Did Jesus receive His own Body and Blood at the Last Supper and how could this happen, if He did? According to Hector Molina, a CAF apologist, He may not have.
I think you misunderstood Molina. He said that St. Thomas refuted the objections to Christ holding Himself in His own Hands. Which in fact he does saying:
And hence the gloss upon Ruth 3:7, “When he had eaten and drunk”, says: ‘Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He gave to the disciples the sacrament of His body and blood.’ Hence, ‘because the children partook [Vulgate: ‘are partakers’ (Hebrews 2:14)] of His flesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.’[Summa Theologica,III, 81.1]
I would have been inclined to cite St. Augustine:
“Because there was there a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, and afterwards He of His Own Body and Blood appointed a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedek; He changed then His Countenance in the Priesthood, and sent away the kingdom of the Jews, and came to the Gentiles. What then is, “He affected”? He was full of affection. For what is so full of affection as the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, seeing our infirmity, that He might deliver us from everlasting death, underwent temporal death with such great injury and contumely? “And He drummed:” because a drum is not made, except when a skin is extended on wood; and David drummed, to signify that Christ should be crucified. But, “He drummed upon the doors of the city:” what are “the doors of the city,” but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross has opened the hearts of mortal men? “And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.” [Matthew 26:26] “And He fell down at the doors of the gate;” that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence begins the Church, and arrives at last even unto sight: that as it believes those things which it sees not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affects, and drums upon the doors of the city.” [St. Augustine, On the Psalms, 34, 1]
Protestants and reformers will use this argument to suggest that the Eucharist is symbolic because Christ could not have eaten His own body. Hence, the Apostles never understood it to be a literal ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ the Body and Blood Christ. These critics of faith forget that Christ didn’t need to be Baptized, yet he was. Baptism instills the graces of Salvation, forgives all sins, becomes a new spiritual birth and incorporates us in the Church. So we must ask why did Christ allow himself to be baptized when He is (literally) grace, never sinned and thus doesn’t need forgiveness, nor was Christ ‘born again’. But, I believe Christ did receive something in Baptism. He became member as well as founder in His own Kingdom and High Priest.
Likewise, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ ‘takes the bread to Himself’ in the traditions of Melchisedech, made gave life to the bread and wine and gave it as a gift to His Church. Once taking the bread, likewise the cup, He said ‘this is My Body’, ‘this is My Blood.’
At the Last Supper, Jesus gave the bread & wine to the apostles but it doesn’t say He ate & drank the same elements He gave to them! :shrug:
It also doesn’t say that the Apostles ate and drank of the Sacrament (Including Judas)
However, since Jesus instituted this Sacrament in His own Body and Blood, as our High Priest, it would have been necessary for Him to partake of the Sacrament Himself, and thereby ratify the Covenant and Sanctify it.
I always understood Jesus dismissed Judas…and then gave the Eucharist to the apostles.
Ambrose, to tie this in with another thread I started about transubstantiation, was it you who
once posted a link to something from St. Thomas Aquinas or someone else, that explained the philosophical terms of substance and accidents? If so, I can’t find it and hoped you could repost it.
Your version of the story is new to me… this is the best answer I was able to find: lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/10-24e.html
With that line of thought , Jesus would have had to enter into Holy Matrimony to ratify that sacrament.
I’m afraid it wasn’t me. I’m not sure who it was.
That is not explicitly said either.
In John 13 26-30 it says Judas dipped the bread in the dish with Jesus & then left. John doesn’t record Jesus’ words of Consecration like Matt. Mark & Luke, do. It can be reasoned Judas dipped the un-changed bread in the dish with Jesus & left.
We read in Luke 22:21 that Jesus makes this announcement about the betrayer after the Consecration and Dispensation of the First Communion. It is hard to assert that Judas was not at least offered Communion. But as I mentioned, it is not explicit in this regard.
Luke 22: 21 does say the hand of the betrayer is on the table with Jesus. So, if Judas did take the consecrated bread & wine, he committed a sacrilege also, since he sinned by plotting against Jesus.