Latest

21 Sep 2015 Americas News No comments

Serve others, not ideologies, Pope urges Cubans at Mass in Havana

'We do not serve ideas, we serve people,' Francis tells hundreds of thousands in Revolution Square Pope Francis has told the Cuban people that love and servi…

Read more

03 Jun 2015 Articles Q&A Comments (3)

Infant Baptism: Why Does the Church Baptize Babies?

ISSUE: Why does the Catholic Church baptize infants? The Bible says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemn…

Read more

25 Jun 2016 Articles Comments (1)

Should Christians Fly the Rainbow Flag?

In the wake of the recent Orlando nightclub attack, many people, including Christians, have superimposed a rainbow flag over their social media profile pictures…

Read more

17 Sep 2015 News Vatican No comments

We want solutions, not guns – a Syrian bishop speaks out

Outside entities who drive the Syrian war – either through the selling of arms or their own political and strategic interests – must stop, and the country shoul…

Read more

02 Jun 2015 Uncategorized No comments

Syria: Muslim leaders condemn kidnapping of Fr Mourad

Muslim community leaders in Syria have condemned the kidnapping of Catholic priest Father Jacques Mourad and are seeking to establish contact with his abductors…

Read more

14 Sep 2016 Articles Comments (2)

Does the Bible predict an asteroid will strike the Earth? NASA says it is inevitable

On February 15, 2013, a previously undetected near-Earth asteroid slammed into the Earth. The object, weighing about 14,000 tons, ripped through the air at a sh…

Read more

11 Dec 2014 Q&A Comments (9)

Why did the Church ban the Divine Mercy devotion from 1959 to 1978?

Full Question Why did the Church ban the Divine Mercy devotion from 1959 to 1978? Answer Because of faulty translations from the original Polish,…

Read more

20 Dec 2014 Q&A Comments (16)

2 Kinds of Priests?

Q. 1. I am told that there are two kinds of priests. What does that mean? Ain't all priests the same? A. 1. When a reference is made to two kinds of priests,…

Read more

11 Jan 2016 Q&A Comments (1)

Does "the black pope" wield the true power in the Vatican?

Full Question I heard that the Vatican is run by an individual called "the black pope," who holds all the real power. What do you say to that? Answe…

Read more
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
«
»

Evidence Christ Offered the Last Supper as a Sacrifice

It is an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist is a sacrifice—in particular, the onesacrifice of Christ. The Council of Trent declared:

If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema (The Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, canon 4).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reaffirms Trent’s teaching: “The Eucharist is . . . a sacrifice" (CCC 1365).

The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist rests on the belief that the Last Supper was a sacrifice. Blessed Pope Paul VI, in his 1965 encyclical Mysterium Fidei, called the Last Supper the “Eucharistic sacrifice” (MF 4).

But Protestants reject this. They don’t believe the Last Supper was a sacrifice, and consequently they don’t believe the Christian celebration of the Eucharist is a sacrifice—it’s merely a memorial, they say.

Was the Last Supper a sacrifice or not? I will give five clues that suggest Jesus intended the Last Supper to be a sacrifice—and in particular his sacrifice.

Clue #1: “Blood poured out"

The first clue that screams sacrifice is Jesus’ language of his blood being poured out. The pouring of blood is reminiscent of the Old Testament atoning sacrifices. For example, Leviticus 4:7 describes how the priest was to pour the blood of the victim at the base of the altar on which the victim was offered. When Jesus speaks of pouring out his blood, we can reasonably conclude he understood the Eucharist to be an atoning sacrifice—especially when we consider how Jesus speaks of his blood being poured out for the forgiveness of sins (see Matthew 26:28).

Clue #2: “Do this"

The sacrificial nature of the Last Supper is further revealed by Jesus’ command to “do this" (Luke 22:19). The Greek reads poieite touto. In the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), the word poieo, which is the root for poieite, is translated as “offer" with regard to offering sacrifices:

  • “Now this is what you shall offer [Greek, poieseis] upon the altar: two lambs a year old day by day continually" (Exod. 29:28).
  • “Draw near to the altar, and offer [Greek, poieson] your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people" (Lev. 9:7).
  • “I will offer [Greek, poies?] to thee burnt offerings of fatlings, with the smoke of the sacrifice of rams" (Psalm 66:15).

