Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AmbroseSJ said:
I really don’t understand how you say that I am avoiding your question. I have answered it very specifically so many times. I have said categorically over and over that it was my opinion that it WAS NOT the substance of Jesus’ GLORIFIED BODY that was given in the Eucharist AT THE LAST SUPPER.

Instead I have said it was HIS BODY, AS IT WAS, THEN AND THERE. You even quoted me saying it!

I really do have a perfect signature quote for this thread. 😉
Click to expand...
Oh my. Im so confused. :o
 
This is a great topic and there have been many great posts.

It seems to me that many place limits on God. This is not intentional more often than not. Our human limitations do not allow us to comprehend all that God is and what He can do.

If I may add something to the discussion.

God is not limited by time. Something that might add to understanding what Jesus did at the Last Supper when He instituted the Eucharist can possibly be understood by what God did for Our Blessed Mother.

Our Blessed Mother Mary was the very first person saved by Jesus’ Passion, Death, and Resurrection. She was conceived without original sin. The only way this was possible was through Jesus’ death on the cross. God applied Jesus’ act of salvation to Our Mother Mary at Her conception before He was even conceived. God is not limited by time. He applies His will whenever He chooses.

We apply this understanding all the time. The very reason God can do whatever He wants is the reason we pray for the dead. We have no way of knowing how and when our prayers wil be used by God for the dead. This is why we should never assume that a person is not in heaven.

Yes, I believe Jesus held and consumed His own body and blood at the last supper. I prefer to not limit God. If I do then I limit HIs ability to work in me.

Everything will be made known to us when see Jesus face to face.

Our faith should be our guide.

God bless all of you.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
You misunderstand.

I was never contending that Jesus had a “hidden glorification.” Those are your words, not mine. I said “a hidden state.” It is in your quote. By that I meant the Incarnation is a Sacramental Mystery (also in your quote.)

Further, my opinion has NEVER been that Jesus was in this “hidden glorification” in order to solve the alleged problem of Jesus having a glorified body at the Last Supper in the Eucharist. I have never considered that to be any sort of problem. I have been arguing the exact opposite. That Jesus was present in the Eucharist in His Body, as it was, then and there; that it was unnecessary that Jesus have a glorified body in order to consecrate the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

It’s pretty hard when your allies try to prove you are arguing for the adversary’s side! 😉
Click to expand...
OK, fair enough.
It was “He was absolutely in a hidden state, ordinarily, as the Transfiguration attests.” that confused me (and possibly others) then.

That naturally reads as if he had a glorified body (hidden though) which was revealed on the mountain “as the Transfig attests.” You meant something else completely.

I personally have no problem with the Eucharist being Jesus’s body in an unglorified state whether at the Last Supper or even now.

Gorgias asks below:
“Is it the substance of the (glorified) body of Christ in Mass on Sunday?”

I am not even sure this is a valid question.

I do not believe their is a substantial difference between a glorified and non glorified body.
If anything it would be a accidental difference (a different mode).

And glorification it seems is not really about the body so much as the closer unity of both soul and body. That is the power/“coupling” of the soul over the body is somehow increased to such an extent that it “etherealises” the body so that matter appears to behave more like spirit than the matter we experience. I suppose that is why the NT in places speaks of a spiritual body.

In any case, the Eucharist, even now, does not appear to exhibit any activities that would suggest we need to posit that the mode of Jesus’s Body therein contained must be in a glorified mode so is the question important?

Sure, we would prob have to say the Body of Jesus contained therein (after his death) by a sort of concomitance would now be capable of glorious acts I suppose. But as we are not sensible to these anyway, just as we are not sensible even of His earthly body, what difference does it make?
 
Eddie_Mac said:
This is a great topic and there have been many great posts.

It seems to me that many place limits on God. This is not intentional more often than not. Our human limitations do not allow us to comprehend all that God is and what He can do.

If I may add something to the discussion.

God is not limited by time. Something that might add to understanding what Jesus did at the Last Supper when He instituted the Eucharist can possibly be understood by what God did for Our Blessed Mother.

