Eucharist

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;13009205:

When someone tells you these things, challenge them on it. Get your Bible and read what it really says, not what the other person says it says.
The account does not say that He consumed it, it says He gave it to His Apostles.

Mat 26:26 Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this

is my body.

Mk 14:22 Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

Lk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you:

Whenever someone challenges you, don’t take their word for it, go look up the Scriptures yourself and see. Then, if they are wrong, challenge them, ask why they are twisting the Scriptures to suite their own false, man made doctrines!

Yet, while this addresses one of Faith’s questions (“did Jesus eat His own body & blood?”), it doesn’t address the other (“did Jesus hold up His own body and blood – and how?”).

Yes, well, I’m comfortable to just take His word on that.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, well, I’m comfortable to just take His word on that.

Fair enough. For your faith, ‘taking His word on it’ is sufficient. That’s OK. Yet, Faith asked a reasonable question, and it seems that we haven’t yet reached a reasonable answer. Remember: ‘faith and reason’, not just ‘faith’.

 

[Faith1960]

Fair enough. For your faith, ‘taking His word on it’ is sufficient. That’s OK. Yet, Faith asked a reasonable question, and it seems that we haven’t yet reached a reasonable answer. Remember: ‘faith and reason’, not just ‘faith’.

Yeah, I’d like a more complete answer from the other posters.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;13009333:

Yes, well, I’m comfortable to just take His word on that.

Fair enough. For your faith, ‘taking His word on it’ is sufficient. That’s OK. Yet, Faith asked a reasonable question, and it seems that we haven’t yet reached a reasonable answer. Remember: ‘faith and reason’, not just ‘faith’.

The reason part still allows you to believe something based on an authoritative source. I did not perform all of the physics experiments to confirm the proofs in my physics courses, but I accepted the results based on the reliability of the trustworthiness of my professors and the scientist who wrote the physics textbook.
Likewise, I trust the geographical information that there is a very large landmass called Australia. Though I have never been there, I accept it based on the reliable testimony of trustworthy witnesses.

On that same basis of reason, I believe in the Eucharist because of the reliability of Jesus Christ. That is not blind faith, it is Faith with sound reasoning based on the reliable testimony of a trustworthy source.

 

[Gorgias]

The reason part still allows you to believe something based on an authoritative source. I did not perform all of the physics experiments to confirm the proofs in my physics courses, but I accepted the results based on the reliability of the trustworthiness of my professors and the scientist who wrote the physics textbook.

Precisely. Likewise, what’s being asked here isn’t whether the results are correct… but what the description of the results are! This isn’t a doubt of whether Christ is present in the Eucharist, but what exactly is being said here, in the context of the Last Supper.

I suggested ‘glorified body’, but that was objected to. So, the reasonable question to ask is, “if not Christ’s glorified body at the Last Supper, then what?” That’s not a question of whether the source is authoritative, but a question of exactly what the authoritative source is actually saying. Your answer fails to address that question.

On that same basis of reason, I believe in the Eucharist because of the reliability of Jesus Christ. That is not blind faith, it is Faith with sound reasoning based on the reliable testimony of a trustworthy source.

It’s not a question of belief… it’s a question that asks what, precisely, we’re believing in.

 

[Peebo]

During the Last Supper, did Jesus hold up and eat his own flesh and blood? If so, how could that be possible since He hadn’t died yet and wasn’t glorified either?

well…if you listen to the priest during the Liturgy of the Eucharist he says…(excuse my shortened version)…Jesus took the bread… blessed it and ‘gave’ it to his disciples saying…same goes for the chalice…the priest doesn’t say (neither does the Bible) Jesus ate the bread and drank from the chalice and ‘**then’ **gave it to his disciples…Jesus knew he was going to die and so he was instituting what he had told his disciples in John 6…that **they **must eat his flesh and drink his blood to attain eternal life…they ( the twelve) never doubted him…I’m not a Theologian or Biblical Scholar so I have pretty simple faith in what the church and the Bible teaches.

 

[Faith1960]

Peebo;13010d158:

well…if you listen to the priest during the Liturgy of the Eucharist he says…(excuse my shortened version)…Jesus took the bread… blessed it and ‘gave’ it to his disciples saying…same goes for the chalice…the priest doesn’t say (neither does the Bible) Jesus ate the bread and drank from the chalice and ‘**then’ **gave it to his disciples…Jesus knew he was going to die and so he was instituting what he had told his disciples in John 6…that **they **must eat his flesh and drink his blood to attain eternal life…they ( the twelve) never doubted him…I’m not a Theologian or Biblical Scholar so I have pretty simple faith in what the church and the Bible teaches.

So how did He give His own flesh and blood to the disciples when He was still alive and not resurrected?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

So how did He give His own flesh and blood to the disciples when He was still alive and not resurrected?

Your question appears to assume that Jesus was not God until after His resurrection. There is nothing contingent about Jesus having a resurrected glorified body. NOW, in the Eucharist, we receive Jesus in exactly the same way that the Apostles received Him at the Last Supper.

