HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations

 

Do the Words of Jesus at the Last Supper support Catholic notions of the bread and wine turning into Jesus?

Jesus told the disciples he wanted to eat the Passover supper with them before he would suffer.  Drinking from a cup of wine was essential.

It is felt that the Bible argues that Jesus Christ was under a Nazarite vow.  Here are the texts that are connected to the question (Matthew 2:23; Mark 1:9; Luke 1:26; John 1:45).  Even the early Christians ended being called Nazarenes.  Whatever this means it certainly means they could have been nicknamed for they would not drink wine or touch the body of a deceased person.  Numbers 6 has God laying down these rules for a Nazarite.  Vinegar, according to the rules is banned as is eating even moist grapes.  The purpose of all that is to separate yourself from those things so that you belong only to the Lord.   Whatever kind of Nazarite Jesus was, a real one or nicknamed one, it means that the last supper story with its wine is pure invention.  Jesus refused vinegar on the cross which is significant.

The gospels claim however that the last supper is not a mere concoction that Jesus had nothing to do with.

On the day before he was crucified, Jesus took bread saying, "Take and eat for this is my body." They then carry on with the normal meal. At the end Jesus takes a cup. He says, "Take this and drink for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that will be poured out for you."
 
The Church claims this was his way of saying, "This food and drink is me, Jesus." They point out that in his time, to say something was your body was the same as saying it was your whole self. I answer that it would not have been necessarily so. Also, if the people in those days meant "me" by "my body" it would mean living breathing bodies. It would not mean that anybody calling bread his body was claiming that the bread was him. The bread shows no signs of life or anything. In fact, if people meant me by body they would need to be routinely hearing of people trying to turn things into bodies without any visible physical change if we want to argue, "Jesus meant this is my body literally for that is how he would have been understood."

The oldest account of the supper is written by Paul who says the bread is the body and the cup is the new covenant in the blood but he does not call it the blood.  The idiom he uses is how we say something we love is in the blood. So the words for Paul have Jesus saying, "This cup is the new testament/covenant in my blood."  Here the cup reminds of the blood of Jesus but is not called his blood in any sense at all.

Paul never says it is wine in the cup which is significant in the light of "do not drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak".  These things do not help support later Catholic ideas of the Lord's Supper.

Did Paul write that Jesus said the bread was his body broken for those at the supper?  Some sources say yes.  Now as the New Testament and the "prophecies" of Jesus say that not a bone of the Messiah can be broken the wording is a clear indication that the broken bread is to be distinguished from the unbroken body of Jesus.

It is strange how the Church does not take Matthew 12:40 literally when it says Jesus will lie dead for three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Jesus was part of two days and one full day in the tomb. And he was not in the heart of the earth. The text shows that Jesus could sound literal and not be literal. That devastates the argument that this is my body has to be literal.  It has less hope than what Jesus said about the three days.
 
The Catholic interpretation of the last supper words do not match the faith culture of Palestine in those days.  Thus it is necessarily wrong.  Some of the Pharisees believed that the soul living in the body was the real person not the body. The Sadducees who did not believe in the soul would have thought that to say my body is the same as saying me. Neither side though was dogmatic about the issue. They were only schools of thought and debate within the one religion - Judaism. Jesus was not one of the Sadducees. It is said he was of the Pharisees. But did he really belong to the Pharisee clan? There is nothing to indicate that he had any loyalty to it if he was. There is no mention of him engaging in Pharisee activities. He was a critic of both the Sadducees and Pharisees. But that aside, his thinking was more in line with the Pharisees than the Sadducees. If so, then it is more likely that Jesus was claiming he was putting his soul which was his real self into the bread in such a way that the bread could be called his body. Just as his soul lives through his body it will live through the bread. The bread is not his actual living breathing body but becomes his new body by his soul being united with it.
 
Jesus used the bread to picture his body and the wine to picture his blood. You are not your blood so Jesus was hinting that he was not intending to give himself but his body and blood meaning its symbolic. Only a nutter would want people to eat his body and drink his blood without it being a case of them trying to eat and drink to nourish their intimacy with him. Eating the flesh of a chicken means you are eating a body but not wanting to get close to the chicken. The body you eat is not the chicken but what is left behind after life has gone. "This is my blood," rules out the notion, "This food and drink is me."
 
Catholics claim that the bread and wine of communion are both the body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. So the bread can be called the blood of Christ and the wine the body of Christ. The Church does not do this.
 