Our Blessed Mother Mary was the very first person saved by Jesus’ Passion, Death, and Resurrection. She was conceived without original sin. The only way this was possible was through Jesus’ death on the cross. God applied Jesus’ act of salvation to Our Mother Mary at Her conception before He was even conceived. God is not limited by time. He applies His will whenever He chooses.

We apply this understanding all the time. The very reason God can do whatever He wants is the reason we pray for the dead. We have no way of knowing how and when our prayers wil be used by God for the dead. This is why we should never assume that a person is not in heaven.

Yes, I believe Jesus held and consumed His own body and blood at the last supper. I prefer to not limit God. If I do then I limit HIs ability to work in me.

Everything will be made known to us when see Jesus face to face.

Our faith should be our guide.

God bless all of you.
Click to expand...
Do we know that Jesus consumed the bread and wine before confecting and passing to his disciples?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Do we know that Jesus consumed the bread and wine before confecting and passing to his disciples?
Click to expand...
I would suggest not. But, it’s not entirely clear. If Christ did indeed eat the bread and wine then He ate of His own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. But let’s look close to see if He actually consumes the bread and wine. In Matthew witness, He said “Take ye, and eat” and He said “Drink ye all of this” . Mark’s and Luke’s witness is about the same. Now the custom in all most all social societies is to offer to your guests first and then one helps themselves to what’s left. Now in Matthew’s and Mark’s account there is no mention of Christ taking the bread back and consuming it. They do, however, mention that Christ said he will not drink until he reaches the Kingdom of God . However, in Luke we hear *“I will not eat it [pasch], till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” * Therefore, there is good reason that Christ did not, as you say, ‘eat himself’.

But, to add a bit of confusion, St. Augustine says he did indeed drink the wine.

JoeT
 
JoeT777 said:
I would suggest not. But, it’s not entirely clear. If Christ did indeed eat the bread and wine then He ate of His own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. But let’s look close to see if He actually consumes the bread and wine.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing in the Institution Narratives that suggests that He did.

It’s important, I think, to remember that the Last Supper happens in the context of a Passover celebration. This implies that Jesus did, in fact, eat and drink – after all, He would have had to, or else He would not have participated validly in the Passover obligation! However, it leads us to an interesting question: does the passage’s narrative of eating (bread) and drinking (wine) occur in the actual context of Passover ritual, or does Christ add to the evening by introducing additional ritual?

In Luke’s account, Jesus only drinks wine before beginning the Passover meal. His distribution of the bread happens at an indeterminate time, and his distribution of the chalice happens “after they had eaten.”

Matthew and Mark place the distribution of both bread and wine “while they were eating.” Again, can we say that this is necessarily part of the Passover ritual? Or, isn’t it more reasonable to suggest that Jesus adds this to the ritual?

Mark adds Jesus’ comment about “not drinking again of the fruit of the vine” after the distribution of the Precious Blood (recall that Luke places this comment before the Institution of the Eucharist).

So, what can we conclude? IIRC, Scott Hahn’s “fourth cup” theology suggests that all of these references (to the drinking of wine, although I can’t recall whether this includes a discussion of the breaking of the bread) are part of the Passover ritual.

On the other hand, if we look simply at the face of the text, it would seem reasonable to suggest that it doesn’t tell us (at the very least, it doesn’t tell us explicitly) that Jesus shares in the consumption of the Eucharist. On the other hand, He Himself is the Passover sacrifice of the New Covenant, so it wouldn’t seem necessary (for the sake of the ritual) for Him to consume the sacrifice.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
I really don’t understand how you say that I am avoiding your question. I have answered it very specifically so many times.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:

Hmm… looking back, I see that I missed one of your comments, so I’ll need to go back and read it carefully. However, it seemed to me that your responses were more along the lines of “this is a silly, inconsequential question.” To wit:
40.png
AmbroseSJ:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ll go back and read the comment I missed. And yes, I read your statement that He was present in the Eucharist, “as it was, then and there” as referring to the Eucharist as it was, not His body “as it was”. Thanks for the clarification. I can’t say that I agree; and it seems to me that your assertion is in contradiction to what – for example – Aquinas asserts about the Eucharist, but I’ll defer expanding on that for the moment, till I’ve ‘read up’ on your comment. 😉
 
