Pinned Tweet
The institution of the Holy Eucharist in first -century Judea
Passover. Manna. Temple Bread. The Cross.
According to Brant Pitre, these aren’t separate biblical stories, they are all part of the same Eucharistic mystery.
I.
Most all discussions about the Eucharist on social media begin with competing opinions and isolated proof texts.
In the subsequent thread my intention is to offer the reader a different type of analysis.
Over the next several posts, I’ll be examining the arguments of biblical scholar Brant Pitre, whose work in “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” draws from Scripture, Second Temple Judaism, Jewish liturgy, typology, and early Christian history to explain how first-century Jews would have understood Jesus’ words about His Body and Blood.
Whether you ultimately agree with his conclusions or not, understanding his argument provides a deeper framework for interpreting John 6, the Last Supper, and the Eucharist.
The thesis put forth is simply this:
The meaning of the Eucharist cannot be fully understood apart from the Jewish world in which Jesus lived and taught. – at Las Vegas, NV
Ave María, grátia plena, Dóminus tecum.
Benedícta tu in muliéribus, et benedíctus fructus ventris tui, Iesus.
Sancta María, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatóribus nunc et in hora mortis nostræ.
Amen.
Anyone calling themselves a “Christian” that cannot understand the sheer horror that the Virgin Mary witnessed doesn’t know the reality of the Crucifixion.
The Catholic Mass in AD 155
St. Justin Martyr describes early Christian worship:
Scripture readings
Homily
Prayers for all
Bread and wine offered
Eucharistic prayer & “Amen”
Eucharist received as Christ’s Body and Blood
Deacons distribute Communion
Alms for the poor
(First Apology 65–67)
The Mass didn’t appear in the Middle Ages. Its roots are in the earliest Church.
I’m watching a Roman Catholic Mass on TV. So far, a priest has bowed to a table and kissed something on the table. He’s reading something and people are saying things back to him. Now he is praying. Now a woman is reading from Isaiah. Singing. The woman is reading one of Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. Singing. The priest is reading from Matthew. Now he’s explaining the passage that he read which was about paying taxes. Give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s. He bows to the table again. He reads something and the congregation responds. The woman reads something else. The woman leads in prayer. The congregation responds again at certain points in the prayer. The priest reads more. Music. The priest is at the table preparing a cup. More words and responses. Singing. More words from the priest. Talking about the last supper. Singing. Priest praying. Priest singing something over the cracker and wine. More singing. Praying the Our Father. More sing. More words from priest. He then eats the cracker and drinks the wine. More singing while the congregation comes to get their crackers. Moment of silence. Prayer. Priest dismisses congregation. Priest kisses something on the table again. Priest bows to table again. The end.
My take: The gospel wasn’t preached. It was all ritual and very dry. I don’t see how anyone could come to faith in Jesus in that environment.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Per the post itself, the priest read from Matthew and then explained the passage, which constitutes the Gospel proclamation and homily in the Mass.
usccb.org/offices/public…
bible.usccb.org/daily-bible-re…
Right you are Mark - Christ certainly didn’t approve things such as altars, temples, sacrifices 🤡
18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. (Matthew 23:18–22, ESV)
Replying to @mark_petereit @swamthetiber25
Catholics say the Mass makes Christ’s ONE sacrifice present, not that Jesus dies again. But where do the apostles teach that His sacrifice must be made sacramentally present on an altar?
Hebrews 9:24 says Christ entered HEAVEN ITSELF to appear before God FOR US!
The “Doctor” Rblv73 retweeted
🚨 THE HEBREWS DILEMMA FOR BIBLE-ALONE CHRISTIANS
Are you certain that Hebrews is divinely inspired Scripture?
If YES: How can you be sure when Hebrews never identifies its author and your process for recognizing the canon is fallible?
If NO: Then you're admitting uncertainty about whether a book you treat as God's infallible Word actually belongs in Scripture.
Either way, you owe us an explanation: How do you establish the boundaries of your infallible Bible without assuming the canon you're trying to prove?
🤖 Made with AI
The “Doctor” Rblv73 retweeted
Replying to @RealTrabbsBoy @GuerillaLawyer
Ah, you convinced me. An article from a biased author from a socialist editorial. I know the argument.
Here’s the reality: a woman moved to Calcutta, in the 1950s, 12mm people, per capita GDP of $375, where she voluntarily lived in poverty, and tried to give dignity to people dying in abject poverty. And the journo had an issue that the people that would have died in gutters and stepped over, instead died in a place that wasn’t Sloan-Kettering. Or the Ritz-Carlton.
She had 300-500 nuns working with her.
And she lived as the people there did. In hunger, in poverty, in suffering, to attempt to give comfort and dignity in their final hours.
So, spare me the complaints and critics of people who think hunger is not receiving a DoorDash order from Chipotle within an hour. And that a woman, who dedicated her life to Christ, was against abortion, and who ran her order in an hierarchal and militant manner is a “fraud”.
This is the same soy-boy bullshit that guys, who never received a varsity letter in high school do when critiquing an NFL player during the Super Bowl. Except for something that actually matters.
