Jewish Dietary Laws-The Eucharist (From Someone in RCIA)


#1

If Jews were prohibited to eat blood (thats what I’ve heard anyway), how come the apostles accepted the Eucharist so easily at the last supper? Just to let you all know : I do believe in the Real Presence, and am in RCIA (So I’m still learning)-sorry if this is offensive in any way, but this is one of my last couple of obstacles to entering the Church


#2

They didn’t accept it easily. Look at John 6 and the reactions of the various people. Look at the accounts of the Last Supper in the Gospels, and how the disciples still didn’t really understand what was going on. In the 40 days after Jesus rose again, he spent a lot of time talking to his disciples, and “breaking bread” with them, and explaining what had happened. And then, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came on them and made more things clear. And still, even after that, we see them struggling with things including the doing away of the dietary laws.

So, they didn’t accept it easily. But they did accept it.


#3

Ok that makes better sense all put together


#4

:slight_smile: Merry Christmas! Keep struggling on and asking sincere questions: there’s nothing disrespectful about that.


#5

Merry Christmas to you too! And yes I’m working on it.


#6

I would say the early Jesus movement or the early Jewish Christian communities would find our current dogma on the Eucharist foreign to them. It took hundred of years for the Church to come to clarity on the mystery of the Supper of the Lord and even then human words are limited. To this day the Eastern and Latin Churches have different teachings on when the elements of bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord. After the Council the theological emphasis was less on when the transformation happened to the bread and wine and was placed on the assembly through the Lord’s meal becoming the body of Christ through communion.

Theologically, I tend to follow the more ancient teaching that the bread and wine are transformed sometime during the Eucharistic prayer in a mysterious manner, but of more importance is that when we receive communion are we going out into the world doing the work of God. The Church has already settled the issue metaphysically on when the change happens, what is important for me as a Catholic Christian is what I do with the gift of the Lord in communion and how it impels me to do the apostolate the Lord had given to me. It really does no good to worship the elements after they have been transformed if we do not live the Christian life after we receive communion. Transubstantiation is the teaching of the Church and that is settled, but the early Christians would find it incomprehensible. What is important to know is that from the earliest times the Church believed that the bread and wine became in a mysterious manner through the prayer of the presider and the assembly the Body and Blood of Christ.


#7

God established the rules. God has the right to modify them at need.

When animals were sacrificed, God said to Moses, “Do not drink the blood.” The pagans drank the blood of their animal sacrifices to supposedly gain strength and blessings through the animals. Of course it is foolish to think that drinking a cow’s blood will make you muscular, or drinking an eagle’s blood will make you see better, or drinking a sheep’s blood will make you… whatever it is that sheep are. God wanted to establish that the Jews’ worship of him was something completely different from pagan worship.

But when Jesus was sacrificed, he was not a dumb animal incapable of conferring actual strengths on those who drank his blood. Jesus - who was truly God even though they did not yet understand - was indeed capable of conferring spiritual and physical strengths to those who ate His flesh and drank His blood.

But why the bread and wine instead of literal human flesh and blood? Well, first there already existed historical, spiritual significance around those two elements at the Passover meal. Second, He had to give Himself to them in a way that was durable and renewable, and that they could feel comfortable eating while they were still trying to sort out who and what Jesus really was. It was His choice to use bread and wine. He could just as easily have chosen cake and beer, or lamb’s meat and water, but He didn’t.

Think on it this way. If God told you that the wooden pencil in your drawer was a rosebush root, would you tell Him that was ridiculous, or would you plant it in the ground and watch for roses to bloom?

I hope this helps.


#8

I wish to just add a little to what Nan S said since that is pretty close to what I have been taught and what I teach. Adding to it is that in the bible it says that the life force comes from the blood (not the actual quote since I didn’t look for it) ie the body can’t live without blood. If you drink the blood of animals you are drinking of a being who is lower than humans (not made in the image of God)But in the Eucharist we are drinking of Christ blood (God’s blood) and therefore as in John gospel "drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Another part is the Eucharist is the new Passover meal where those who believed must (as the Jews did in the first passover) eat of the lamb to be considered part of the people of God and to be fed for the journey and also as in the old Passover these people were saved by the blood of the lamb. In the first passover they spread the lambs blood on the doorposts so that death would not claim them but in the new passover we believe and drink the blood to be saved from the spiritual death of sin. I think other might be able to say this better and I do not want to get too long but I hope you get my point.


#9

=MaeganFlinchum1;10165531]If Jews were prohibited to eat blood (thats what I've heard anyway), how come the apostles accepted the Eucharist so easily at the last supper? Just to let you all know : I do believe in the Real Presence, and am in RCIA (So I'm still learning)-sorry if this is offensive in any way, but this is one of my last couple of obstacles to entering the Church

In the book of Genesis God's first choice was that man be a vegitarian. Later is was changed to permit meat; BUT not that of sacrificed animals.

Pagans too offered up animals and even sometimes there own kids as sacrifices.

Blood was seen as a "Life sign" in the OT worship practices.They were NOT to dringk blood as some pagans did.

In the Real Presence the issue you raise was THEE primary stumbling block for those who FAILED to correctly understand what Christ was ACTAULLY and REALLY saying and doing. "This IS MY Body and This IS MY Blood" are TRue and what does take place in the Most Holy Eucharist. BUT; BUT; NOT in Christ coperal body; NO! In His soon to die and be Risen Glororified Body; Blood; Soul and Divinity.

Our Catechism:
659
"So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." Christ's body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys. ...

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:
- thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
- the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
- the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

IT IS THE RISEN AND NOW GLORIFED; NOT THE CARDINAL BODY OF CHRIST THAT WE RECEIVE IN THE EUCHARIST.