If Jesus is commanding the apostles to poiete (offer) the Eucharist, then he intends for it to be a sacrifice.

Clue #3: “In remembrance of me"

Not only did Jesus tell the apostles to “do this," he said, “do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19; emphasis added). The Greek word for remembrance is anamnesis, which has sacrificial overtones in both the New and Old Testaments. For example, in the Septuagint, Moses tells the Israelites that their burnt offerings and peace offerings would serve as an anamn?sis (“remembrance") before God (see Numbers 10:10). The author of Hebrews sees the Old Testament sacrifices in the same light: “But in these sacrifices there is a reminder [Greek, anamn?sis] of sin year after year" (Heb. 10:3). When we consider these sacrificial overtones of anamnesis, combined with the sacrificial meaning of poiete, we have good reason to believe Luke’s use of anamn?sis suggests the Last Supper is a sacrifice.

Clue #4: “Given for you"

A fourth clue regarding the sacrificial nature of the Last Supper is Luke’s use of the Greek word didomi, which is used for “given" in Jesus’ statement “This is my body given for you" (Luke 22:19; emphasis added).

Elsewhere in the New Testament didomi is used with reference to sacrifices. For example, Luke writes, “[T]hey [Mary and Joseph] brought him [Jesus] up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord . . . and to offer [Greek, didomai] a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord" (Luke 2:24).

Mark uses didomi when he speaks of Jesus’ atoning death on the cross:“For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give [Greek, didomai]his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Knowing that didomi is a word used for sacrifice, we can add it to our evidence that suggests the sacrificial nature of the Last Supper.

Clue #5: “Blood of the covenant’"

The “blood of the covenant" found in Matthew’s Last Supper narrative is another sacrificial phrase. Moses used the same language with reference to the sacrificial victim during the ratification ceremony of the Sinaitic covenant: “Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words" (Exod. 24:8).

By using the phrase “blood of the covenant," Jesus is drawing a parallel between the Sinaitic covenant and the Last Supper. If the ratifying ceremony for the Sinaitic covenant was a sacrifice, then the Last Supper, which is the ratifying ceremony for the New Covenant, must also be a sacrifice.

Pray tell what sacrifice?

Although there are more clues that suggest the sacrificial nature of the Last Supper, I think these suffice. But now we must ask, “What sacrifice is the Last Supper?" The answer is, “It’s Christ’s sacrifice!" The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (CCC, 1365-1366).

What’s the biblical support? Notice in the Last Supper narratives Jesus speaks of his own body being given up (see Luke 22:19) and his own blood being poured out (see Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20).What’s interesting is that he doesn’t speak of his body and blood as that which will be given up and poured out. In all of the institution narratives Jesus speaks of giving his body and blood in the presenttense—“this is my body which is given for you" (Luke 22:19); “the cup which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:20; Mark 14:24; Matt. 26:28). This suggests that the bloody sacrifice Jesus was to offer on the cross the next day was mysteriously made present in an unbloody manner.

Conclusion

It’s interesting that Protestants often tout themselves as being more biblically oriented than Catholics. Yet when it comes to the sacrificial nature of the Last Supper, I think it’s the Catholic who can say his belief is more biblical than the Protestant’s.

By Karlo Broussard










wpsd_autopost:
1

16 comments

  1. Tom Rafferty Reply

    “Evidence Christ Offered the Last Supper as a Sacrifice” Really. EVIDENCE??? You ONLY quote your writings and make NO reference to secular historians, who have NEVER found sufficient evidence that there was an historical Jesus, much less that he did miracles, et al. I encourage anyone with an open mind to really evaluate the claims of your religion.

