Eucharist

[Waynec]

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?

The book doesn’t say He did, but I found this site that will not allow me to cut and past but here is the link I think. I found this to be interesting.

books.google.com/books?id=-tT4uBQnrxoC&pg=RA1-PT145&lpg=RA1-PT145&dq=did+jesus+eat+his+ownbody+andblood&source=bl&ots=lM5ETAYAGR&sig=6TpqVb8tJaJZDXT45wxadWvHLSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e_tyVYuLMcf3sAW5soOACw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=did%20jesus%20eat%20his%20ownbody%20andblood&f=false

Long I know but the question you are interested in is: First Article [III, Q.81, Art 1]

the print is small but can be enlarged on the page. I googled the question and the above came up.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The book doesn’t say He did, but I found this site that will not allow me to cut and past but here is the link I think. I found this to be interesting.

books.google.com/books?id=-tT4uBQnrxoC&pg=RA1-PT145&lpg=RA1-PT145&dq=did+jesus+eat+his+ownbody+andblood&source=bl&ots=lM5ETAYAGR&sig=6TpqVb8tJaJZDXT45wxadWvHLSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e_tyVYuLMcf3sAW5soOACw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=did%20jesus%20eat%20his%20ownbody%20andblood&f=false

Long I know but the question you are interested in is: First Article [III, Q.81, Art 1]

the print is small but can be enlarged on the page. I googled the question and the above came up.

Very good find!
We have St. Thomas’ answer to all of the questions in this thread. Certainly a worthy opinion!

 

[Gorgias]

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.

The question that’s been under scrutiny was precisely the one you’ve blithely asserted: whether the Eucharist at the Last Supper ‘contained’ Christ’s glorified body or not. (I’m with you – and against Aquinas, apparently – in thinking that it did.)

 

[Waynec]

Very good find!
We have St. Thomas’ answer to all of the questions in this thread. Certainly a worthy opinion!

Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

Long I know but the question you are interested in is: First Article [III, Q.81, Art 1]

the print is small but can be enlarged on the page. I googled the question and the above came up.

You’ll find a far more easily readable version at New Advent.

We have St. Thomas’ answer to all of the questions in this thread. Certainly a worthy opinion!

Let’s be fair with what Aquinas really wrote. He didn’t say “Christ partook of his own body and blood” – what he really wrote was that “[it] seems improbable that… [Christ] did not partake of [His body and blood] Himself.” Big difference, there.

Aquinas’ reasoning seems particularly odd here:

• “Christ Himself was the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others”
• Yet, Christ didn’t receive the baptism that He imposed on us! Scripture makes the distinction between the baptism of John and the baptism of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and Christ only received the former!
• Aquinas’ assertion here argues against his own point! By analogy, it says that Christ, perhaps, ate bread and drank wine, but didn’t really receive the Eucharist (just as He didn’t really have a sacramental baptism!)
• Aquinas’ Scriptural proof is Acts 1:1, which he quotes as “Jesus began to do and to teach”.
• This seems to be a horrific proof-text! In context, the sentence “*n the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught until the day he was taken up” doesn’t say anything to support Aquinas’ assertion, but rather, simply points back to the Gospel of Luke!
• Moreover, by directing our attention to Acts 1, it draws us to the literal words of Jesus which harm his point: “John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit”!
• in the Summa, Aquinas often obliquely references the writings or thought of others. Is this a reference to someone else’s thought, perhaps? It just doesn’t stand on its own…
• His other ‘proof’ is a gloss on a Scriptural text. Not the text itself, mind you – just someone’s commentary on Ruth 3:7! That doesn’t really hold up, either.
• Does anyone know what he’s quoting here? (I’ll have to go dig up my books on Aquinas and see what I can find on III.81.1 …)
• His reply to the objections aren’t much better, it seems: to objection one, he merely makes the same assertion without any reasoning behind it, but rather, simply pointing to a rhyme that asserts the same thing! :sad_yes:
• His reply to objection two addresses one of the questions we asked here: as in III.76.5 (which, IIRC, I described earlier in the thread), the sacramental presence and the notion of dimension are what make it possible for the Eucharist at the Last Supper to have truly been Christ’s body and blood.

