The Universal Church

Re: the Eucharist

The point I’m making, is different.

Jesus made, a do this or else statement

Jn 6:
53…?Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and 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. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."

When did He institute this sacrament?

When Jesus ordained His apostles at the Last Supper, and gave them the power to do exactly what He did when He used the words

Lk 22: 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this ποιεῖτε in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."[c]

ποιεῖτε = make, manufacture, cause, produce, construct, change one thing into another, & ordain,

They (the apostles) are to Do exactly what JESUS DID here. That is, they are to actually Change bread and wine into His body and blood. Not a symbol, but the actual body and blood of Jesus just as Jesus did… And in this action and those words, Jesus ordained THEM, He gave His apostles the power and authority to do exactly what He did. And what Jesus did here, as He said, was to continue… i.e. as in ordination, in apostolic succession. THEY don’t do any of this on their own. Jesus does it IN THEM and Jesus does the same in all those who are validly ordained in apostolic succession.

Without this authority and ordination, THEY could NOT do this or anything supernatural…

AND

We look back on the do this or else statement of Jesus in Jn 6. We are to literally, ingest Him, not just in a spiritual way but a physical way.

And we know From Jn 6, His own disciples (not the 12) found that too hard to even listen to, and they left Him over that.

1 Like

Why do you always ignore definition b. when you give that link and definition II. that expands on it farther down the page.

poieó: to make, do

Original Word: ποιέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: poieó
Phonetic Spelling: (poy-eh’-o)
Short Definition: I do, make
Definition: (a) I make, manufacture, construct, (b) I do, act, cause.

Especially considering the translated text is “Do this” not “make this” or “construct this”. And the page you link gives definition (b) as being used in Luke 22:19?

Simply claiming that it means “to make or change” doesn’t make it so, especially considering the consensus of linguist and theologians who believe it means to do (Latinago), i. e. to follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind;

The same word is used in a lot of places in the Bible.

27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, Luke 2:27

11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Luke 3:11

Those are just two examples, out of dozens, where the word poieó has no sense of creation or change of substance. It simply means “to do” or “do some specific action”.

I have no problem equating the Lord’s Supper as being “as though” we were at the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. The Lord’s Supper is more than an intellectual assent or remembering. It is a Spiritual experience that helps us understand and appreciate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and understand our total dependence on Christ.

The Lord’s Supper wasn’t instituted to help us remember the Last Supper. It was instituted to help us remember and celebrate and give thanks for the Sacrifice of Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. All who have faith in Christ and have been renewed and born by the Spirit spiritually receive the atoning benefit of what Christ did for us on the cross. In that sense, we have who have been converted to be followers of Christ spiritually participate Christ passion. And the Lord’s Supper is a physical (outward) representation of the Spiritual reality and grace we receive by faith.

1 Like

The context of using that word ποιεῖτε is the Last supper, and it tells us how DO THIS is being used by Jesus. DO WHAT? Jesus is changing bread and wine into His body and blood. Changing one thing into another thing.

AND

Jesus is giving His apostles the authority to do exactly what He is doing here. Namely Jesus is ordaining His apostles to change bread and wine into Jesus body and blood.

AND

BTW, The Catholic Church is THERE sitting at the table.

1 Like

Strongs (that you link) disagrees with you.

The definition is

make, manufacture, construct, cause.

THAT says it all. THAT is the authority and power Jesus is giving His apostles at this moment to do exactly what He is doing. Change bread and wine into His body and blood.

What part of that are you having trouble with?

1 Like

That you are using the wrong definition.

The correct definition, according to strongs is to do (Latinago), i. e. to follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind;

changing or making something is the wrong definition in the context of the sentence. (according to Strongs).

click on the word ποιεῖτε
The definition is right under it

AND

keep scrolling down to the bottom of the page

Strong’s

to make or do

Apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct) – abide, + agree, appoint, X avenge, + band together, be, bear, + bewray, bring (forth), cast out, cause, commit, + content, continue, deal, + without any delay, (would) do(-ing), execute, exercise, fulfil, gain, give, have, hold, X journeying, keep, + lay wait, + lighten the ship, make, X mean, + none of these things move me, observe, ordain, perform, provide, + have purged, purpose, put, + raising up, X secure, shew, X shoot out, spend, take, tarry, + transgress the law, work, yield.