    1. Don N Abby DeLuna Reply

      You are stating this in the wrong website my friend. If you want a good response, you should troll the webiste catholic.com there you will get an answer for your questions. Or you should troll atheist websites instead and find common, like minded people. I pray that you come to an understanding of your doubts and change your seemingly logical conclusions.

  2. Peter Aiello Reply

    Hebrews 7:27 speaks of Christ “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself”. It is clear from Scripture that Christ was really sacrificed only once; so how do we reconcile this with the ongoing sacrifices of the mass. Don’t there also have to be ongoing resurrections of Christ, ongoing ascensions, and ongoing outpourings of the Holy Spirit? If not, then He and the Eucharist would be no different than the dead animals of the Old Testament, and the Jewish high priests who had to be replaced when they died, and who could not really remit sin as Christ did, only once, when He resurrected and became our heavenly High Priest (see Hebrews 7:22-27). “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1Corinthians 15:17).

  3. Peter Spasic Reply

    Hebrews 10:1, 10, 14
    Heb 10 teaches that there is no longer an ongoing yearly (weekly?daily?) sacrifice since Jesus’ sacrifice was a once-for-all offering

  4. Patrick Gannon Reply

    First we should recognize that the gospels (except John – who has no last supper, and who thereby registers a “nay” vote), all copied Paul who originated this idea. Paul was the first writer, and the others copied his words almost verbatim. However for Paul this was not a historical, personal Jesus making this sacrifice; it was a celestial Jesus making a sacrifice in heaven or the firmament. Paul knows of no historical Jesus – only a celestial god. He knows nothing of Jesus’ birth, parents, baptism, ministry, miracles, parables, disciples or sermons. He only knows of the crucifixion, and for him the only evidence he accepts is his personal visions and scripture. He presents no evidence for a historical crucifixion. The gospel writers took this and it seems they ‘historicized” Jesus turning him into a real man and applying Paul’s words to him.
    .
    In any event, if Jesus is God then he knew before he started that he would not really die, so where’s the sacrifice? If he could walk on water and turn water into wine (but not turn water into gold so he could help the poor), then surely he could turn off the pain. As scholars dig deeper and deeper into early Christian history, more and more are coming around to the idea that Jesus was not a historical person, and Paul’s writings are among those that most support this idea – plus there are other gospels and Acts that did not make it into the canon that show us Christians had significant disagreements over Jesus’ divinity, sacrifice and historicity. These texts were systematically eliminated by the Church, but a few turn up from time to time.
    .
    Besides, what good was the sacrifice? It only applies to those who believe, say and do what an organization of disordered men dressed in robes, with a manic obsession over all things pertaining to sex insist upon. The rest of us go to Hell. (Which one? There are four). The sacrifice wasn’t for all – only for those willing to listen to men who decided they were so unnatural that they should remove themselves from the human gene pool, by being celibate!
    .
    I’m not buying it.

    1. Peter Aiello Reply

      Patrick Gannon: Christ’s sacrifice benefits anyone who chooses to believe; so you are correct in saying that Christ’s sacrifice is only for those who believe. The Bible doesn’t say anything about believing in an organization.
      Having faith in Christ is having faith in Him as the living Higher Power. Jesus was both human and divine from His conception. The crucifixion had to happen to His earthly body for the Redemption to take place. Jesus knew what His fate was, and he had a human body that was going to experience death. This did not negate His divinity. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.
      We have faith in His ascended body and divinity. Paul never met Jesus when He was on the earth, but most of Jesus’ apostles “Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." (Jeremiah 6:16).and disciples were alive when Paul went to Jerusalem a couple of times and met them. The information that Paul had was not only from visions and Scripture.
      Paul’s theology is about how we relate to the ascended Jesus. This theology is necessary, otherwise Jesus would be of no use to us today as far as benefitting from His earthly sacrifice, and benefitting from His resurrected existence at the right hand of the Father.
      “Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." (Jeremiah 6:16).