Gorgias said:
:hmmm:
I’ll go back and read the comment I missed. And yes, I read your statement that He was present in the Eucharist, “as it was, then and there” as referring to the Eucharist as it was, not His body “as it was”. Thanks for the clarification. I can’t say that I agree; and it seems to me that your assertion is in contradiction to what – for example – Aquinas asserts about the Eucharist, but I’ll defer expanding on that for the moment, till I’ve ‘read up’ on your comment. 😉
Click to expand...
No, you actually quoted me saying "That Jesus was present in the Eucharist in His Body, as it was, then and there; " Not “it”, but “in His body as it was then and there.” I’m afraid today people do “quick scans” more than careful reading. I especially notice that here on CAF.

I hate to come across as preachy, but this has become a real sore spot with me. Especially in the Apologetics forum; it is CAREFUL READING, that is so essential to EFFECTIVELY forming a cogent response. If you are AT ALL unsure of what someone is trying to say, then always FIRST try and clarify in your own mind what they are saying. Sometimes even THEY don’t know what they are trying to say. 🙂

BTW, While you’re checking your Aquinas, be sure you are understanding him to be describing the Eucharist AT THE LAST SUPPER, not as we have it today or then, in his own day. Because today, I fully agree that Jesus is Present in His Glorified Body etc.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
I really don’t understand how you say that I am avoiding your question. I have answered it very specifically so many times. I have said categorically over and over that it was my opinion that it WAS NOT the substance of Jesus’ GLORI:oFIED BODY that was given in the Eucharist AT THE LAST SUPPER.

Instead I have said it was HIS BODY, AS IT WAS, THEN AND THERE. You even quoted me saying it!

I really do have a perfect signature quote for this thread. 😉
Click to expand...
Ok, it was His body, not His glorified body. So how is that possible? Because He exists out of time and space?
 
Faith1960 said:
Ok, it was His body, not His glorified body. So how is that possible? Because He exists out of time and space?
Click to expand...
Because Jesus is God, nothing is impossible for Him. What I don’t follow, is why does it seem more possible to you if it is His Glorified body?
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Because Jesus is God, nothing is impossible for Him. What I don’t follow, is why does it seem more possible to you if it is His Glorified body?
Click to expand...
Because His glorified body was capable of even more that His regular body. He walked through locked doors.etc., and it makes more sense to me. 🤷
 
Faith1960 said:
Because His glorified body was capable of even more that His regular body. He walked through locked doors.etc., and it makes more sense to me. 🤷
Click to expand...
You are correct in our Eucharist today of course. Meaning that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus in His Glorified Body. But if the Last Supper seems to be a difficulty, recall that Jesus was still God (the Incarnation) from His miraculous Virgin Birth, through His Life of walking on water, being transfigured, raising the dead, casting out devils, healing the sick and so much more that wasn’t written down in the Gospels. Understand that Jesus was fully able to give Himself in the Eucharist at the Last Supper, without the “aid” of a glorified body. After all, isn’t that what Jesus asked His Apostles to believe there at the Last Supper? They had no knowledge of any glorified bodies.

So the VERY REASON we believe that Jesus today is present in the Eucharist in His Glorified Body, is because THAT IS WHAT JESUS HAS TODAY. But at the Last Supper he had a mortal suffering body.

There is no question that the Last Supper is unique as an Eucharistic Mystery. But the important point of Faith, is that Jesus DID give the Apostles, Himself, the FIRST Eucharist, His Body and Blood. 🙂
 
Gorgias said:
There’s nothing in the Institution Narratives that suggests that He did.

It’s important, I think, to remember that the Last Supper happens in the context of a Passover celebration. This implies that Jesus did, in fact, eat and drink – after all, He would have had to, or else He would not have participated validly in the Passover obligation! However, it leads us to an interesting question: does the passage’s narrative of eating (bread) and drinking (wine) occur in the actual context of Passover ritual, or does Christ add to the evening by introducing additional ritual?

