in service to others
n new covenant in my blood (v 20) …Allusions to Exodus 24:3-8; Jeremiah 31:31 are at hand as Jesus establishes a new bond between God and people
The life of the people can be Eucharistic itself
Every time your die to yourself for other is a celebration of the Eucharist
Mass- merely offering or presiding the celebration
Eucharist- includes the disposition of the person
n This covenant or bond has been created by Jesus’ life, now symbolized by his BLOOD poured out to save people
BLOOD- means life in the OT. It is connected with covenant
n The dying Jesus has bequeathed to his community of reconstituted Israel the Eucharist to replace the Passover meal
n The Eucharist will be an earthly repast, in which the heavenly food will be given to human beings for the development of a Kingdom that is to spread throughout the world and prepare the initiation of definitive joy
* Xavier Leon-Dufour on Luke
n X. Leon-Dufour has made an important contribution with his study of the Lukan account
n In the earliest Christian communities there was a two-fold response to the question: How could a genuine and effective memorial of Jesus, who has entered into death, be maintained? How could a personal union with the living but “absent” Jesus be possible?
n One answer is reflected in cultic tradition, the other is echoed in testamentary tradition. These two are not mutually exclusive
n The CULTIC tradition (which might better be called “liturgical” tradition) concentrates on the new manner of Jesus’ presence and the event of the cross; the group of disciples became the community assembled around Jesus at a liturgical meal
The Eucharist is celebrated with matter and form. It’s a liturgical tradition
n This liturgical concentration is found in the Last Supper accounts of Mark and Matthew
Celebrating the Eucharist with love. There’s the distinction between valid and real celebration
Valid- considers only the matter, form, rites, etc.
Real- proper inner disposition of both the preciders and recipients. There should be love
Once one is missing, the fruitfulness of the =sacrament is ineffective
Ecclesia Supplet- the church provides- applies when the Eucharist offered is not valid
because of the mistake committed by the priest
n The TESTAMENTARY tradition, in contrast, places the emphasis on the “testament” (bequest, legacy, will) that the departed left behind
n Leon-Dufour finds examples of this tradition existing in the literary genre of Jesus’ farewell speeches found in the Gospel of John
John: no last supper account but he has the washing of the feet
Do This- we remember Jesus when we serve each other
The deeper way of remembering Christ is by giving ourselves to others
n Luke incorporates the liturgical tradition (presence of Jesus in 22:19 and his death in 22:20) within a farewell speech, and thus he gives the whole a testamentary form (extending from 22:15 to 22:38)
n Luke is concerned to emphasize that the institution of the sacramental action is not the whole of Jesus’ testament, which also includes:
+ the urgent admonition to service in thought and deed (22:24-30)
+ the urgent admonition to watchfulness in times of peril (22:31-38)
+ the urgent admonition to expectation of the completion of the meal in the reign of God (22:15-16)
n Thus Luke reminded the Christians of his time of that which was essential for Jesus – namely that their relationship with God was not to consist wholly in liturgical devotion
“Consist wholly in liturgical celebration”- implies attending mass and doing the meaning of Eucharist. Liturgical aspect and practical aspect of the sacrament.
5. COMMON STRUCTURE
n Despite the duality of traditions (Pauline and Markan), the same structure marks all the accounts; all show the same sequence of 4 verbs, the last of which is not found in 1 Corinthians and Luke, although it is implicit in the context:
1. Jesus took bread, then a cup of wine
2. He gave thanks, or pronounced the blessing
3. He broke the bread
4. He gave the bread and the cup to his disciples
n The words: “This is my body…my blood” are connected with the last of these actions, but it is important to situate them in the context provided by all four (verbs)
n The stereotyped character of the composition, in which the same key words recur in the various redactions, suggests that the writers were repeating a memorized text, namely the one they were familiar with from the Eucharistic celebration
n The same key words serve as clues in other NT passages, disclosing a reference to the Last Supper: e.g., the multiplication of the loaves and fish (Mt 14: 18-21; 15: 32-38; Mk 6: 31-44; 8: 1-10; Lk 9: 12-17; Jn 6: 1-10), where the narrative follows the same pattern: He took the bread… he gave thanks.. He broke… he gave
n Furthermore, the same sequence of four verbs determine the course of the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the second part of the Mass):
1. the Presentation of the gifts (in which the offerings are “taken” and laid on the table)
2. the Eucharistic Prayer into which the account of institution is set as a component part
3. the Breaking of the consecrated bread (during Agnus Dei)
4. The Communion rite
n In addition, some of the verbs have been used to the give the entire rite its name
n Thus the rite has been called the “Eucharist” ever since at least the end of the 1st century; yet “thanksgiving” is only one element in the celebration
n The same holds for “the breaking of the bread” (he klasis tou artou), which occurs in the Acts of the Apostles
n Paul uses a more inclusive term, “the Lord’s Supper,” although he also says: “The bread which we break, is it not a participation (or communion) in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16)
6. OTHER NT TEXTS
n The experience of the living and present Jesus is also reflected in the stories about table fellowship with the One whom God raised from the dead:
Luke 24:13-35 (The appearance on the road to Emmaus)
John 21:1-14 (The appearance to the seven disciples in Galilee)
n These encounters at table have the function of “opening up” the Easter experience (JUST as Jesus’ meals with outcasts and public sinners had been evidence of God’s will to forgive and bestow mercy SO the post-Easter experiences made it possible to understand God’s mighty deeds in and for Jesus more and more profoundly)
n They gave disciples the COURAGE to be witnesses (cf. Emmaus story).