*John 6:41-42 *"[some of] The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?

and Jesus replied:[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. AND THEN: [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: **the flesh profiteth nothing. **The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

THEN Jesus explains it will be His ressurected and Glorified Body. That "normal flesh" even his; is or NO VALUE!:thumbsup:

There's very much more; but space limits:o

God Bless,
Pat/PJM here on this Forum


#10

Ok I understand your answer and thank you for it ony one question : if the Eucharist is the risen and new and glorified body then how did he offer it at the last suppe r? Thats what I dont understand. Sorry im not well : versed in the OTor many Jewish practices. Thanks for all your help this thread has been good for me.


#11

=MaeganFlinchum1;10166643]Ok I understand your answer and thank you for it ony one question : if the Eucharist is the risen and new and glorified body then how did he offer it at the last suppe r? Thats what I dont understand. Sorry im not well : versed in the OTor many Jewish practices. Thanks for all your help this thread has been good for me.

VERY GOOD:D

Because for God “Time” Does not exist. everything is “Now”; “present time.”:slight_smile:

Welcome Home!

Let me know if you have any other questions,

Merry Christmans Maegan!:smiley:


#12

You must also relalize that the passion on the cross would not mean anything unless Jesus freely offered Himself at the last Supper. It would only have been a Roman Crucifixion and nothing more but since He gave Himself freely as the offering of the new covenant at the last supper the 2 are connected. Jesus never closed the passover meal at the normal ending (the last cup of wine and the finally words “it is finished”).

There is a pretty good teaching in the Church (which makes sense) that says Jesus closed the passover meal on the Cross when he took the vinagar wine and said “it is finished”. This connection between to 2 makes the meal and the cross one in the same. Now in the Mass we eat His body and drink His blood which feeds our souls (and faith) and strengthens us spiritually with grace for our journey here on earth.

Welcome Home and yes please keep asking questions it will strengthen your faith.


#13

=Tomb54;10167000]You must also relalize that the passion on the cross would not mean anything unless Jesus freely offered Himself at the last Supper. It would only have been a Roman Crucifixion and nothing more but since He gave Himself freely as the offering of the new covenant at the last supper the 2 are connected. Jesus never closed the passover meal at the normal ending (the last cup of wine and the finally words “it is finished”).

There is a pretty good teaching in the Church (which makes sense) that says Jesus closed the passover meal on the Cross when he took the vinagar wine and said “it is finished”. This connection between to 2 makes the meal and the cross one in the same. Now in the Mass we eat His body and drink His blood which feeds our souls (and faith) and strengthens us spiritually with grace for our journey here on earth.

Welcome Home and yes please keep asking questions it will strengthen your faith.

Hi Tom,

I’m NOT SURE your completely correct. Redemption alone took place by the Cross. Salvation is GREATLY aided by the Eucharist; but unlike Baptism is not in an “absolute sense” essential. Many, many more souls ARE saved through the Eucharist; but to clain “none” would be without it; is I think an incomplete teaching.:slight_smile:

God Bless,

pat/PJM


#14

salvation is from Jesus on the Cross. Baptism and Eucharist are NECESSARY for salvation,.


#15

Pjm not sure what you are refering to as I reread my post I did not think I said someone had to partake of the Eucharist to be saved. Scott Hahn has a CD on the 4th cup and there is a presentation online at the4thcup.com that go into what I was talking about but while it shows the 2 events are connected as part of the new covenant (new passover) I do not believe I said someone had to partake of the Eucharist to be saved only that it strengthens us and without it the journey will be much harder.

Our redemption by the cross is because of Christ gave Himself freely for us (during the Last Supper this is brought out as he institutes the Eucharist).

But as Christians we must believe in Him and this belief must change our lives in such a way that we live a life in Him. As a Christian this we must believe but even here the Church will say that God can save others that He wishes. So not even this is an absolute

If you feel I am saying it in the wrong way let me know and I will try to reword it better.

No Problem I know sometimes I do not word things the best way.

Meagan the Church teaches about disposition of the soul, the desire for Baptism (even if they do not know what this is) and the desire to be in union with God (Eucharist). SO you are right but sometimes we as humans can’t tell what the inner desires are for those who are seperate from His body the Church, which is why we can’t judge who is saved or not.


#16

=Tomb54;10168415]Pjm not sure what you are refering to as I reread my post I did not think I said someone had to partake of the Eucharist to be saved. Scott Hahn has a CD on the 4th cup and there is a presentation online at the4thcup.com that go into what I was talking about but while it shows the 2 events are connected as part of the new covenant (new passover) I do not believe I said someone had to partake of the Eucharist to be saved only that it strengthens us and without it the journey will be much harder.

SORRY: this is the quote I referenced. Not yours:blush:

“Quote” salvation is from Jesus on the Cross. Baptism and Eucharist are NECESSARY for salvation," End Quote

Our redemption by the cross is because of Christ gave Himself freely for us (during the Last Supper this is brought out as he institutes the Eucharist).

But as Christians we must believe in Him and this belief must change our lives in such a way that we live a life in Him. As a Christian this we must believe but even here the Church will say that God can save others that He wishes. So not even this is an absolute

If you feel I am saying it in the wrong way let me know and I will try to reword it better.

No Problem I know sometimes I do not word things the best way.

Meagan the Church teaches about disposition of the soul, the desire for Baptism (even if they do not know what this is) and the desire to be in union with God (Eucharist). SO you are right but sometimes we as humans can’t tell what the inner desires are for those who are seperate from His body the Church, which is why we can’t judge who is saved or not.


#17

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