    2. Peter Aiello Reply

      Patrick Gannon: My prior comment got botched up. This is the revised version.
      Christ’s sacrifice benefits anyone who chooses to believe; so you are correct in saying that Christ’s sacrifice is only for those who believe. The Bible doesn’t say anything about believing in an organization.
      Having faith in Christ is having faith in Him as the living Higher Power. Jesus was both human and divine from His conception.
      The crucifixion had to happen to His earthly body for the Redemption to take place. Jesus knew what His fate was, and he had a human body that was going to experience death. His divinity did not negate His humanity and what it had to experience. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. There had to be His earthly shedding of His blood.
      We have faith in His ascended body and divinity. Paul never met Jesus when He was on the earth, but most of Jesus’ apostles and disciples were alive when Paul went to Jerusalem a couple of times and met them. The information that Paul had was not only from visions and Scripture.
      Paul’s theology is about how we relate to the ascended Jesus. This theology is necessary, otherwise Jesus would be of no use to us today as far as benefitting from His earthly sacrifice, and benefitting from His resurrected existence at the right hand of the Father.
      “Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” (Jeremiah 6:16).

  5. Patrick Gannon Reply

    Broussard discusses the passages, “Son, your sins are forgiven.," and “Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Note that Jesus never says “I forgive your sins." He only says that God can forgive sins. He is not claiming to be God in Mark. There’s no difference in a priest proclaiming “Your sins are forgiven" in Confession. The priest isn’t claiming to be God (though many of them seem to think they are!).
    .
    An interesting point about this scene that has nothing to do with the topic, is that it confirms that Jesus believes that afflictions such as being paralyzed are the result of sin, just as Job’s buddies insisted that Job’s afflictions were the result of sins. Christianity no longer teaches this, but Jesus (if he existed) believed, as did other primitive people of his time, that sins caused things like paralysis, epilepsy, etc. He was wrong and we all know that today. If Jesus was God, why didn’t he tell the people, “This man’s condition is a result of XYZ. It has nothing to do with sins." He didn’t say that because he was ignorant like everyone else regarding the actual causes for such conditions. Remember in those days they kept disabled people out of the temple because it was a mark of their sinfulness. Discrimination against the disabled is biblical (im)morality! Jesus never preached against this. He didn’t know any more about human physiology than anyone else of the time. He didn’t even know that not washing your hands was unhealthy and that the practice could save lives. (Mark 7).
    .
    Broussard moves on to walking on water. Isn’t it true that other prophets such as Moses, Elijah and Elisha did marvelous miracles? Did that make them God? No? Then why is the ability to perform miracles proof that Jesus is God and not just another prophet? Elijah provided containers of oil and meal that never ran out. He raised a child from death. He gave us supernatural fire, and divided the river Jordan. Elisha performed similar miracles. Moses brought water from a rock. Did this make any of them God? Peter healed the paralytic Aeneas and caused Tabitha to rise from the dead in Acts. Did that make him God?
    .
    Also if you read the baptism account in Mark, it’s pretty clear that Jesus is adopted by God at that point in the form of a Spirit descending like a dove; and that he was not God to begin with. Luke suggests that Jesus was divine from his conception, and only Mark concludes that he was always divine.
    .
    The author here of course is cherry picking from Ehrman’s work. Read “How Jesus Became God" for yourself and get the whole story. Ehrman is easy to read, and easy to listen to with Audible books and his sources and arguments are far more compelling than what Karlo gives us here; and of course Karlo falls flat on his face here, in his attempt to use Mark to justify Jesus’ divinity. I guess you have to go with what you’ve got, even when you’ve got nothing, in hopes that ignorant sheeple won’t actually fact-check you.