In Luke’s account, Jesus only drinks wine before beginning the Passover meal. His distribution of the bread happens at an indeterminate time, and his distribution of the chalice happens “after they had eaten.”

Matthew and Mark place the distribution of both bread and wine “while they were eating.” Again, can we say that this is necessarily part of the Passover ritual? Or, isn’t it more reasonable to suggest that Jesus adds this to the ritual?

Mark adds Jesus’ comment about “not drinking again of the fruit of the vine” after the distribution of the Precious Blood (recall that Luke places this comment before the Institution of the Eucharist).

So, what can we conclude? IIRC, Scott Hahn’s “fourth cup” theology suggests that all of these references (to the drinking of wine, although I can’t recall whether this includes a discussion of the breaking of the bread) are part of the Passover ritual.

On the other hand, if we look simply at the face of the text, it would seem reasonable to suggest that it doesn’t tell us (at the very least, it doesn’t tell us explicitly) that Jesus shares in the consumption of the Eucharist. On the other hand, He Himself is the Passover sacrifice of the New Covenant, so it wouldn’t seem necessary (for the sake of the ritual) for Him to consume the sacrifice.
Click to expand...
I’m inclined to believe the participants are joining a ritualistic Seder meal. And as I understand the ritual it is not so rigid that some individual family customs couldn’t also be incorporated. The Seder meal has a host of different foods and drinks said at different times each beginning with toast. We know Christ was excited about this particular Seder, Scriptures indicate He was anxious for it to begin.

Given this, I contend that Christ ate the Seder meal, hosted his cup, except the last cup as well as the last of the breads where he placed himself in the bread and wine. You might say now we have a Seder like meal with two thanksgivings, one to God where death will Pass-over and the second, an abiding in Christ as a friend through the Eucharist. Hence, the faithful benefit the Jew’s Passover as well as Christ’s new custom allowing us to eternally abide in Him.

Not just one, as the commercial goes, but two *~click~ ~click~ *blessings in ONE!

But as you stated there is no explicit statement one way or the other. I tend to believe he did not consume himself and to have skipped this added custom would not have broken the ritualistic aspects of Seder.

JoeT
 
I must say that I picked this thread up at the last page so if this has been mentioned–sorry–

I just finished reading a book Called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre foreword by Scott Hahn.

This is a wonderful book and might answer all the questions and concerns posted on this thread. I think it is a must read for every CAtholic. Just my opinion.
 
Faith1960 said:
I’ve already read it. I wish someone would join this thread who can answer in simpler language. The more people post, the more confused I get.
Click to expand...
Why are you confused, the Church doesn’t teach anything about it. So you can hold either opinion without worry.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Why are you confused, the Church doesn’t teach anything about it. So you can hold either opinion without worry.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Do you mean there’s no definitive teaching whether Jesus ate His own flesh and blood when He hadn’t died and glorified yet?
 
Waynec said:
I must say that I picked this thread up at the last page so if this has been mentioned–sorry–

I just finished reading a book Called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre foreword by Scott Hahn.

This is a wonderful book and might answer all the questions and concerns posted on this thread. I think it is a must read for every CAtholic. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I cant afford to buy another book right now. Can you share with us what it says about whether Jesus was holding His own body and blood at the Last Supper and how He did that if He hadn’t died yet?
 
Faith1960 said:
Do you mean there’s no definitive teaching whether Jesus ate His own flesh and blood when He hadn’t died and glorified yet?
Click to expand...
That is correct, there is no teaching on that point, definitive or non-definitive. Philosophers such as Aquinas have speculated about it. And the point about whether his body was glorified or not does not apply becaues the consecrated species contained his glorified body by anticipation of the actual sacrifice which would take place the next day. The Apostoles partook of his glorified body before the crucifixion had actually taken place. This was a special miracle.

My own thought is that Christ did not parrtake of the consecrated species since he had no need of personal sanctification. He was himself the lamb of the passover which would be sacrificed…

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top