Christ was not recognized immediately because he was transformed
Pneumatic Existence- a spirit-filled existence which the eyes could completely recognize
This is the function of those at table fellowships
He was recognized because of the scarce in his hands
n Why is the Gospel of JOHN silent about the institution of the Eucharist?
n The reason is found in the intention of JOHN, who sought to complete the information given by the other Gospels and Paul and who considered the words and deeds with which Jesus had instituted the Eucharistic rite to have been amply attested by them. Besides, this was altogether familiar rite, as it continued to be reproduced in the Christian communities
n The Gospel of JOHN contains two essential additions to the NT teachings on the institution of the Eucharist:
n FIRST, John reports the first proclamation of the Eucharist in the synagogue at Capernaum after the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves.
He did not exclude himself in proclaiming the meaning of the last supper
+ That Jesus took the loaves and “gave thanks” (Jn 6:11) suggests the prayer as the origin of the name “Eucharist”
+ In revealing the meaning of the miracle (Jn 6:26-28), Jesus manifests his intent to give his body as food and his blood as drink – a very decided intention in view of the fact that he declares the necessity of this meal if one is to have eternal life
+ In defining that he is the “bread of life” come down from heaven, Jesus underscores the relationship between the Eucharist and the Incarnation (vs Docetism)
+ Jesus specifies that his body and blood would be given in their glorious state, in which they would be crowned with the life of the Spirit (Jn 6:61-63); thus he sheds light on the essential meaning of the Eucharistic meal
+ Jesus points to the sacrificial element of the meal on the basis of the words: “The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (Jn 6:51); more or less the equivalent of “This is my body, which is given for you”
n SECOND, John’s Gospel transmits key actions and words of the Last Supper. It recounts the washing of the feet and the words spoken by Jesus by way of commentary on the Eucharistic meal
Testamentation- “I am giving you an example to follow”
+ Taking his starting point in the Eucharist, Jesus expounds, more amply than he had before, the most essential points of his doctrine, such as the new commandment of love
+ The prayer with which this teaching closes sheds light on the thrust of the offering and thanksgiving that characterize the Eucharist (Jn 17:1-26)
n INDEED, John is the evangelist who best shows the Eucharist as a mystery of the divine eternity permeating the human condition
n As early as the prologue, John has presented the Word made flesh. This flesh, assumed for a human life like our own, is the flesh given in the food of the Eucharist.
n In the discourse of interpretation of the multiplication of the loaves, John emphasizes the eternity of the life communicated by the Eucharist.
n After all, the one who eats the flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his blood “has eternal life” (see Jn 6:54). It is a matter of flesh in its glorious state, flesh that is given life by the Spirit.
n This does not mean that John forgets the intrinsic value of human life. The Son of Man is a divine personage who has taken human nature, and the Eucharistic flesh, while animated by the life-giving Spirit, remains a flesh that is authentically human.
Historical life is not the only significant for man- life with God
n The historical deed of the institution is not absolutely overshadowed: John’s Gospel is the one that gives us the most complete experience of what occurred at the Last Supper. It furnishes us with a better grasp of the sentiments of Christ as the moment of the institution of the Eucharist.
n In the drama of Judas’ betrayal, it is JOHN who reveals to us how wounded Jesus was by that disloyalty, a disloyalty consummated in the moment of the Eucharistic meal.
It is for intimacy with God- this is what Jesus offers- Friendship
Judas- represents us all – Jesus showed us here the desire of God for us to be with us
n In the dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, we observe that the Eucharist had transmitted the most intense relations of intimacy and serene trust.
n We have need of a historical confirmation of the institution of the Eucharist, but we also have need of going as deeply as possible into the mystery. And JOHN helps us to do so!
No comments:
Post a Comment