“Where was the lamb at the Last Supper – a roasted lamb”? Part 2


“Where was the lamb at the Last Supper –
a roasted lamb”? Part 2***

Reviewing briefly my first post “Where was the lamb at the Last Supper – a roasted lamb”? In none of the gospel narratives is a Passover lamb (animal) mentioned during the Last Supper. Why? No Jewish Passover would have been a REAL Passover unless a REAL Passover lamb was eaten. If the protestant view is correct, and all the apostles ate was apiece of bread, then the Passover was invalid – again, bread is not lamb. If no real lamb was eaten that Thursday night, the Passover, as was just stated, would have been invalid and in violation of the requirements of Exodus 12: 14, 17, and 24. So again, if the apostles only ate a piece of bread, that means they did not eat a lamb, and therefore the Passover was invalid. Now obviously our Lord would not partaken in an invalid Passover! So the only conclusion we can draw is that Christ meant what He said – “This is my body” – He didn’t say “This isn’t my body”, and the apostles ate a real lamb – Christ. Paul confirms this in 1 Corinthians 5:7 where he states: “Christ is our Paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed…” So Jesus is the new Passover Lamb for all time, which means the bread and wine at the last supper were truly changed when Christ said the words of consecration, and the apostles, therefore, did not eat a symbol, they ate the REAL Passover Lamb – Jesus.
Paul again confirms the above events a second time in 1 Corinthians 10:16, where he says: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a partaking of the body of Christ?”

A third time Paul confirms the literal meaning of Christ words. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, He repeats our Lords words and then adds a stern warning against receiving the Eucharist unworthily - reception by a non-believer, or by a person who is in a state of serious sin. He says: “For I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the New Testament in my blood: do this as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he comes. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord * *. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord”.

“guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” – guilty of the murder of Christ.

Paul’s warning against receiving communion unworthily (reception by a non-believer, or by a person in the state of serious sin) is very significant here, because it proves that the Eucharist is truly the Body of Christ. If that were not the case and the Eucharist is just a piece of ordinary bread, just a symbol as Protestants claim, how then could someone be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” just for eating a piece of bread, eating a symbol? If the Eucharist is just a symbol, it wouldn’t matter what state a person’s soul was in, or what the person believes. If it is only a symbol, then Paul’s statement here is pointless and has no meaning. Obviously, scripture is not pointless, so the only way his statement has any meaning is if the Eucharist is truly the Body of Christ. Paul’s warning here also ties in with John 20: 19-23. So, repeating the question again, how can someone be guilty of the murder of Christ just by eating a piece of bread? They can’t.

Consider this idea. If Christ says, “This is My Body”, shouldn’t we take the Lord at his word? Both Luther and Calvin did – they believed in the Real Presence. Of far greater importance is the fact that the apostles, and all the early Church Fathers taught that the Eucharist is the real Body of Christ. I will quote just one here - St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who was Bishop of Jerusalem in the years 348-378 A.D.

“Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, might be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.)” [2 Peter 1:4] – Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]

"Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith, be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been given the Body and Blood of Christ”. – ”Catechetical
Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]

And this has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. So what is the implication of the above discourse? Simply this: Christ wishes all people to belong to His Church, the Catholic Church, which He founded. It is only in the Catholic Church that we have the fullness of Christ’s teachings, and are able to fulfill the requirements of John 6: 53-56, and 1 Cor. 5: 7-8, which, basically are one and the same. In John 6: 53-56 Christ sets fourth His final and most important requirement for salvation – the “what” that we must do. At the last supper, He shows us how the “what” is to become a reality.

God bless

Christ sent his disciples ahead to prepare for the Passover so undoubtably there was Lamb at the Passover meal. It is a “given” that the apostles would follow their tradition, culture and religious services. The wine and the bread would have been more easily understood rather than the actual flesh or blood of the lamb. Jesus was the true lamb and blood at the last supper. Why over complicate a mystery that we will never understand? My opinion only. Peace.

Dear Mary,

Scripture does not say if there was an animal type of lamb there, but we do know, from Saint Paul, that Christ is the Pascal Lamb that was sacrificed and eaten (2 Cor 5: 7-8).

The key point of this post is Paul’s warning against receiving communion unworthily (reception by a non-believer, or by a person in the state of serious sin) and the implications of that warning. It is very significant here, because it proves that the Eucharist is truly the Body of Christ. If that were not the case and the Eucharist is just a piece of ordinary bread, just a symbol as Protestants claim, how then could someone be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” just for eating a piece of bread, eating a symbol? If the Eucharist is just a symbol, it wouldn’t matter what state a person’s soul was in, or what the person believes. If it is only a symbol, then Paul’s statement here is pointless and has no meaning. Obviously, scripture is not pointless, so the only way his statement has any meaning is if the Eucharist is truly the Body of Christ. Paul’s warning here also ties in with John 20: 19-23. So, repeating the question again, how can someone be guilty of the murder of Christ just by eating a piece of bread? They can’t.

God bless

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.