Eucharist and the Last Supper

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gerrardtoes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gerrardtoes

Guest
Hi,

I am new to Catholic Answers Forums 😀

My question is “Is the Eucharist at the Last Supper Jesus’ crucified body and blood? But he has not yet to be crucified.”

And “Does the Eucharist have to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the GLORIED Christ?”
In other word must it be the Gloried Christ?

Thank you. 😇
 
The Church teaches that during the Last Supper, Jesus really did consume his own body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist. This is possible because God is outside of time, so there is nothing stopping Him from applying Christ’s sacrifice before it happened within the flow of time.

I’m not positive on the second question, but it seem to me that the Eucharist could only be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the glorified Christ. I’m not aware of any official teaching on that though, sorry.
 
Gerrardtoes said:
Hi,

I am new to Catholic Answers Forums 😀

My question is “Is the Eucharist at the Last Supper Jesus’ crucified body and blood? But he has not yet to be crucified.”

And “Does the Eucharist have to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the GLORIED Christ?”
In other word must it be the Gloried Christ?

Thank you. 😇
Click to expand...
The Eucharist: Communion with Christ and with one another for the 50th International Eucharistic Congress
81. The bread and wine presented at this point of the Mass are signs that prepare us also for what is to come. The bread and wine will be transformed by God into the glorified body and blood of his Son. Then his glorified life will be communicated to us in the form of food and drink that will energise us and bond us as a community.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...itt_euchar_doc_20110215_50-testo-base_en.html

See “corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place”, below.

MYSTERIUM FIDEI - ENCYCLICAL OF ST. POPE PAUL VI​

As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Todd_Easton said:
It would seem that the Eucharist at the Last Supper was the body and blood of Jesus as he then was, before his passion, death and resurrection.
Click to expand...
It seems as though it wasn’t His current flesh at the time of the Last Supper that He gave them, but His glorified flesh that gives life. Because He, as God, is outside of time, He can do this.

Otherwise, the flesh they initially ate was pre-sacrifice and would not give life, until He was later crucified, as if perhaps as He died, the “Him” inside them from the first Eucharist would be “completed and glorified” as “it was finished,” and would then give life? In this way, the first Eucharist was, at the time of consummation, different then all of the ones after it, after His death? Yet it was transformed inside of them once the sacrifice took place to give life, and in this way was the same as all the communions after it?

If the second possibility is true, and if Judas died before Jesus, this may be plausible, because Judas would have died before receiving the fruits of Jesus’s completed sacrifice? (Not that everyone who receives the Eucharist is automatically saved, and besides, we don’t know if Judas is saved or not.)

I had always thought it may be more plausible that He offered them the fruits of the sacrifice & the first Eucharist in His glorified form at the time of the Last Supper, Him being outside time. But now, you have made me think! 🤔
 
Last edited:
christismylord said:
e Summa Theologiae you posted says “And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.”
Click to expand...
St Thomas’ Summa is sometimes difficult to understand. He often gives contrary opinions before he gives his own and such is the case here. The sentence you quote is actually the opinion maintained by Hugh of Saint Victor, an opinion which St Thomas in the next sentence calls “inadmissible.”
 
Whoops I’m so silly, how did I miss that 😳 Thank you!
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if it’s de fide dogma, but the majority position is that it was has unglorified, passable body he presented at the Last Supper, and which he and his apostles are. Note that they still partook of Jesus and the Divine Nature.
 
So does that mean according to STA, he understands the Eucharist to be a passible matter done under a impassible matter?

SOrry I am a little confuse on this.
 
Wesrock said:
I don’t know if it’s de fide dogma, but the majority position is that it was has unglorified, passable body he presented at the Last Supper, and which he and his apostles are.
Click to expand...
Cool! Can you guide me which Church document state that? I would love to read more on this.
Thank you 😀
 
Gerrardtoes said:
So does that mean according to STA, he understands the Eucharist to be a passible matter done under a impassible matter?
Click to expand...
The passible (suffering-capable) body of Jesus was present in the Eucharist of the Last Supper but in an impassible manner such that, when his disciples touched and ate that Eucharist, they did not thereby cause the passible body of Jesus to suffer.
 
Last edited:
Gerrardtoes said:
So does that mean according to STA, he understands the Eucharist to be a passible matter done under a impassible matter?

SOrry I am a little confuse on this
Click to expand...
That’s all very confusing. How about some Plain English based upon Catholic Magisterium and/or the Gospel ?
 
Gerrardtoes said:
My question is “Is the Eucharist at the Last Supper Jesus’ crucified body and blood?
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity, sacramentally. It teaches that substance changes and is no longer wheat or wine, but that the accidents remain as wheat and wine.

So the question of “before the crucifixion” or “after the Resurrection” are neither here nor there. Christ is both God and Man; we do not eat his physical flesh nor his “resurrected flesh” but rather his sacramental flesh and blood, in substance but not form or accident (which are philosophical terms).

As God, Christ is outside time; as Man, he was in time and now has a glorified body - which the writers of the New Testament experienced as both radically different and yet the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top