Eucharist

[Vico]

I’m a little confused. So, you still maintain Jesus held His glorified body at the Last Supper or not?
Thanks for your patience,

The Council of Trent defined that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Christ. The Eucharist was instituted at the Last Supper, and the same is re-presented in the Mass, therefore it must be the same Eucharist before and after the Resurrection. And we know that the Eucharist is the glorified body because the Church has told us so.

From the USCCB The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic Questions and Answers:

As St. John Damascene wrote: “The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body’; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body’ but ‘my body,’ and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood’ but ‘my blood’” ( The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]). At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that the Body and Blood of Christ come to us in the Eucharist in a sacramental form. In other words, Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine, not in his own proper form.

And

***When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, why do they still look and taste like bread and wine? ***
In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique, a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the Church’s traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the “substance” of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the “accidents” or appearances of bread and wine remain. “Substance” and “accident” are here used as philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of “accidents” or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of “substance” or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called “transubstantiation.” According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this transubstantiation has occurred (cf. Catechism, no. 1376). This is a great mystery of our faith—we can only know it from Christ’s teaching given us in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

 

[Faith1960]

The Council of Trent defined that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Christ. The Eucharist was instituted at the Last Supper, and the same is re-presented in the Mass, therefore it must be the same Eucharist before and after the Resurrection. And we know that the Eucharist is the glorified body because the Church has told us so.

From the USCCB The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic Questions and Answers:

As St. John Damascene wrote: “The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body’; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body’ but ‘my body,’ and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood’ but ‘my blood’” ( The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]). At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that the Body and Blood of Christ come to us in the Eucharist in a sacramental form. In other words, Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine, not in his own proper form.

And

***When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, why do they still look and taste like bread and wine? ***
In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique, a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the Church’s traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the “substance” of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the “accidents” or appearances of bread and wine remain. “Substance” and “accident” are here used as philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of “accidents” or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of “substance” or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called “transubstantiation.” According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this transubstantiation has occurred (cf. Catechism, no. 1376). This is a great mystery of our faith—we can only know it from Christ’s teaching given us in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

So the Host at the Last Supper was glorified?

 

[Vico]

So the Host at the Last Supper was glorified?

Yes.

Last Supper:

…Jesus… Eucharist (After Consecration)
Nature 1…Divinity… Divinity
Nature 2…Human Soul… Human Soul
Substance…Body and Blood… Glorified Body and Blood
Appearance…Body and Blood… Bread, Wine

 

[Faith1960]

Yes.

Last Supper:

…Jesus… Eucharist (After Consecration)
Nature 1…Divinity… Divinity
Nature 2…Human Soul… Human Soul
Substance…Body and Blood… Glorified Body and Blood
Appearance…Body and Blood… Bread, Wine

Thanks!

 

[Faith1960]

Some people might say it’s impossible for Jesus to hold his glorified body because He hadn’t died yet, at the Last Supper. What would you say to that?

 

[Vico]

Some people might say it’s impossible for Jesus to hold his glorified body because He hadn’t died yet, at the Last Supper. What would you say to that?

Death and resurrection is not required to glorify the body.

The Rosary, Fourth Mystery of Light: The Transfiguration.

“And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light” (Mt 17:1-2).

“For a moment Jesus discloses his divine glory, confirming Peter’s confession. He also reveals that he will have to go by the way of the cross at Jerusalem in order to ‘enter into his glory’ (Lk 24:26)” (CCC, 555).

 

[Faith1960]

Death and resurrection is not required to glorify the body.

The Rosary, Fourth Mystery of Light: The Transfiguration.

“And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light” (Mt 17:1-2).

“For a moment Jesus discloses his divine glory, confirming Peter’s confession. He also reveals that he will have to go by the way of the cross at Jerusalem in order to ‘enter into his glory’ (Lk 24:26)” (CCC, 555).

Thanks again!

 

[markdris]

Please help me out on this:

In 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, St. Paul wrote that he received by revelation from God the details of the Last Supper (Jesus stating that it is His body and His blood).

Why did Paul receive this by revelation from God rather than from the mouths of the original Apostles? The Eucharist is the most holy Sacrament of the Catholic faith and Paul was commissioned by the original Apostles to spread the faith. Why didn’t the original Apostles fill Paul in on the details of the Last Supper? Wouldn’t that have been one of the most important things for the original Apostles to instruct Paul about? Why did he have to wait until a revelation by God to learn about it?

I understand Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is the earliest written record of the Last Supper, the Gospels having been written later than Paul’s letter.

 

[Vico]

Please help me out on this:

In 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, St. Paul wrote that he received by revelation from God the details of the Last Supper (Jesus stating that it is His body and His blood).

Why did Paul receive this by revelation from God rather than from the mouths of the original Apostles? The Eucharist is the most holy Sacrament of the Catholic faith and Paul was commissioned by the original Apostles to spread the faith. Why didn’t the original Apostles fill Paul in on the details of the Last Supper? Wouldn’t that have been one of the most important things for the original Apostles to instruct Paul about? Why did he have to wait until a revelation by God to learn about it?

I understand Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is the earliest written record of the Last Supper, the Gospels having been written later than Paul’s letter.

Haydock Commentary on 1 Cor 11:23
Ver. 23.

I have received of the Lord. That is, by revelation from Christ, as well as from others, who were present with him, that which also I delivered to you by word of mouth, &c. Here he speaks of the holy sacrament itself, of the words of consecration, as the evangelists had done, and of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood.

— Which shall be delivered for you. In the common Greek copies, which is broken for you, to wit, on the cross.

