Did Christ eat the bread and drink the wine at the Last Supper

  • Thread starter Thread starter triumphguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

triumphguy

Guest
Did Jesus “take and eat” and the bread, and drink from the chalice too before he gave the species to the Apostles?
 
triumphguy said:
Did Jesus “take and eat” and the bread, and drink from the chalice too before he gave the species to the Apostles?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. Not sure if anyone knows. Anyone know?

I have heard that at the Last Supper, the Bread/Wine was just Bread/Wine b/c Jesus was already present.

Had a Mass been said between Last Supper & before Resurrection. The Bread/Wine would of been his earthy body. I don’t know. Not sure that is 100%.

Had a Mass been said between Resurrection & Ascension. The Bread/Wine would of been his Resurrection but Un-glorified body.

Mass been said after Ascension. = Glorified body.

Source; Audio tape of a Priest during RCIA class.

God Bless,

James
 
According to the Tradition of the Syriac Churches, it would be a yes, at least regarding the cup. The Words of Institution from many Anaphorae say, in translation: "[Then] He took the cup … and after He had tasted from it, He gave it … "
 
The last supper was the first Mass/Divine Liturgy. This was the institution of the Eucharist.
 
triumphguy said:
Yes, so did Christ receive the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas answers affirmatively. I don’t think he has been contradicted.

I’m not sure if there is any official teaching, or if it has been mentioned either way in any Church documents.

VC
 
JaKael02 said:
I have heard that at the Last Supper, the Bread/Wine was just Bread/Wine b/c Jesus was already present.

Had a Mass been said between Last Supper & before Resurrection. The Bread/Wine would of been his earthy body. I don’t know. Not sure that is 100%.

Had a Mass been said between Resurrection & Ascension. The Bread/Wine would of been his Resurrection but Un-glorified body.

Mass been said after Ascension. = Glorified body.
Click to expand...
Hi James,

You’ve remembered the gist of it I think, but a few things aren’t accurate.
  1. At the Last Supper there was the Eucharist and that was Christ (it always is Him), so it wasn’t just bread and wine, but was His body, blood, soul, and divinity. Even while he was at the table.
  2. About a Mass between the Last Supper and the Resurrection – you might be recalling what St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that such a Eucharist would be the unglorified, passible, body of Christ (along with blood, soul and Divinity, in certain cases). This is theological speculation. . . but I think it really sound speculation.
  3. Christ was glorified at the moment of His Resurrection, i.e. He rose with a glorified body. So, again, since the Eucharist is him any Eucharist confected after the Resurrection (like at Emmaus) or at our own parishes, is the glorified Body of Christ. The Ascension didn’t change what Christ’s body was like only where it was.
Hope that helps.
VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Hi James,

You’ve remembered the gist of it I think, but a few things aren’t accurate.
  1. At the Last Supper there was the Eucharist and that was Christ (it always is Him), so it wasn’t just bread and wine, but was His body, blood, soul, and divinity. Even while he was at the table.
  2. About a Mass between the Last Supper and the Resurrection – you might be recalling what St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that such a Eucharist would be the unglorified, passible, body of Christ (along with blood, soul and Divinity, in certain cases). This is theological speculation. . . but I think it really sound speculation.
  3. Christ was glorified at the moment of His Resurrection, i.e. He rose with a glorified body. So, again, since the Eucharist is him any Eucharist confected after the Resurrection (like at Emmaus) or at our own parishes, is the glorified Body of Christ. The Ascension didn’t change what Christ’s body was like only where it was.
Hope that helps.
VC
Click to expand...
Much better! That does help. Thank you for straightening that up for me. I’ll re-memorize the correct version now. 🙂