John 6:60-63 "60Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 61But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 62If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. "

Jesus says Himself that although they eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, they shall see the Son of Man ascend up to Heaven nonetheless. He also says the flesh profiteth nothing. IOW, whether His body is mortal (before the resurrection) or after it is glorified is irrelevant, it is the spirit that quickeneth.

Do not overthink the state of Our Lord’s body, as if it makes perfect scientific sense one way but not the other. Either way it is a marvelous mystery and a miracle. It is irrelevant to transubstantiation. It is the WORD of GOD, the spirit, which quickeneth (gives life).

 

[Peebo]

So how did He give His own flesh and blood to the disciples when He was still alive and not resurrected?

Like I said I’m not a Theologian or Biblical Scholar but to me it’s no problem…he knew he was going to die…and although his disciples didn’t know it at the time he was showing them at the passover meal what would take place after he had died and had risen…they would then understand the meaning of what he had shown them and what he had taught in John 6 was real…and from that time on the early church has celebrated the Eucharist as the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…put another way it’s like Jesus gave his disciples a ‘dry run’ of what would become the Eucharist…then again he was the word…and the word was God…and all things were created through him…so if he initiated the first Eucharist by whatever means at that passover meal I don’t have a problem accepting that either don’t know if any of that is theologically sound so I’ll bow to those with a better knowledge of church teaching than me

 

[Faith1960]

Your question appears to assume that Jesus was not God until after His resurrection. There is nothing contingent about Jesus having a resurrected glorified body. NOW, in the Eucharist, we receive Jesus in exactly the same way that the Apostles received Him at the Last Supper.

Not exactly; He wasnt glorified yet.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Not exactly; He wasnt glorified yet.

So what was different about the Eucharist?

Are you suggesting that they did not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus?
No, I don’t think you are.

Are you suggesting that their first Eucharist was somehow less than ours because it was not the glorified body of Jesus?
No, I don’t think you are.

Are you suggesting that the Body and Blood of Jesus are different when he is glorified?
No, I don’t think you are.

He proved to the Apostles (and us) that he had the very same body after his death and resurrection.

The body of Jesus, after the resurrection, had become impassible and immortal. The very same thing that will happen to the elect after the Last Judgement. However, it will still be a real human body.

So I hope you understand that whether the body of Jesus was glorified or not, has no bearing on the Sacramental Quality, the Real Presence, and Grace of the Holy Eucharist. Your line of questioning is not really of any consequence to the Blessed Sacrament.

Even though you receive the Glorified body and blood of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist (as do all Catholics), Jesus Himself also remains, physically, in His Glorified Body in Heaven.

The Holy Eucharist is a profound mystery. There is much to consider. But it is somewhat like worrying about whether Jesus had perfect hair at the Last Supper, as he must surely have now in His Glorified Body, and how that affects our Holy Communion, or that of the Apostles at the Last Supper.

 

[Godric2]

“The Holy Eucharist is a profound mystery”

Well said! Thank you for a helpful comment.

An image for Mary’s month - Mother of Sheshan

 

[Faith1960]

So what was different about the Eucharist?

Are you suggesting that they did not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus?
No, I don’t think you are.

Are you suggesting that their first Eucharist was somehow less than ours because it was not the glorified body of Jesus?
No, I don’t think you are.

Are you suggesting that the Body and Blood of Jesus are different when he is glorified?
No, I don’t think you are.

He proved to the Apostles (and us) that he had the very same body after his death and resurrection.

The body of Jesus, after the resurrection, had become impassible and immortal. The very same thing that will happen to the elect after the Last Judgement. However, it will still be a real human body.

So I hope you understand that whether the body of Jesus was glorified or not, has no bearing on the Sacramental Quality, the Real Presence, and Grace of the Holy Eucharist. Your line of questioning is not really of any consequence to the Blessed Sacrament.

Even though you receive the Glorified body and blood of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist (as do all Catholics), Jesus Himself also remains, physically, in His Glorified Body in Heaven.

The Holy Eucharist is a profound mystery. There is much to consider. But it is somewhat like worrying about whether Jesus had perfect hair at the Last Supper, as he must surely have now in His Glorified Body, and how that affects our Holy Communion, or that of the Apostles at the Last Supper.

I’m still confused, but thanks.

 

[Gorgias]

So what was different about the Eucharist?

Are you suggesting that the Body and Blood of Jesus are different when he is glorified?
No, I don’t think you are.

No – but we’re asking what exactly was received as the Body and Blood of Jesus at the Last Supper, if not His glorified body?

He proved to the Apostles (and us) that he had the very same body after his death and resurrection.

No – he proved that He actually had His body, and was not simply a ghost. It was not the “very same body”, as He demonstrated by passing through locked doors and popping in and out of various locations.

So I hope you understand that whether the body of Jesus was glorified or not, has no bearing on the Sacramental Quality, the Real Presence, and Grace of the Holy Eucharist. Your line of questioning is not really of any consequence to the Blessed Sacrament.

Of course it doesn’t. We’re still avoiding the question, though. What does the Church teach about what the apostles received at the Last Supper? Yes, yes – the Eucharist: we’ve beaten that fact to death, but that’s not what’s being asked. What’s being asked is: was the Eucharist at the Last Supper indeed Christ’s glorified body? If not, then what was it?