Jesus may have used the word body for flesh. People do that. "This is my flesh". Evidence for that would be way he described his body and blood as being separate. A body without the blood is dead. It is flesh. He was speaking about his blood meaning he was not on about giving his whole self. Thus the correct understanding is that body meant flesh.
 
Jesus broke the bread BEFORE saying it was his body. It would make more sense for him to say it was his body and then break it if the rite was about getting fed by the real body of Jesus.
 
Jesus speaks of the chalice of his blood being poured out. He is actually using his blood as a reminder of the wine poured out. He is really saying, "This wine is not a symbol of my blood or my blood. Like wine being poured out from a cup so my blood will be poured out for you." The wine is not the blood of Jesus or a symbol but Jesus blood is treated as a symbol or reminder of wine.
 
The cup is actually a reminder of the body of Jesus. As the wine is poured out from the cup so the blood is poured out of Jesus' body. Nobody says that the cup is the body of Jesus.
 
The Catholic Church says that only the risen body with its supernatural powers can be present in the Eucharist but this contradicts the actual words of Jesus where he denies that it is his risen body that is present. He said this is my body as it is now - normal and human. Is the Catholic Church lying? Does it intend to feed people with the ordinary body or corpse of Jesus? It can't admit that for it is morbid and occult. Jesus says the cup is his blood, the blood of the covenant, that WILL be shed. If we drink the blood that was in Jesus' veins at that moment then the whole edifice of Catholic theology collapses. It would follow that Jesus wants to be remembered as a normal man and not a risen one. He mentions that he will give his body and blood for others but that is incidental. It is only detail. It is not what the rite is about.
 
If the Lord's Supper was about focusing on Jesus' violent death by crucifixion then why did he give the bread and carry on with the supper and only bother with the cup at the end? The imagery could only be served by giving the bread as his body and then taking the cup. His behaviour shows it was thinking of him that mattered not so much the words he said or even the bread and wine. There was no magical or sacramental intent in his behaviour.
 
Christianity however has treated the Lord's Supper as a memorial of the violent death of Jesus. Suppose for the sake of argument that it was right to.
 
Those who think Jesus pictures a dead Jesus in the Supper base themselves on the following. His body and his blood are separate for the bread and wine are separate. They think Jesus said the bread and wine were his body and blood which were being given up - present tense. If so, the Catholic claim that the Last Supper and the Mass is about giving us a living union with Jesus and that we must meet the living and risen Jesus in the Mass is refuted. Jesus was not resurrected when he supposedly instituted the Mass at the Last Supper. The Church officially rejects the notion that the dead body of Jesus and his blood are given in the Mass. That would be morbid and occult. It would be cannibalism. To feed on a living Jesus filled with the power of God makes it more spiritual and about intimacy. To feed on a dead one is superstition even by Christian standards.

Just because the doctrine is officially rejected, does not mean that the Church is sincere. It is clear enough from the words used in the Mass that it intends to give the dead Jesus. The Mass never specifies that it is the living and resurrected body of Jesus that is received. The contrary is the impression given, "Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church and, recognising the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ". Here we read that we need the Holy Spirit to benefit from the Eucharist so its no good by itself for its dead meat and dead black pudding.
 
Jesus was not seen as God by his disciples at that time. Thus if they intended to eat and drink him it was intentional idolatry. It was trying to be spiritually fed by a being other than God. It contradicts the angel in the Book of Revelation who said to John do not worship me but worship God.
 
Bolt says that when Jesus spoke of the blood being the blood of the covenant he was using a traditional rabbinical expression for the blood of circumcision. "The 'blood of the covenant' was, to the rabbis, a reference to circumcision" (page 105, The Cross from a Distance, Atonement in Mark's Gospel). Jesus could say the bread was his body and the wine was his circumcision blood that will be poured out or shed. He would mean the cup contained the circumcision blood that was destined to be poured out again on a cross. The cup contains the circumcision blood. It would be missing the metaphor to argue, "But Jesus wouldn't have thought the circumcision blood could go back into his veins again!" Jesus was actually reaffirming Judaism as the only religion approved by God. The Catholic Church had no right to hijack the Lord's Supper and strip it of its Judaism.

Another meaning is possible.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 refers to God refreshing the covenant with a new one but this new one is not an altered one. It is just one that reaffirms the laws in the Torah and makes a fresh start in getting them obeyed and requiring that obedience. The New Testament depends on Bible prophecy so it has to accept that doctrine. Jesus referred to this covenant when he gave the cup to his disciples saying it was the new covenant in his blood which is the main reason why Christian communion ceremonies are invalid and unJesus for they disobey the Mosiac covenant.