Aquinas clearly comes out on the side of Christ consuming the Eucharist (III.81.1), and that the Eucharist at the Last Supper was not Christ’s glorified body (III.81.3). Yet, he claims that “in the sacrament, in an impassible manner… there was present… that which was passible of itself.” It seems that Aquinas is saying that, because Christ’s glorified body wasn’t visible to the apostles at the Last Supper, it wasn’t present in the Eucharist at that time – but, that his passible (non-glorified) body was present in the Eucharist in a glorified way. He seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it too, with this answer.

Time to hit those books on Aquinas again. I tend to stand with him with what’s in the first three books of the Summa… but on this one, I’m just scratching my head…*

 

[Faith1960]

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

Ok. So at the risk of beating a dead horse, how could He hold His body if He hadnt died yet?

 

[Gorgias]

Ok. So at the risk of beating a dead horse, how could He hold His body if He hadnt died yet?

Two answers: first, it’s a miracle (and, as it turns out, a miracle that’s repeated on every altar at every Mass!). Second, Christ is present sacramentally in the Eucharist, not visibly. It’s His substance, not His accidents (i.e., physically observable body) that’s present in the Eucharist. It’s a Real Presence, but a sacramental one.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Gorgias:

Let’s be fair with what Aquinas really wrote. He didn’t say “Christ partook of his own body and blood” – what he really wrote was that “[it] seems improbable that… [Christ] did not partake of [His body and blood] Himself.” Big difference, there.

I don’t have a dog in that fight. I have never commented one way or the other. However, the opinion’s of the Angelic Doctor of the Church are worthy ones.

Time to hit those books on Aquinas again. I tend to stand with him with what’s in the first three books of the Summa… but on this one, I’m just scratching my head…

 

[Faith1960]

Two answers: first, it’s a miracle (and, as it turns out, a miracle that’s repeated on every altar at every Mass!). Second, Christ is present sacramentally in the Eucharist, not visibly. It’s His substance, not His accidents (i.e., physically observable body) that’s present in the Eucharist. It’s a Real Presence, but a sacramental one.

Whats the simple definition of a sacramental presence? I had a thread going on about that but still dont get it.

 

[Gorgias]

Whats the simple definition of a sacramental presence? I had a thread going on about that but still dont get it.

A simple definition is “An outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.”

A stop sign is a sign – but it doesn’t do anything: rather, it’s just a reminder to you that you’re supposed to stop (and maybe it’s a reminder of the potential result if you don’t!). A sacrament, on the other hand, is efficacious – it does what it signifies.

The pouring of water in baptism signifies the action of the Holy Spirit – not in the way that a stop sign is merely a sign, but in a way that the invisible action of the Holy Spirit really exists, even if we only see water.

A ‘sacramental presence’, then, is a presence that is sacramental (i.e., ‘real’ yet invisible). Jesus is sacramentally present in the Eucharist. Not physically present in the mode that He was present, for example, during His earthly ministry or following His resurrection; yet, Jesus is really present in the Eucharist – but in a way that’s not visible to our eyes.

Does that help?

 

[Faith1960]

A simple definition is “An outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.”

A stop sign is a sign – but it doesn’t do anything: rather, it’s just a reminder to you that you’re supposed to stop (and maybe it’s a reminder of the potential result if you don’t!). A sacrament, on the other hand, is efficacious – it does what it signifies.

The pouring of water in baptism signifies the action of the Holy Spirit – not in the way that a stop sign is merely a sign, but in a way that the invisible action of the Holy Spirit really exists, even if we only see water.

A ‘sacramental presence’, then, is a presence that is sacramental (i.e., ‘real’ yet invisible). Jesus is sacramentally present in the Eucharist. Not physically present in the mode that He was present, for example, during His earthly ministry or following His resurrection; yet, Jesus is really present in the Eucharist – but in a way that’s not visible to our eyes.

Does that help?

Sort of. I’m confused about what a sacrament is, I think.

 

[Faith1960]

Sort of. I’m confused about what a sacrament is, I think.

And “an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.”

 

[Gorgias]

And “an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.”

OK: so, you’re familiar with the idea of ‘grace’, right? I mean, free gift from God and all that?