C’mon folks – we seem to be excited about affirming that it was the Eucharist, but that’s not at all the question. I’ve asserted that it was Christ’s glorified body, but got shot down. Now, let’s put our money where our mouths are, shall we? If not Christ’s glorified body at the Last Supper, then what was it?

Pious assertions that it really was the Eucharist are nice… but they aren’t addressing the question at hand. Does anyone have a reference from a magisterial teaching that addresses this question?

The Holy Eucharist is a profound mystery. There is much to consider. But it is somewhat like worrying about whether Jesus had perfect hair at the Last Supper, as he must surely have now in His Glorified Body, and how that affects our Holy Communion, or that of the Apostles at the Last Supper.

No, that’s just an attempt to make the question sound silly. We all agree that it was just as much the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity at the Last Supper… but what does the Church teach, if she doesn’t teach that it was Christ’s glorified body? If your answer is simply “I don’t care and you shouldn’t either”, then we’ve already heard that opinion – thanks so much for chiming in. If there’s a substantive answer, however, it’d be refreshing to read it.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Gorgias:

Hmm… but, ‘sacramental’ is only a description of the mode in which His body is present; it’s not a description of the body itself. (In contrast, ‘glorified’ would be a description of the body itself.)

So, if we want to describe the Eucharist – and not the mode – we need to describe the body. So… what is it?

What’s the problem? At the Last Supper Jesus was right there bodily. So only the Apostles can describe the body. The Church, as far as I know, does not have some sort of doctrine on the description of the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist at the Last Supper. It is SO self-evident.

I am trying to understand this line of reasoning very hard. But it appears to me to be trying to make a big issue out of nothing. I quoted the words of Jesus Himself. “The flesh availeth nothing.” Why are you SO WORRIED about exactly what state HIS FLESH was in, at the time of the Last Supper, as if that is somehow contingent to the Sacrament.

I know that today we all learn that it is the glorified Body of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, because IT IS GLORIFIED now. At the Last Supper, His Body was not yet glorified, yet He is still the Incarnation; The God-Man, Jesus, the Son of the Living God, both at the Last Supper, and today.

 

[Ignatius]

AmbroseSJ;13010471:

Your question appears to assume that Jesus was not God until after His resurrection. There is nothing contingent about Jesus having a resurrected glorified body. NOW, in the Eucharist, we receive Jesus in exactly the same way that the Apostles received Him at the Last Supper.

John 6:60-63 "60Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 61But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 62If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. "

Jesus says Himself that although they eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, they shall see the Son of Man ascend up to Heaven nonetheless. He also says the flesh profiteth nothing. IOW, whether His body is mortal (before the resurrection) or after it is glorified is irrelevant, it is the spirit that quickeneth.

Do not overthink the state of Our Lord’s body, as if it makes perfect scientific sense one way but not the other. Either way it is a marvelous mystery and a miracle. It is irrelevant to transubstantiation. It is the WORD of GOD, the spirit, which quickeneth (gives life).

Not exactly; He wasnt glorified yet.

As AmbroseSJ pointed out above, Your question appears to assume that Jesus was not God until after His resurrection.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

As AmbroseSJ pointed out above, Your question appears to assume that Jesus was not God until after His resurrection.

Either that, or they mistakenly believe that ONLY a glorified body would be capable of Transubstantiation.

It is also worth considering that Jesus Instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper and not after His Resurrection. It would have been a greater test of Faith for the Apostles (perhaps) in that Jesus Himself, who was with them bodily was also saying that at the same time His Body and Blood was in the Eucharist. This great act of Faith on the part of the Apostles made them the ordained and true teachers of the Importance and Meaning of the Holy Eucharist for the Primitive Church and still more for us today.

It may seem “easier” for us today, to believe that Jesus, in His Glorified Body in Heaven is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. But the Apostles witnessed a suffering Jesus Institute this Holy Sacrament, in the flesh.

So if it were possible the wonder and mystery of the Eucharist was never more perfect than at the Last Supper itself. But in Truth, it is always perfect, even today.

 

[Faith1960]

Either that, or they mistakenly believe that ONLY a glorified body would be capable of Transubstantiation.

It is also worth considering that Jesus Instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper and not after His Resurrection. It would have been a greater test of Faith for the Apostles (perhaps) in that Jesus Himself, who was with them bodily was also saying that at the same time His Body and Blood was in the Eucharist. This great act of Faith on the part of the Apostles made them the ordained and true teachers of the Importance and Meaning of the Holy Eucharist for the Primitive Church and still more for us today.

It may seem “easier” for us today, to believe that Jesus, in His Glorified Body in Heaven is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. But the Apostles witnessed a suffering Jesus Institute this Holy Sacrament, in the flesh.
.

How?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

How?

???

 

[Faith1960]

???

How did they eat His body if He hadn’t died yet? After this, I’m not going to post in this thread until Gorgias does, because I feel like there’s a communication problem going on and s/he is a much better communicator than I am.