Jesus words over the wine saying it is his blood of the covenant refers to a rite Moses did. Moses murdered animals as sacrifices and then sprinkled the blood over the people saying, “Behold this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has commanded you”/  The last supper is a vow to obey the Law of Moses.

The two meanings could be meant.  The current communion service of the Church is just an insult to the real meaning of Jesus' rite.  It insults him by repudiating his law.  The covenant idea is core to what the supper was about and matters more than any other issues such as, "Is the supper a sacrifice?" and "Did Jesus mean it literally when he called bread his body?"  What use is a sacrament if it is not about making a covenant or affirming one with God?

Some argue, "Compare Hebrews 9:15 which says of Jesus that he is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of his death with the text where we read that Jesus took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:20). This is my blood then actually means this is my death." Think about that.

It is said that a covenant between God and people means both sides give themselves to each other as personal beings. To make a covenant with God is to have a personal relationship with God. Catholics say it means that the person of Jesus is being given. But covenant in the Bible refers to God being the God of Israel long before Jesus came. Jesus then meant that the cup was the new union with God sealed with his shed blood. This divorces union with God from the blood. The cup is about the covenant and not the blood as such.

Why does Jesus say after blessing the cup and saying it was his blood that he will drink the wine new in the kingdom? Some think the answer is when Jesus compared the Jewish religion to old wine and said he was offering new wine. If so, Jesus was indicating that the last supper was nothing special and it was the heavenly banquet that mattered. Thus Jesus denied that the last supper really was as sacred as Catholics make it out to be.
 
The Church imagines the Last Supper was the first Mass for therein Jesus turned bread and wine into his body and blood and offered his whole self as a sacrifice to God.
 
If the Last Supper was really the Mass which the Church says is the supreme antidote of evil then how come it bore no spiritual fruits? In the next few days, all the participants at the supper will sin beyond belief and leave Jesus dying alone. Jesus spelled out a test if something is really from God, by the fruits you will know. The only way to reconcile the bad fruits with the notion that God wanted Jesus to do the Last Supper the way he did is to hold that the Last Supper was never intended to give grace or supernatural strength.
 
The communion bread and wine are worshipped by Catholics as the body and blood of God. But we read in the New Testament that Jesus emptied himself of glory by adding a new nature, human, to himself (Philippians 2). Catholics say he was God and took on an additional nature, a human nature. Catholics then are honouring what Jesus saw as a degradation, taking human flesh and blood. They degrade him.
 
The resurrection and continued life of Jesus is the heart of Christianity. The Mass undermines that. Thus it is not Christian but pseudo-Christian.
 
The words of Jesus when examined deeply refute Catholicism's Mass. The Mass has been used to exploit the people and gain illegitimate support.
 
BOOKS CONSULTED
Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Book 2, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill & Son, Dublin, 1954
Apologetics for the Pulpit, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd, London, 1950
Bolt, P. G. The Cross from a Distance (IVP, 2004)
Born-Again Catholics and the Mass, William C Standridge Independent Faith Mission, North Carolina, 1980
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
Confession of a Roman Catholic, Paul Whitcomb, TAN, Illinois, 1985
Critiques of God, Edited by Peter A Angeles (Religion and Reason Section), Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979
Eucharist, Centre of Christian Life, Rod Kissinger SJ, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1970
Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Fr Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications, Chino, 1985
Is Jesus Really Present in the Eucharist? Michael Evans, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1986
Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, Vol 2, Karl Von Hase MD, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906
Living in Christ, A Dreze SJ, Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne, 1969
Martin Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999
Radio Replies, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
Roman Catholic Claims, Charles Gore, MA, Longmans, Green & Co, London, 1894
Salvation, The Bible and Roman Catholicism, William Webster, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1990
Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zaccello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas, Dublin, 1995
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
The Mass, Sacrifice and Sacrament, William F Dunphy, CSSR, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1986
The Primitive Faith and Roman Catholic Developments, Rev John A Gregg, APCK, Dublin, 1928
The Student’s Catholic Doctrine, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London, 1961
This is My Body, This is My Blood, Bob and Penny Lord, Journeys of Faith, California, 1986
Where is that in the Bible? Patrick Madrid, Our Sunday Visitor, Indiana, 2001
Why Does God…? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls, Bucks, 1970
 
The Web
Transubstantiation, Is it a True Doctrine?
http://www.geocities.com/christian_apologist2001/  

BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:  
The Amplified Bible