Well, the ‘cleansing’ of baptism and the ‘sealing of the Spirit’ and the ‘presence of Christ in the Eucharist’ are all instances of means of receiving grace from God. Here’s the thing, though: what can you point to and say, “look! right there! that’s God’s grace, right there!!!”…?

God’s grace isn’t a material object, so you can’t point to it (like you could point to a pizza or a baseball or a car) and say “there it is!”

(Similarly, you can’t point and say, “look! right there! that’s the authority of the government to regulate how we drive on the roads!”)

In the case of a stop sign, you can certainly point to that sign and say “ok… that sign, in itself, isn’t ‘the authority of the government to regulate driving’, but it is something that reminds me of their authority!”

On the other hand, a sacrament is a sign that actually does what it signifies: the water of baptism is both a physical sign of the cleansing from sin and it actually causes the cleansing to occur (through the Holy Spirit and the action of the baptism). So, a sacrament is both sign and reality.

A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality: it does what it signifies.

Does that help? Do you have any other questions about what a sacrament is? Is there anything there that I could try to make more clear?

 

[Faith1960]

OK: so, you’re familiar with the idea of ‘grace’, right? I mean, free gift from God and all that?

Well, the ‘cleansing’ of baptism and the ‘sealing of the Spirit’ and the ‘presence of Christ in the Eucharist’ are all instances of means of receiving grace from God. Here’s the thing, though: what can you point to and say, “look! right there! that’s God’s grace, right there!!!”…?

God’s grace isn’t a material object, so you can’t point to it (like you could point to a pizza or a baseball or a car) and say “there it is!”

(Similarly, you can’t point and say, “look! right there! that’s the authority of the government to regulate how we drive on the roads!”)

In the case of a stop sign, you can certainly point to that sign and say “ok… that sign, in itself, isn’t ‘the authority of the government to regulate driving’, but it is something that reminds me of their authority!”

On the other hand, a sacrament is a sign that actually does what it signifies: the water of baptism is both a physical sign of the cleansing from sin and it actually causes the cleansing to occur (through the Holy Spirit and the action of the baptism). So, a sacrament is both sign and reality.

A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality: it does what it signifies.

Does that help? Do you have any other questions about what a sacrament is? Is there anything there that I could try to make more clear?

I might be starting to get it; thanks for trying to help me.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Not exactly; He wasnt glorified yet.

O.K. call me stupid–but why is everyone saying we receive his “glorified” body. What is the source for this? I’ve never heard this. Everything I’ve read refers to it as His Body or His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Never with the “glorified” qualifier. Indeed the CCC @ paragraph 1365 says: "In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he ‘poured our for the forgiveness of sins.’ " I am not seeing your problem? Are you saying his glorified body isn’t the same body he had before–to me it’s all the same body. If I die in a state of grace and get to heaven I am not expecting to receive a different body–I think that the one I have will be glorified–it’s still the same body–not a new body. So I guess you can call me simple in addition to stupid. I think you are overthinking this. His Body is His Body is His Body. He said it was and I see no reason to think He, being God, couldn’t do it.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Faith1960]

O.K. call me stupid–but why is everyone saying we receive his “glorified” body. What is the source for this? I’ve never heard this. Everything I’ve read refers to it as His Body or His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Never with the “glorified” qualifier. Indeed the CCC @ paragraph 1365 says: "In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he ‘poured our for the forgiveness of sins.’ " I am not seeing your problem? Are you saying his glorified body isn’t the same body he had before–to me it’s all the same body. If I die in a state of grace and get to heaven I am not expecting to receive a different body–I think that the one I have will be glorified–it’s still the same body–not a new body. So I guess you can call me simple in addition to stupid. I think you are overthinking this. His Body is His Body is His Body. He said it was and I see no reason to think He, being God, couldn’t do it.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

We receive the glorified Christ in the Eucharist.

catholic.org/clife/jesus/eucharist.php

 

[ericc]

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.

Does it make a difference whether we are eating a glorified body or a non-glorified body of Christ? I haven’t read anything that distinguish the effect of either as long as it is the body of Christ. To the person eating his body, that is not going to make any difference. In either case, we will be eating the Bread from Heaven. If you have any information that makes a difference in our worship , please do share. Otherwise it is just an academic exercise, interesting tidbits?

Or is it a theological hurdle?