  6. Stephen Denny Reply

    #1. John narated that Jesus has preached to whole people following Him about “My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”. John a nay voter? I don’t think so.
    They all copied Paul teaching? Again, I don’t buy that argument. Sorry.
    #2. This is about Catholic Church confession format throughout the world: http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/how-to-go-to-confession/
    #3. We cannot examine about Jesus divinity, I must admit. No arguments can prove anything about His Divinity. We only rely on the teaching of the apostles, and their successors. You are free to believe it or not to believe it. Simple as that.
    #4. Hebrews 7 and 10 teach about the imperfections of Old Testament sacrifical offering compared to Lord offering.
    Indeed, Lord had done it Only One and it is a perfect one. But our communion with Him is on and off. So, it is us who should partake His sacrificial offering day by day throughout our whole life, by joining in the non bloody sacrificial mass He has ordered in His Last Supper. The Holy Eucharist is the way Lord gave to us to partake in His One and Only sacrifice.

    I think the Catholic Church teaching is that clear for me to understand bible.
    Also, I follow the teaching that has fundamentals to people living around Him than some recent scientist speculating and claiming they know better.

    People can only prove “which is not” about Jesus.
    The bible is honest enough to describe that even His close disciples has trouble believing Him and understand Him.
    So honest that now people focus on that “hard to understand and hard to believe” teaching as foreground to cast more “hard to believe and hard to understand” speculations. Because it’s alot easier to not understand something. You just reject the explanations given to you and/or you just ask everybody else to give you more and more evidences that should suit your unsatisfying and inconsistence standard.

    1. Peter Aiello Reply

      Stephen Denny: In 1Corinthians 11:26, Saint Paul says that we proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. He doesn’t say that we reenact it. If the Eucharist is a real reenactment of the death of Christ, then there would have to be a real reenactment of the resurrection; otherwise, it would not do us any good. It would be no different than the dead animals and dead high priests of the Old Testament. “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1Corinthians 15:17). Also, without a subsequent ascension, there is no subsequent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

  7. Gail Ramplen Reply

    None so blind as those who do not want to see.

  8. Marciano Reyes Reply

    JESUS CHRIST , SON OF GOD , OUR LORD , OUR SAVIOR, said in Last Supper , ” Do This In Memory of Me !

  9. יחל הירדן בן־קרוה Reply

    John Wesley was a Protestant who believed in the Eucharistic sacrifice and he used basically the same argument as was presented here. He also believed in the Real Presence, albeit using Orthodox terminology rather than Roman. So at least this Protestant (and his true spiritual children) are oriented the same way as Roman Catholics.

  10. Peter Aiello Reply

    The Eucharist, as a sacrifice, brings up some interesting points. A sacrifice involves a dead victim. What Catholics seem to believe is that the body and blood that are received as a result of transubstantiation are the lifeless body of Christ and His blood. There would be no spirit, soul, and Divinity in His body during the three days while He was in the tomb, before His resurrection. He had descended into Hades. If this is the case, Catholics are not receiving the entire Christ during the mass.
    Without the Spirit of Christ, there is no salvation; therefore, the Eucharist, by itself, is insufficient for salvation. It is only a part of our Christian experience. This is why we need to be in the state of grace prior to participation in the Eucharist, which means that we need to have the Spirit of Christ within us before we participate. The Eucharist itself does not put us in the state of grace. How can it?
    After Jesus spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He said: “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that makes alive; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:62-63). Saint Paul says: “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1Corinthians 15:17).
    The death of Christ was a prerequisite to Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out. The Holy Spirit actualized the results of the Redemption for us.

  11. Julius Domingo Reply

    Amen..
    I am a Catholic..
    I want to know that during the holy Eucharist why is that the holy body of Christ only is given to us not both body and blood? Your answer is highly appreciated.. Thank you.. To God be the glory..

  12. Peter Aiello Reply

    If the Last Supper was really a sacrifice in the true sense, it means that the sacrifice on the cross happened at the Last Supper before the actual event in the next day. Even in an unbloody manner, transubstantiation at the Last Supper would make present the actual sacrifice of Christ before it happened. The body of Christ is the sacrificed body, which means that it is dead. This means that Christ distributed His dead body and blood to His apostles at the Last Supper before He was actually crucified on the cross.

Leave a Reply

  1. most read post
  2. Most Commented
  3. Choose Categories