The Last Supper
Can someone suggest a comprehensive Catholic article in which I could post in a thread that can serve as a prudent response to this inquiry from a non-Catholic (he is a Church of God International member):
> > MAHIGIT 20 YEARS DIN AKONG SINUBUAN NG HOSTIA NG MGA PARING KATOLIKO,> PERO NI MINSAN HINDI AKO PINAINOM. EH YUNG SA PARI ANG LAKI PA TAPOS> SIYA LANG UMINOM. SA BIBLIA PALA NUNG PINAKAING NI CRISTO YUNG MGA> ALAGAD, PINAINOM DIN NIYA. BAKIT SA IGLESIA KATOLIKA HINDI GANUN?> >
I don't want kasi to create an impression that I am trying to debate him, unlike the other Catholics there. Another is I want to show to this person that we Catholics has an empirical, scientific and educative answer to every questions raise to us, and not relying on those "pamimilipit" and "pangbabara" style in which I think will not help.
Ave Maria!
Raffy
***
Raffy please tell that friend that during the Last Supper the Celebrant was the One and Only High Priest of the New Covenant, THE LORD JESUS. And those who received the Bread and the Wine were the first Ministerial Bishops and Priests of the Church, THE APOSTLES. The Bread and the Wine were given ONLY TO THE APOSTLES AND NOT TO LAY MEMBERS. Mary the Mother of Jesus, Lazarus, Joseph of Arimatea, Mary and Martha of Bethany and the rest were not given the Chalice to drink.
In 1 CORINTHIANS 11:27 St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians who were mostly lay declared: "Therefore, whoever eat this bread OR drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." For the non-ordained it is either the Bread OR the Wine and to receive one is to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord and to sin against one is to sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord.
That is why one of the Biblical term for the Eucharist in the Bible is THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD because most of the faithful receives only the BREAD.
WHY IS IT THAT THE BREAD OF THE PRIEST IS BIGGER THAN THE FAITHFUL? Because it is intended to be elevated to be SEEN AND BE ADORED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL PRESENT. It has a special purpose, that is communitarian worship while the bread for the faithful is for individual need primarily.
Hope this will help.
Fr. Abe, CRS
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
Dear Father,
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would like to agree with your statement Father, I do not see the point when the Easter Orthodox Christians or even the Uniates (Greek Catholics) able to provide body and blood (wine and bread) to the faithful... I have seen it many times over the television and internet... Please advise.
Mike of Makati
Dear Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church does not prohibit the reception of The Consecrated Wine to the faithful. In fact, there are occasions such as weddings and other special events that the Sacred Host and Wine are being given to lay people. Also, the practice of the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox are univerasal knowledge.
What I am pointing out in this post in response to the polemic attack of an Ang Dating Daan member of Eli Soriano is that Biblically it is not obligatory for the Church to offer the Consecrated Blood of the Lord to the Lay faithful.
THE CHURCH CAN GIVE IT BUT NOT NECESSISTATED, OBLIGED TO GIVE IT. IT IS NOT IMMPERATIVE. Because to receive just one species is to receive the entire Christ. Demanding to receive both species gives a distorted concept that what we received is incomplete. Which is not true of course because as our priests declare before Holy Communion by raising the broken Body of the Lord: "THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD...". The Lamb of God with His Body, Soul, Divinity is present in the host.
Then, why do the Eastern Rites Catholics receive both and we, Roman Catholics, do not? Because it is not in our Christian tradition. Historically, the Apostles and the early Bishops from whom the Roman Rite originated didn't teach us that and therefore it didn't become part of our 'Rite' or of our Worship. The reception of the Body of the Lord alone suffices for Roman Christians and all those whose form of worship follows the Church of Rome.
On the other hand, the Apostles who went to the East and the early Bishops from the area propagated the practice of receiving Holy Communion in both species. But both Masses are equally valid and apostolic in origin.
Some other differences is that: The Eastern CAtholics uses LEAVENED BREAD while the Roman Catholics uses UNLEAVENED BREAD. Check in the Bible who is more Biblical. The Last Supper of Jesus is also a Passover Feast, the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. Jesus used Unleavened Bread. Also, the Eastern Catholics have their consecration covered in a veil or iconotastasis while the Roman Catholics' consecration is in full view of the faithful.
Now, which do you prefer? Both are ancient, both are valid, both are apostolic in origin.
On my part, the Roman Rite is more Biblical on these issues [not that the Eastern Rites are not Biblical].
Another point is practicality.
The Roman Catholics is more than 1 Billion people. Giving both species to long lines of communicants will make our Mass longer and impractical. The Easterns are not that many because their geographical territory are mostly dominated by Islam. When you are few, some practices are ideals but when confronted by different situations the Church must address the situations on practical level as well.
Thank you once again Mike and I hope this will help.
Dear Father,
ReplyDeleteWith due respect, I disagree with your statement that the Roman way of giving holy communion in one species is more biblical than the other practice being done by Eastern Orthodox Christians or even by those Uniates.
I agree with your statement somehow that it is not necessitated nor obliged to give Holy Communion on both kinds if that is the practice according to Roman Rite. Though there is a contradiction with your statement that both practices are valid and apostolic in origin when you say at the latter part that the Roman way of giving holy communion is more biblical. What about of what say St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:28 that "and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup" which we know pertains to the Holy communion.
Also, you mentioned that because the Roman Catholics count as 1 billion worldwide and it is impractical to give communion in both kinds and that Eastern Orthodox Christians or Orthodox Catholics are few and limited to Muslim area, which made them possible to give communion in both species. have you been to Greece Father? or in Russia? have you attended Orthodox services in traditional Orthodox countries such as Romania, Siberia, Serbia, Russia, Greece etc.? I have not been there but numerous videos and photograhs show how people received holy communion in body and blood amids thousands of attendees in their Cathedrals.
Second, the mere fact that Rome uses leavened bread against the unleavend bread (wafer), which is a Jewish tradition and reason why our Lord and His apostles uses leaven bread at that time because they are all Jewish by birth and by practice, proved that it was the practice of the early Christians and not to mentioned that Christianity started in Jerusalem and there were already Christians in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople before Christianity began in Rome. Perhaps Father, you should understand the theological value of using leavened bread for the early Christians...
Nonetheless, thank you for your time in answering my question.
Mike of Makati (St. Andrew the Apostle Parish Church)
Dear Mike,
ReplyDeleteMY USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS IN THIS POST IS NOT TO SHOUT AT YOU BUT TO STRESS MY POINT AND TO DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM YOUR TEXT.
LET ME CLARIFY FURTHER.
With due respect, I disagree with your statement that the Roman way of giving holy communion in one species is more biblical than the other practice being done by Eastern Orthodox Christians or even by those Uniates.
THANK YOU FOR THAT DUE RESPECT.
I agree with your statement somehow that it is not necessitated nor obliged to give Holy Communion on both kinds if that is the practice according to Roman Rite. Though there is a contradiction with your statement that both practices are valid and apostolic in origin when you say at the latter part that the Roman way of giving holy communion is more biblical.
WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION THERE. I SAID THAT THEY ARE BOTH VALID BUT I DIDN'T SAY LATER THAT THE EASTERN RITE IS INVALID. I SAID THAT THEY ARE BOTH BIBLICAL BUT I DIDN'T SAY THAT THE EASTERN RITE IS UNBIBLICAL. I SIMPLY SAY THAT THE ROMAN RITE IS MORE BIBLICAL. WELL, THAT IS HOW IT APPEARS TO ME. WHICH IS MORE BIBLICAL BETWEEN THE TWO IS A MATTER THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE DOGMA OF FAITH. YOU ARE FREE TO ACCEPT IT OR NOT. I RESPECT YOUR DISAGREEMENT ON THAT.
What about of what say St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:28 that "and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup" which we know pertains to the Holy communion.
THE ORIGINAL GREEK DOESN'T STATE "Whoever eats this bread AND drink this cup". Instead, it states "OR". THAT IS WHY I USED IT AS AN ARGUMENT THAT THE RECIPIENT OF ONE SPECIES ALONE IS RECEIVING THE FULL CHRIST. I GOT THAT FROM A BIBLE SCHOLAR WHO DEBATED A PROTESTANT ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. AND WHEN I CHECKED THE GREEK BIBLE IT IS INDEED 'he' [or] and not 'kai' [and].
I JUST CHECK MY NEW AMERICAN BIBLE FOR 1 COR 11: 27 AND IT IS WRITTEN 'OR'. IN THE JERUSALEM BIBLE IT IS ALSO WRITTEN 'OR'. IN REVISED STANDARD VERSION IT IS ALSO CORRECTLY TRANSLATED 'OR'.
Also, you mentioned that because the Roman Catholics count as 1 billion worldwide and it is impractical to give communion in both kinds and that Eastern Orthodox Christians or Orthodox Catholics are few and limited to Muslim area, which made them possible to give communion in both species. have you been to Greece Father? or in Russia? have you attended Orthodox services in traditional Orthodox countries such as Romania, Siberia, Serbia, Russia, Greece etc.? I have not been there but numerous videos and photograhs show how people received holy communion in body and blood amids thousands of attendees in their Cathedrals.
I STATED THAT FOR PRACTICAL REASONS WHICH YOU CAN ACCEPT OR NOT. IF IN GREECE OR IN RUSSIA THE ORTHODOX ARE DOING SO. THEN PRAISE THE LORD. BUT DOES IT NEGATE THE PRACTICAL REASONING OF THE ROMAN RITE IN GIVING THE SACRED HOST ONLY TO THE REST OF THE FAITHFUL?
IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT REASON, FINE. IF YOU ARE NOT ITS OK. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO ASK ME IF I'VE BEEN TO RUSSIA OR GREECE. PLEASE DON'T BELIEVE THAT ONLY YOU ARE VIEWING EASTERN RITES WORSHIPS IN YOU TUBE.
BEING AN ORDAINED PRIEST OF THE ROMAN RITE I HAVE FRIENDS FROM THE ORTHODOX CHUCH IN PARANAQUE. AND THEY USED TO VISIT THEIR SMALL COMMUNITY HERE IN SORSOGON. I MET THEM AND DISCUSSED THESE MATTER WITH THEM WITH SO MUCH RESPECT AND ADMIRATION OF EACH OTHER. IVE NOTICED THAT THEIR RITUALS HERE IN THE PHILLIPPINES IS SOMEWHAT SHORTENED THAN THE ONE IN GREECE. ALSO THEY ARE SAYING IT IN ENGLISH RATHER THAN GREEK. THEN INSTEAD OF WEARING THEIR THICK BLACK CASSOCK THEY ARE WEARING CLERICAL COLLARS ALSO TO WITHSTAND THE HEAT.
WHAT I MEAN IS THAT THE CHURCH IS THE MOTHER AND TEACHER OF HER CHILDREN. SHE TOO ADAPTS TO THE PRACTICAL SITUATION. YOU CANNOT JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING SUCH A THING IN RUSSIA OR GREECE THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH IS NECESSITATED TO DO THE SAME.
CONTINUATION:
ReplyDeleteSecond, the mere fact that Rome uses leavened bread against the unleavend bread (wafer), which is a Jewish tradition and reason why our Lord and His apostles uses leaven bread at that time because they are all Jewish by birth and by practice, proved that it was the practice of the early Christians and not to mentioned that Christianity started in Jerusalem and there were already Christians in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople before Christianity began in Rome. Perhaps Father, you should understand the theological value of using leavened bread for the early Christians...
ARE YOU AN ORTHODOX? IF YOU ARE YOU SHOULD HAVE INFORMED ME. YOU HID YOURSELF IN A CLOAK OF ANONYMITY OF FAITH AFFILIATION SO THAT I WAS UNDER IMPRESSION THAT I WAS TALKING TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC WHO IS IN NEED OF EXPLANATION FOR OUR ROMAN RITE.
NOW, WHO TOLD YOU THAT USING THE UNLEAVENED BREAD IS A MATTER THAT IS EXCLUSIVE OF THE JEWS. WHO SAYS? THE ROMAN CHURCH IS BUILT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF STS. PETER AND PAUL, OF HAPPY MEMORY, AND THAT WAS THE TRADITION GIVEN BY THE APOSTOLIC FOUNDERS. IT IS NOT PART OF OUR TRADITION THAT UNLEAVENED BREAD IS FOR THE JEWS ONLY. IN FACT ST. PAUL EXCLAIMED:
1 Corinthians 5:8 (New King James Version)
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
ALTHOUGH ST. PAUL REFERS TO VIRTUES YET THE IMAGERY HE USED IS THAT OF THE UNLEAVENED BREAD WHICH SIGNIFIES THAT EVEN IN CORINTH THE UNLEAVENED BREAD IS BEING USED. IF THEY ARE USING THE LEAVENED BREAD IN EUCHARISTIC WORSHIP, WHAT IS THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF 1 COR 5:8? NOTHING. IT WILL ONLY BE MEANINGFUL IF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS WERE USING UNLEAVENED BREAD FOR WORSHIP.
CHRISTIANITY STARTED IN JERUSALEM AND IN GALILEE. THAT IS WHY THE EARLY EUCHARISTIC WORSHIPS OF THE APOSTLES WERE UNLEAVENED NOT LEAVENED. THAT IS WHY I AM ALL THE MORE SUPPORTED IN MY COMMENT THAT THE ROMAN RITE IS MORE BIBLICAL 'ON THAT MATTER'.
DON'T EVER THINK THAT I DON'T KNOW THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LEAVENED OR UNLEAVENED BREAD. FOR ROMAN RITE THE UNLEAVENED BREAD THEOLOGICALLY PROCLAIMS THE TRUTH OF FAITH THAT JESUS IS SINLESS. HE IS NOT CORRUPTED BY SIN. HIS BODY IS PURE AND THAT IS WHY THE EUCHARISTIC BREAD IS UNLEAVENED.
THAT IS OUR THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF IT. IF YOU LIKE IT PRAISE THE LORD. IF NOT, ITS OK. I RESPECT THE ORTHODOX RITES AND ITS THEOLOGY. I DO NOT MEAN TO DEMEAN THE EASTERN RITE. IF THERE IS ONE WHO WILL INSULT OR QUESTION IT I WILL DEFEND IT WITH MY WHOLE HEART AND MIND. I WAS EXPLAINING THAT WAY BECAUSE I WAS UNDER IMPRESSION THAT I WAS TALKING TO A ROMAN RITE CATHOLIC WHO NEEDS AN EXPLANTION.
IN OFFICIAL LEVEL, BOTH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH CONSIDER BOTH RITES APOSTOLIC AND VALID. ONE IS NOT HIGHER OR GREATER THAN THE OTHER. MY EXPLANATION THAT THE LATIN RITE IS MORE BIBLICAL REFERS TO THE ISSUE OF UNLEAVENED BREAD AND ONE SPECIES COMMUNION FOR THE LAY. IF I WILL BE PROVEN WRONG ON THAT ITS FINE WITH ME BECAUSE I ACCEPT THE BYZANTINE, UKRAINIAN, MARONITE, ETC.
THIS POST IS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO REFUTE THE PROTESTANTS WHO WANT TO DISCREDIT THE HOLY MASS IN GENERAL. IF YOU ARE AN ORTHODOX YOU SHOULD DEFEND IT WITH ME AS I WILL DEFEND THE EASTERN RITE AGAINST PROTESTANTS ATTACKS.
Nonetheless, thank you for your time in answering my question.
YOU'RE WELCOME. I APPRECIATE THIS EXCHANGE.
Dear Sir:
ReplyDeleteBased on the above exchanges so far with respect to the word kai or and, how does your answers differ if you were referred to 1 Cor 11:26?
Thank you.
1 Corinthians 11:26 is essentially connected to 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 wherein St. Paul gives the Sacred Tradition of Institution Narrative which Jesus exclusively given to his Apostles. That Eating and Drinking was commanded by Jesus to the all male Apostles who were the first Bishops and Presbyters of the Church.
ReplyDeleteLook once again at 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as often you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the death of the Lord until he come."
In Roman Rite, the one who proclaims "Mysterium Fidei" wherein the death, rising and the return of the Lord is proclaimed after the Institution narrative is the Priest. The priest alone can declare it. In Tridentine Rite which is the Extraordinary Form of Roman Rite the proclamation of the "Mysterium Fidei" is even essentially connected with the Institution Narrative that the celebrant priest is reciting exclusively in inaudible manner.
1 Corinthians 11:26 doesn't state that the lay ordained must receive the cup instead it narrates that in the Eucharistic Sacrifice the death, resurrection and the second coming of the Lord is being proclaimed. In the ancient Roman Rite it signifies for us that moment in the Holy Mass wherein after the priests recited "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood" he proclaims: "The Mystery of Faith".
The Roman Rite is faithful to the Biblical Tradition.