Or is it a secular logic problem that Jesus could not be eating his own body and drink his own blood when he is still humanly alive? However we can not divorce his 2 natures. He could do the secular impossible being God. We need not know the “how” as it is a miracle. We do not know the “how” he raised a dead body to be alive again or how water can be turned to wine, or the virgin birth.

If you can elaborate on the real issue bugging you, perhaps others here may be able to help you as we are already many posts long and you are no closer to your answer.

 

[tee_eff_em]

We receive the glorified Christ in the Eucharist.

catholic.org/clife/jesus/eucharist.php

But that does not say that it is *essential *to the Eucharist that it be a glorified body. It merely (merely!) expresses a tautology that we receive Christ’s body as he is today. Christ’s body today is glorified, therefore the body of Christ we receive in the Eucharist today is glorified.

This answers the FAQ (really, you can find many threads on this forum alone asking the question) *Do we receive Christ’s dead flesh in the Eucharist? *
**Answer: **No, we do not. Christ’s flesh today is not dead, but alive. His body today is not dead, but resurrected. His body today is glorified. Today in the Eucharist we receive Christ’s living, resurrected, glorified body.

There are (many) other facts we could use to describe Jesus’s body today, we simply do not ordinarily do so. Christ’s body was raised and nurtured in Nazareth. Christ’s body was (we may presume) trained in the skills of carpentry. Christ’s body was of a particular height – For the sake of this argument, let us say it is known that Christ was 5’7".

But we do not ordinarily say of the Eucharist:

• 
  *]We receive Christ’s Nazareth-raised body, nor
  *]We receive Christ’s carpentry-trained body, nor
  *]We receive Christ’s 5’7" body
  
  All of those might be true, but none of them are *essential *attributes of a body to be transubstantiated.
  
  Today in the Eucharist we receive Christ’s glorified body, because today Christ’s body is glorified.
  
  Now, can someone – Anyone – Give me a reason why, at the last supper, prior to the time Christ’s body was to have been glorified, Jesus Christ, in his not-yet-glorified body, could not have transubstantiated bread into his not-yet-glorified body?
  Why could Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Lord God through whom the universe was made, and without whom nothing was made which was made, not transubstantiate bread into his not-yet-glorified body??
  
  
  tee

 

[Faith1960]

But that does not say that it is *essential *to the Eucharist that it be a glorified body. It merely (merely!) expresses a tautology that we receive Christ’s body as he is today. Christ’s body today is glorified, therefore the body of Christ we receive in the Eucharist today is glorified.

This answers the FAQ (really, you can find many threads on this forum alone asking the question) *Do we receive Christ’s dead flesh in the Eucharist? *
**Answer: **No, we do not. Christ’s flesh today is not dead, but alive. His body today is not dead, but resurrected. His body today is glorified. Today in the Eucharist we receive Christ’s living, resurrected, glorified body.

There are (many) other facts we could use to describe Jesus’s body today, we simply do not ordinarily do so. Christ’s body was raised and nurtured in Nazareth. Christ’s body was (we may presume) trained in the skills of carpentry. Christ’s body was of a particular height – For the sake of this argument, let us say it is known that Christ was 5’7".

But we do not ordinarily say of the Eucharist:

• 
  *]We receive Christ’s Nazareth-raised body, nor
  *]We receive Christ’s carpentry-trained body, nor
  *]We receive Christ’s 5’7" body
  
  All of those might be true, but none of them are *essential *attributes of a body to be transubstantiated.
  
  Today in the Eucharist we receive Christ’s glorified body, because today Christ’s body is glorified.
  
  Now, can someone – Anyone – Give me a reason why, at the last supper, prior to the time Christ’s body was to have been glorified, Jesus Christ, in his not-yet-glorified body, could not have transubstantiated bread into his not-yet-glorified body?
  Why could Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Lord God through whom the universe was made, and without whom nothing was made which was made, not transubstantiate bread into his not-yet-glorified body??
  
  
  tee

• 
  Ok, I get it. Thanks.

 

[GreenWhiteBlue]

I would ask whether there is any difference in substance between Christ’s gorified body and his unglorified body: the substance of both is Christ’s own body, which is not changed by time (and all discussions involving “before” and “after” are necessarily discusions of “now” vs." then"), just as it is not changed by appearance.