ALL this shows the motivation behind the action Jesus took in passing the power and authority down to His apostles for THEM to be able to do what Jesus intended for THEM to do…

1 Like

Yes, but on the right side it gives the general definitions and which scriptures correspond with the two definitions listed at the top. Luke 22:19 is listed under definition 2. Meaning that out of all those usages the folks at Strong’s consider the usage in Luke 22:19 to be:

II. to do (Latinago), i. e. to follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind;

Now you may want to argue that Strong’s is wrong and it should be under the first definition, which is

I. to make (Latineffcio),

but the fact is whenever you give that link you are actually showing the meaning of the poieó to be a more Reformed/Protestant understanding of the meaning.

I wonder how old is this " valid ordination" to do eucharist. Not sure the earliest forefathers mention this. Indeed one could say there is discussion of what communion is or is not
One could also say there is discusiion of a presider over cerrmony, even a " president," and also of a presbyter/ bishop. The context of valid ordination seems to be lacking. Yes, orthodoxy is aim but not sure of any focus on valid orders needed for “real presence”.

So i take cotton and thread and dye and and a template, and make the flag of the United States, our national symbol.

Ok so to the strawmen. 1 the accusation of a strawman arguement (which displayed above is clearly not the case). 2. the strawman of conflating “Trogon” with “Anamnesis” 3rd strawman attempting to change the discussion of tghe last supper to Hebrews through latching onto covenant instead of addressing “Anamnesis” being rathner vague in the first sentence.

However in bringing up this section of Hebrews you have inadvertantly stumbled onto something which is worthy of discussion. Hebrews is a liturgical book. Liturgy is the actualization of the faith. So lets unpack what you have written. Your first sentence tells me a lot:

To recall to make present isn’t a concentration of the here and now. I’m not sure where you read it but it certainly would not be the Orthodox or Catholic Church. They are literally the words of consecration, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. “Recall to make present” is not the sence of I recall someones name, rather to be recalled to active duty. Baptism brings us into the covenant and communion among many other things renews the covenant. Lets go onto Hebrews:

1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
2 a minister (λειτουργός-lituirgist) in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord.

A liturgist performs rites and offers the public works of worship (literally what liturgy means) and Hebrews is virtually a book of types:

19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people

Sound familiar, water, blood, hyssop, sprinkling the people? Which are a type of Christ on the cross and the ratification of the covenant. “It is finished” on the cross is “it is consummated”

1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near.

cont.
Edit: corrected with “not”

The “true form of these realities” refers to the sacraments. Heb 10: 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. and the Eucharist Heb 13: 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

Christs “coming” Parousia, happens daily. However if I am reading correctly your implication is that we are “in covenant” alludes to OSAS, which is far from true Heb 6: 4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

The most personal relationship is not one where you just talk to someone who is far away, but someone you meet in person every day who abides in you and you in Him, a symbiotic relationship.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Again, could you illucidate thru explicit scripture or earliest fathers the conferring of this specific power only to specific people ?

I mention covenant not so much due to Hebrews, but to Jesus’s own consecratory words (in the gospels, which are even more “liturgical books”) of covenant till or to His return (second coming), where we will be present with Him in His full glory, something better than any type of communion participation now.

So any presence is only vague if not the full eloquent verbiage of an Aquinas and transubstantiation, even though a better revelation gives such an appearance of much straw? Is minimum of explanation of Orthodox only partly vague?

You mean like this Ignatgius to the Smyrneans:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.

So as we know Ignatius was a disciple of John and appointed Bishop by him, So Either St. John didn’t understand Jesus or he got it right. As well one has to go no further than 1 Cor 11 to find that what you are proposing is not biblical.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

2 Likes

So short answer is you don’t believe what Jews have understood for 6000 years, Jesus and Rabbis then and now, Catholics and Orthodox for 2000 and came up with something innovative and modern. Got it. You should have just said so, it would have made your reply much shorter.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

edit: fixed formatting

Jesus isn’t a spirit to Catholics. We think and understand incarnationally. When he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven he had a glorified body. Other than that sentence it was more, to be honest, Gnostic vague-ary.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Can’t disagree with that on the surface. Where I think you guys go wrong is your either/or approach. We receive Jesus through the Word, through the initial encounter, as you say, and also through the Eucharist, continually. Jesus promised not to leave us as orphans and so he left us the Holy Spirit and Himself in the Eucharist. Ignatius clearly understood this and if he got it wrong then Christianity was derailed from the beginning.

It is a memorial of the one sacrifice.

Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist (Sacrament)

1330 … The Holy Sacrifice , because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering.

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 .

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.