The “Doctor” Rblv73 retweeted
Some Protestants are so anti-Crucifix and I can never understand why. Every Christian needs a crucifix...Period!
If you accept Revelation as Scripture, then consider a crucifix. Remember what John sees in heaven: “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” (Rev. 5:6).
Even in HIS heavenly glory, Christ is revealed as the sacrificial Lamb.
The crucifix reminds us all of something modern Christianity too often forgets: FOLLOWING CHRIST COSTS SOMETHING! Do you know what it actually means to be a Christian?
It does NOT just mean, “He died for me, and now I get to reap all the benefits.” It means, “He died for me, and now I must be willing to take up MY cross and follow Him.” We are called to be participants in His suffering (Rom. 8:17).
The “Doctor” Rblv73 retweeted
This is absolute horseshit fabrication. Who is this dumbass anyway????
🚨 NEW: Joe Rogan was in shock when historical storyteller Cody Tucker revealed that Mother Teresa was actually a horrible person who kept dying patients in horrible conditions while massive donations flowed to the Vatican:
TUCKER: “She's a scumbag. Mother Teresa never did anything good.”
CONTEXT: In 1994, a physician named Robin Fox visited Mother Teresa's Home for the Dying in Calcutta.
Fox wasn't some anonymous critic.
He was the editor of The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals.
And what he described was deeply troubling.
Medical care was inconsistent.
Some decisions were made by nuns and volunteers without formal medical training.
Basic diagnostic investigations were rarely available.
And the facility did not have strong painkillers in its medication supply.
Fox described a patient with a high fever who initially received paracetamol and an antibiotic before a visiting doctor suspected malaria and changed the treatment.
His central objection was that patients who might have treatable conditions weren't being reliably distinguished from people who were actually dying.
Think about that.
Someone could arrive believing they were receiving medical care when they might have needed a proper diagnosis, referral or treatment.
And this wasn't the only criticism.
In 2013, three Canadian academics published a critical review of Mother Teresa's life and work in the journal Studies in Religion.
They questioned her approach to caring for the sick, her political relationships and the management of the enormous donations her organization received.
One of their central concerns was whether a religious belief in the spiritual value of suffering had been allowed to influence the standard of care provided to vulnerable patients.
Mother Teresa believed suffering could have profound spiritual meaning.
But there's a difference between helping someone find meaning in unavoidable suffering...
AND FAILING TO RELIEVE SUFFERING THAT MEDICINE COULD PREVENT.
There is also an important complication.
During the 1990s, India had extraordinarily restrictive regulations governing access to morphine.
Human Rights Watch later documented that India's medical morphine consumption collapsed by approximately 97% between 1985 and 1997.
Even major hospitals struggled to obtain adequate pain medication.
So the absence of strong painkillers at Mother Teresa's facilities does not, by itself, prove she deliberately withheld them because she wanted patients to suffer.
And Fox acknowledged something critics often leave out:
The home he visited provided cleanliness, wound care and genuine kindness to desperately poor people.
The Missionaries of Charity also cared for people whom hospitals had turned away.
Mother Teresa saw her mission primarily as offering dignity, love and spiritual comfort to the abandoned, rather than operating conventional hospitals.
Critics have questioned the Missionaries of Charity's financial transparency for decades.
But Tucker's more specific allegation that Mother Teresa funneled donated money to the Vatican rather than caring for patients has not been established by the evidence reviewed here.
That distinction matters.
IMPORTANT NOTES: Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.
The Catholic Church canonized her as a saint in 2016.
To millions of people, she remains one of the greatest symbols of compassion in modern history.
But the historical record also contains serious criticisms that deserve examination rather than automatic dismissal.
The most disturbing question isn't whether Mother Teresa personally believed suffering had spiritual value.
It's whether that belief, combined with the way her facilities operated, ever resulted in people enduring pain or illness that could have been treated.
Because there is a fundamental difference between helping someone die with dignity...
And allowing someone to suffer when they might not have needed to.
The “Doctor” Rblv73 retweeted
Protestants of X: forget about listening to guys like @taco_talks, @BibleInContext1 and @MikeWingerii. Now this is NOT a call to rid social media of anti-Catholic Protestant polemics as disagreement and dialogue is healthy. However intellectual dishonesty is not.
But I’ve noticed an interesting contrast.
Some of the loudest anti-Catholic voices devote substantial portions of their content to attacking Catholicism while simultaneously marketing courses, merchandise, or soliciting financial support from their audiences. Additionally, their lack of proper academic credentials is noticeable.
Compare that with @gavinortlund , @DrWilliamLCraig , and @WesleyLHuff. These are academically trained Protestant thinkers who disagree with Catholicism, sometimes strongly, but whose broader work demonstrates serious engagement with theology, philosophy, history, and biblical scholarship.
Do I think they’re wrong about important Catholic doctrines? Absolutely. But this does not mean I wouldn't recommend their channels or materials for others to learn from....intellectual disagreement does not require intellectual contempt.
The emphasis on personal interpretation and “feeling “ has awakened an ancient heresy known today as Neo-Gnosticism.
Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof
Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money,
-The Didache AD70-100
















