Another last supper question

As Jesus broke the bread and shared it with his disciples , he transubstantiated(?) it ,the bread and wine still look as what it is but the interior substance and reality has changed.
Likewise the priest does the exact same thing as what Jesus did on the night of his supper.
1)Did i get the Jesus part correct? It seems straightforward that the disciples were not grossed out just as we have the eucharist every sunday.

2)How has the doctrine of transubstantiation changed the way we think of the eucharist in contrast to the early church ?

3)was the doctrine from Aquinas?

4)Lk 22:18 , when was the next occasion he drank wine?

This requires a small cash course in Aristotelian Metaphysics. Essentially, Aristotle posited that things have substance and accidents. The substance is what a thing is, its underlying nature. The accidents are how that thing is expressed.

My favorite example to try to explain this is a chair. We know what the nature of a chair is, a surface used for sitting, but just in my house I can count about six different kinds of chairs. Each of those types of chairs would be an 'accident" of the “substance” of chair. This isn’t a perfect example, but I hope it gets the point across.

What Jesus did at the last supper, and what the priest does every day during the mass, is change the substance of the bread and wine to the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, while allowing the accidents of bread and wine to remain intact. Hence, what we are consuming truly is our Lord, but under the accidents of bread and wine.

It hasn’t. You can see even in the Acts of the Apostles and other NT books that the Apostles had a clear understanding of the true nature of the Eucharist. “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.” (1 cor 11:27) We have given technical terminology to what was then only understanding, but nothing about the doctrine itself has changed.

We also have letters from various contemporary officials (Roman and Jewish sources, I believe) which accuse the followers of Jesus of cannibalism, explicitly in relation to the Eucharist. An excellent book that has examples of this is Hostile Witnesses. That book is an excellent read, I highly recommend it.

I believe the word might have been, but I am unsure. As I’ve shown though, the understanding of the transubstantiation has been present since the beginning.

He has not again drunk wine so far as we’re aware. It is likely that this was an allusion to the general resurrection at the end of time, where the saved will once again be able to partake of the perfected worldly goods in the new creation.

Hello there! Thank you for this post and recommendation , i ordered “hostile witnesses”.

1 Like

I have one more question . It was at the last supper that all the apostles became priests and given the ability to consecrate bread and wine?

That is when they received the command, and no command is given without the ability and authority to carry it out.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit