What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?

You already agreed that Jesus didn’t die at the last supper.
We know that bit but as Catholics we believe that the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood all form part of the Covenant.

John 6 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, 55 for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

We truly and really believe the cup of the supper by anamnesis, becomes His salvific Presence. Without it His death means nothing to people.
 
We know that bit but as Catholics we believe that the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood all form part of the Covenant.

John 6 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, 55 for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

We truly and really believe the cup of the supper by anamnesis, becomes His salvific Presence. Without it His death means nothing to people.
You are wrong but then you have been taught falsely. You are not eating His flesh and His blood. If you are that is cannibalism and not accepted by God. It is also a pagan concept, eating god.
 
I understand your dilemma, you’re forced to choose between what your church tells you is true, and what was actually accomplished on the cross. You chose your church over the cross.
We don't deny what was actually accomplished on the cross; we also don't deny Jesus' word concerning the bread and wine. When the blood of the covenant is mentioned in scripture it is always talking about the Eucharist.

So are you going to claim that the contents of the cup is not the blood of the covenant?

If it is the blood of the covenant then it cannot be symbolic.
 
We don't deny what was actually accomplished on the cross; we also don't deny Jesus' word concerning the bread and wine. When the blood of the covenant is mentioned in scripture it is always talking about the Eucharist.

So are you going to claim that the contents of the cup is not the blood of the covenant?

If it is the blood of the covenant then it cannot be symbolic.
But you do deny what actually was accomplished on the cross, you move that accomplishment to the Last Supper to try and defend the RCs false doctrines. The blood on the cross is not symbolic, the blood at the last supper is clearly symbolic. No evidence of a real change to the wine. Whenever in scripture there is a physical change there is always evidence of said change, at the last supper nothing at all.
 
Nope, no where does scripture say that Jesus blood shed on the cross is the blood of the covenant. What scripture does say is the blood of the covenant is the contents of the cup. So since the blood of the covenant cannot be symbolic and that Jesus blood shed on the cross is the blood of the covenant, then we have to conclude that the contents of the cup is the blood Jesus said on the cross.
Shaking my head in amazement!
 
We don't deny what was actually accomplished on the cross; we also don't deny Jesus' word concerning the bread and wine. When the blood of the covenant is mentioned in scripture it is always talking about the Eucharist.

So are you going to claim that the contents of the cup is not the blood of the covenant?
No: I am not going to claim that the contents of the cup is NOT the blood of the covenant.
But I am going to claim that the contents of the cup (which is wine) represents the blood of the NC

If it is the blood of the covenant then it cannot be symbolic.
If there is any blood in the cup; then the contents would not by symbolic.....duh..

But that's the point : there is wine in the cup, not the blood of Christ.
The Lamb of God's blood was poured out at the Cross:
The pouring of the wine into the cup is symbolic of Christ's death:
Focus on Christ's death on the Cross!! a literal death where literal propitiation took place , the NC literally went into effect, and the sin penalty was literally paid.
 
Last edited:
No: I am not going to claim that the contents of the cup is NOT the blood of the covenant.
But I am going to claim that the contents of the cup (which is wine) represents the blood of the NC


If there is any blood in the cup; then the contents would not by symbolic.....duh..

But that's the point : there is wine in the cup, not the blood of Christ.
The Lamb of God's blood was poured out at the Cross:
The pouring of the wine into the cup is symbolic of Christ's death:
Focus on Christ's death on the Cross!! a literal death where literal propitiation took place , the NC literally went into effect, and the sin penalty was literally paid.
The point is the Jesus said that the wine was his blood of the covenant.

He didn't say that the blood of the covenant was his shed blood on the cross. So the wine has to be his blood of the covenant that was shed on the cross.
 
The point is the Jesus said that the wine was his blood of the covenant.

He didn't say that the blood of the covenant was his shed blood on the cross. So the wine has to be his blood of the covenant that was shed on the cross.
you make the Cross meaningless.
Christ's death on the Cross: a literal death where literal propitiation took place , the NC literally went into effect, and the sin penalty was literally paid.
 
No: I am not going to claim that the contents of the cup is NOT the blood of the covenant.
But I am going to claim that the contents of the cup (which is wine) represents the blood of the NC
How would you explain or what would you cite to discredit someone like the 1st century father Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of John, when we writes...

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

This understanding of the Eucharist is preached by the earliest Church.
 
How would you explain or what would you cite to discredit someone like the 1st century father Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of John, when we writes...

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

This understanding of the Eucharist is preached by the earliest Church.
Yes it was taught not only in scripture but in the very early church. It is sad that the nCCs reject it.
 
Post the verse from scripture.
We have posted the verse that talks about whose righteousness. But there are none so blind...

It is clear the righteousness that is imputed comes from someone who is not us. It is clear that Jesus is righteousness, it is clear that it is He by His death that clears our sin account. So whose righteousness can reckon our sins? Whose?
 
The point is the Jesus said that the wine was his blood of the covenant.

He didn't say that the blood of the covenant was his shed blood on the cross. So the wine has to be his blood of the covenant that was shed on the cross.
It is all throughout the Old Testament and shows you have no understanding of the sacrifices set up by God for the Jewish people, or what the covenant is. It is not the wine at the last supper.
 
We have posted the verse that talks about whose righteousness. But there are none so blind...

It is clear the righteousness that is imputed comes from someone who is not us. It is clear that Jesus is righteousness, it is clear that it is He by His death that clears our sin account. So whose righteousness can reckon our sins? Whose?
If you have posted the verse about whose righteousness it is then why are you asking me about it?
 
The point is the Jesus said that the wine was his blood of the covenant.

He didn't say that the blood of the covenant was his shed blood on the cross. So the wine has to be his blood of the covenant that was shed on the cross.
Symbolically and not literal. Please post the verse where Jesus says He is speaking literally. Please post the verse that provides the evidence of the literal change.
 
Symbolically and not literal. Please post the verse where Jesus says He is speaking literally. Please post the verse that provides the evidence of the literal change.

Matthew 26:27-28, "Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
 
Back
Top