F
Faith1960
Guest
MAYBE I’m starting to get it. How could He do that ? Because He’s God?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
Faith1960
Guest
And how or what is the Eucharist not in the same way .bodies are present .in a given place. Can you explain further?Remember what H.H. Pope Paul VI said: “… after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.”
So Jesus Christ,
bodily present in the same way that bodies are present in a given place,
holds the Eucharist,
bodily present, not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Read the section Mystery of the Eucharist. It explains this very well.
maryprayforus.org/about-us/hope/winter-2015/eucharist.html
maryprayforus.org/about-us/hope/winter-2015/eucharist.html
V
Vico
Guest
Human nature has a physical part, referred to as body and blood. The glorified body is still a physical body, but transformed to exceed the limits of the merely physical, and this is true for the glorified body of Christ.And how or what is the Eucharist not in the same way .bodies are present .in a given place. Can you explain further?
It is the glorified body of Christ that is present in the Eucharist – true even of the Eucharist of the Last Supper.
The Eucharist: Communion with Christ and with one another
Theological and Pastoral Reflections in Preparation for the 50th International Eucharistic Congress
by the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses
- 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. When, at the rite of communion, we will chew, swallow and digest the bread transformed into the bread from heaven, thereby in a certain sense ‘unmaking’ it, its ‘unmaking’ will really be the ‘making of us’ because it will form us in Christ in communion with one another. So, in preparing the gifts, we are not only opening ourselves to the action of God who will change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, we are making ourselves available to be transformed into instruments of communion. The addition of a drop of water to the chalice can be understood in this sense too as signifying our humanity that is to be united to Jesus Christ’s self-offering that we commemorate at the Eucharist and in whom we are made one.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pont_committees/eucharist-congr/documents/rc_committ_euchar_doc_20110215_50-testo-base_en.html
F
Faith1960
Guest
A bunch of us had this convo before and it was determined that The Eucharist at the Last Supper wasn’t glorified because Jesus hadn’t died yet. Wrong?Human nature has a physical part, referred to as body and blood. The glorified body is still a physical body, but transformed to exceed the limits of the merely physical, and this is true for the glorified body of Christ.
It is the glorified body of Christ that is present in the Eucharist – true even of the Eucharist of the Last Supper.
The Eucharist: Communion with Christ and with one another
Theological and Pastoral Reflections in Preparation for the 50th International Eucharistic Congress
by the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses
- 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. When, at the rite of communion, we will chew, swallow and digest the bread transformed into the bread from heaven, thereby in a certain sense ‘unmaking’ it, its ‘unmaking’ will really be the ‘making of us’ because it will form us in Christ in communion with one another. So, in preparing the gifts, we are not only opening ourselves to the action of God who will change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, we are making ourselves available to be transformed into instruments of communion. The addition of a drop of water to the chalice can be understood in this sense too as signifying our humanity that is to be united to Jesus Christ’s self-offering that we commemorate at the Eucharist and in whom we are made one.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pont_committees/eucharist-congr/documents/rc_committ_euchar_doc_20110215_50-testo-base_en.html
V
Vico
Guest
Why would a glorified bodily presence be impossible at the Last Supper because it will also exists later (and in every Eucharist)? In every instance it is a miracle of God.A bunch of us had this convo before and it was determined that The Eucharist at the Last Supper wasn’t glorified because Jesus hadn’t died yet. Wrong?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Don’t know. It’s just what posters said.Why would a glorified bodily presence be impossible at the Last Supper because it will also exists later (and in every Eucharist)? In every instance it is a miracle of God.
V
Vico
Guest
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:Don’t know. It’s just what posters said.
Question 81. The use which Christ made of this sacrament at its institution
Article 3. Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body --namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.
newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm#article1
F
Faith1960
Guest
Does that mean the Eucharist was His glorified body? I’m confused.St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:
Question 81. The use which Christ made of this sacrament at its institution
Article 3. Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body --namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.
newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm#article1
V
Vico
Guest
Did you miss that in post #62?Does that mean the Eucharist was His glorified body? I’m confused.
It is the glorified body of Christ that is present in the Eucharist – true even of the Eucharist of the Last Supper.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I read it. I’m just not sure that’s what Thomas Aquinas (sp) meant.Did you miss that in post #62?
It is the glorified body of Christ that is present in the Eucharist – true even of the Eucharist of the Last Supper.
V
Vico
Guest
Well, he said that the Last Supper was on of the four times that Christ assumed properties of a glorified body, and that at the Last Supper is was impassibility.I read it. I’m just not sure that’s what Thomas Aquinas (sp) meant.
F
Faith1960
Guest
What’s impassibility mean, exactly?Well, he said that the Last Supper was on of the four times that Christ assumed properties of a glorified body, and that at the Last Supper is was impassibility.
V
Vico
Guest
Impassibility (Definition) – Modern Catholic DictionaryWhat’s impassibility mean, exactly?
Quality of the glorified human body in being free from every kind of physical evil, such as sorrow or sickness, injury or death. It may be defined as the impossibility to suffer and to die (Revelation 21:4). The inherent reason for impassibility consists in the perfect compliance of the body and emotions to the soul. (Etym. Latin in-, not + passibilis, able to suffer; impassibilis, incapable of suffering.)
F
Faith1960
Guest
In the thread The Last Supper and the Glorified Body, from August 28, 2014, the poster quotes Aquinas and says it was not his glorified body in post# 5.
Sorry, I don’t know how to link it.
Sorry, I don’t know how to link it.
F
Faith1960
Guest
So you’re saying that Jesus gave His glorified body to the apostles? Sorry for all the questions.Impassibility (Definition) – Modern Catholic Dictionary
Quality of the glorified human body in being free from every kind of physical evil, such as sorrow or sickness, injury or death. It may be defined as the impossibility to suffer and to die (Revelation 21:4). The inherent reason for impassibility consists in the perfect compliance of the body and emotions to the soul. (Etym. Latin in-, not + passibilis, able to suffer; impassibilis, incapable of suffering.)
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, because the bread and wine are transubstantiated to the glorified body and blood.So you’re saying that Jesus gave His glorified body to the apostles? Sorry for all the questions.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Did you read post # 73? Can you please find the thread/post and tell me what you think?Yes, because the bread and wine are transubstantiated to the glorified body and blood.
V
Vico
Guest
The Church teaches that we receive the glorified body in the Eucharist.Did you read post # 73? Can you please find the thread/post and tell me what you think?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12295038&postcount=5
Ad Orientem quotes St. Thomas Aquinas says (ST III 81, a3) that it was not his glorified body, however the entire section was not posted. St. Thomas says that Christ’s body was not impassible at the Last Supper, but also that it was not Christ’s own body that was acted upon and seen, but the bread and wine, at the Last Supper. Here is that section:
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body --namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.
But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning which we have already stated what should be held (28, 2, ad 3; 45, 2), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ’s body impassible when given under the sacramental species.
Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ’s body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (1, ad 2; 76, 5), is not compared with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ’s own body.
Note that: “Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was passible of itself”.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I’m a little confused. So, you still maintain Jesus held His glorified body at the Last Supper or not?The Church teaches that we receive the glorified body in the Eucharist.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12295038&postcount=5
Ad Orientem quotes St. Thomas Aquinas says (ST III 81, a3) that it was not his glorified body, however the entire section was not posted. St. Thomas says that Christ’s body was not impassible at the Last Supper, but also that it was not Christ’s own body that was acted upon and seen, but the bread and wine, at the Last Supper. Here is that section:
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body --namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.
But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning which we have already stated what should be held (28, 2, ad 3; 45, 2), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ’s body impassible when given under the sacramental species.
Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ’s body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (1, ad 2; 76, 5), is not compared with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ’s own body.
Note that: “Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was passible of itself”.
Thanks for your patience,
- Status
- Not open for further replies.