Kind Regards,

James
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Hi James,

You’ve remembered the gist of it I think, but a few things aren’t accurate.
  1. At the Last Supper there was the Eucharist and that was Christ (it always is Him), so it wasn’t just bread and wine, but was His body, blood, soul, and divinity. Even while he was at the table.
  2. About a Mass between the Last Supper and the Resurrection – you might be recalling what St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that such a Eucharist would be the unglorified, passible, body of Christ (along with blood, soul and Divinity, in certain cases). This is theological speculation. . . but I think it really sound speculation.
  3. Christ was glorified at the moment of His Resurrection, i.e. He rose with a glorified body. So, again, since the Eucharist is him any Eucharist confected after the Resurrection (like at Emmaus) or at our own parishes, is the glorified Body of Christ. The Ascension didn’t change what Christ’s body was like only where it was.
Hope that helps.
VC
Click to expand...
But God isn’t bound by time, so why couldn’t case #2 be the glorified Body of Christ?
 
japhy said:
Especially since Jesus appeared in glory on Mt. Tabor, during the transfiguration.
Click to expand...
Did Jesus appear in his full glory in the transfiguration? I honestly don’t know. I thought he did too, but figured he may have just shown his divinity during the transfiguration.

New International Version (©1984)
There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.
 
Hi guys.

I think this is an interesting, and maybe complicated, topic. It is probably a good thing to recall that some of these questions about the Eucharist are speculative. . . in other words, theologians might differ in so far as the Church hasn’t pronounced anything definite. There might be strong agreement on certain things, though, even if speculative.
AHapka said:
But God isn’t bound by time, so why couldn’t case #2 be the glorified Body of Christ?
Click to expand...
AHapka,

To the second part, as to why it couldn’t be the case that Christ had a glorified body. . . I’m not sure we could ever really say it couldn’t have been the case. It seems like it would be possible, surely. I think the question revolves more around what would be more fitting and likely.

As to how this could happen, if it did happen, I personally would shy away from using the notion of God not being bound by time as an explanation. We know God isn’t bound by time, but would that (should that?) mean that Christ in His humanity isn’t? It seems it could get unnecessarily confusing. For instance, could Christ have appeared in His humanity before he was born? Could he have been alive in His body, say in the America’s, at the same time He was buried in the tomb? Those are extreme examples, but I think you see what I mean – if we exempt Christ’s humanity from living in a natural time line, things seem perplexing.
japhy said:
Especially since Jesus appeared in glory on Mt. Tabor, during the transfiguration.
Click to expand...
JaKael02 said:
Did Jesus appear in his full glory in the transfiguration? I honestly don’t know. I thought he did too, but figured he may have just shown his divinity during the transfiguration.
Click to expand...
Well, this is how St. Thomas Aquinas sees it: check out the Summa III, 45, 2 I find it fascinating.

The short version is:
St. Thomas:
I answer that, The clarity which Christ assumed in His transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode of being. . . . For the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body, by way of a permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body. But in Christ’s transfiguration clarity overflowed from His Godhead and from His soul into His body, not as an immanent quality affecting His very body, but rather after the manner of a transient passion . . .Consequently the refulgence, which appeared in Christ’s body then, was miraculous: just as was the fact of His walking on the waves of the sea.
Click to expand...
St. Thomas also mentions an interesting quote from the Venerable Bede in which he says

The Venerable Bede said:
“That is, the glorification of the body in an imaginary vision of future beatitude.”
Click to expand...

And replying to this (Objection 2) St. Thomas says
St. Thomas:
This clarity is said to have been imaginary, not as though it were not really the clarity of glory, but because it was a kind of image representing that perfection of glory, in virtue of which the body will be glorious.
Click to expand...
So, we have a good explanation of how the Transfiguration fits into this. But, let’s remember what generates this question is how Christ is present in the Eucharist. According to St. Thomas (and I think the Church follows him generally here) there is no need for Christ to have a glorified body to make the Eucharist work. . . in other words, there is no need to postulate a glorified body at the Last Supper in the first place, so why do so? In fact, St. Thomas protects the reality of the Real Presence on all fronts, by saying that Christ in the Eucharist is the way Christ is. If He is glorified, He is glorified in the Eucharist. But, if not, then not. The reasoning is, I think, that since He wasn’t glorified at table, He isn’t glorified in the Eucharist of the Last Supper.

VC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top