— You shall shew the death of the Lord. As often as you receive, it shall be with a devout and grateful remembrance of his sufferings and death for your sake. He puts every one in mind, that whosoever shall eat this bread, (ver. 27.) so called from the outward appearances, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall, by such a sacrilege, be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. And (ver. 29.) that he eateth, and drinketh judgment, or condemnation to himself, not discerning the difference betwixt celestial food and other meats, and not considering it to be truly the body of the Lord. See St. Chrysostom, hom. xxvii. If the words of our Saviour, this is my body, &c. were to be understood in a metaphorical and figurative sense only, is it probable that St. Paul, writing twenty-four years afterwards, to the new converted Gentiles at Corinth, would have used words, which full as clearly express a true and real presence of Christ’s body in the eucharist, without one word to signify that this was to be understood in a figurative sense only? (Witham)

 

[markdris]

Haydock Commentary on 1 Cor 11:23
Ver. 23.

I have received of the Lord. That is, by revelation from Christ, as well as from others, who were present with him, that which also I delivered to you by word of mouth, &c. Here he speaks of the holy sacrament itself, of the words of consecration, as the evangelists had done, and of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood.

— Which shall be delivered for you. In the common Greek copies, which is broken for you, to wit, on the cross.

— You shall shew the death of the Lord. As often as you receive, it shall be with a devout and grateful remembrance of his sufferings and death for your sake. He puts every one in mind, that whosoever shall eat this bread, (ver. 27.) so called from the outward appearances, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall, by such a sacrilege, be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. And (ver. 29.) that he eateth, and drinketh judgment, or condemnation to himself, not discerning the difference betwixt celestial food and other meats, and not considering it to be truly the body of the Lord. See St. Chrysostom, hom. xxvii. If the words of our Saviour, this is my body, &c. were to be understood in a metaphorical and figurative sense only, is it probable that St. Paul, writing twenty-four years afterwards, to the new converted Gentiles at Corinth, would have used words, which full as clearly express a true and real presence of Christ’s body in the eucharist, without one word to signify that this was to be understood in a figurative sense only? (Witham)

Apparently your above quoted language, “That is, by revelation from Christ, as well as from others, who were present with him”, is purely commentary, as it is not contained in the text of the Catholic-approved New American Bible which I have.

In another forum on this site, at least one poster, MT1926, has suggested that Paul wrote about the revelation he received of the Last Supper before Paul met with any of the original Apostles. As I understand it Paul’s account of the Last Supper is the first written account of such a Last Supper. I have read that the Church at Jerusalem, unlike the Churches to which Paul wrote his letters, did not originally celebrate the Eucharist.

 

[Vico]

Apparently your above quoted language, “That is, by revelation from Christ, as well as from others, who were present with him”, is purely commentary, as it is not contained in the text of the Catholic-approved New American Bible which I have.

In another forum on this site, at least one poster, MT1926, has suggested that Paul wrote about the revelation he received of the Last Supper before Paul met with any of the original Apostles. As I understand it Paul’s account of the Last Supper is the first written account of such a Last Supper. I have read that the Church at Jerusalem, unlike the Churches to which Paul wrote his letters, did not originally celebrate the Eucharist.

Yes, commentary. Others who were present also wrote of that Last Supper in the New Testament. The verses quoted in the Haydock Commentary are from 1 Cor 11, and the blue are specifically repeated in the commentary from Douay-Rheims Challoner Bible (a Catholic Bible):

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, the night in which he was betrayed, took bread,

24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: *Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: do this for the commemoration of me.

25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink it for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come.

27 *Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

28 *But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

 

[markdris]

Yes, commentary. Others who were present also wrote of that Last Supper in the New Testament. The verses quoted in the Haydock Commentary are from 1 Cor 11, and the blue are specifically repeated in the commentary from Douay-Rheims Challoner Bible (a Catholic Bible):

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, the night in which he was betrayed, took bread,

24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: *Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: do this for the commemoration of me.

25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink it for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come.

27 *Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

28 *But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

I didn’t realize that the writers of any of the four Gospels were actually present at the Last Supper. The Apostles were present at the Last Supper. Are you saying some of the four Gospels were written by someone in the original twelve?

I have read that the first written account of the Last Supper was that in 1 Cor. 11.

 

[Vico]

I didn’t realize that the writers of any of the four Gospels were actually present at the Last Supper. The Apostles were present at the Last Supper. Are you saying some of the four Gospels were written by someone in the original twelve?

I have read that the first written account of the Last Supper was that in 1 Cor. 11.

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with John Mark of Acts 12:12 and the Mark of I Peter 5:13, is mentioned in a quote contained in a letter from Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis: “When Mark became Peter’s interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done.” St. Irenaeus (d. 203) and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) support this identification. The Gospel of Mark is commonly dated about the year 65-70 in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

St. Matthew is identified with the tax collector called as an apostle (Mt 9:9-13). Papias again attests to the saint’s authorship and indicates that he was the first to compile a collection of Jesus’ sayings in the Aramaic language. For this reason, the Gospel of Matthew, at least in a very basic form in Aramaic, is considered the first Gospel and placed first in the New Testament, although the Gospel of Mark is probably the first in a completed form. St. Irenaeus and Origin (d. 253) again support this authorship. Nevertheless, some scholars doubt the saint’s direct authorship because we only have the Greek version, not the Aramaic, and no citations are made from the Aramaic version in Church literature. The version of the Gospel we have was probably written between 70-80.

St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Colossians 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220), and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel was written about 70-80.

St. Irenaeus identified the author of the fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. He does so based on the instruction of his teacher, St. Polycarp (d. 155), who himself was a disciple of St. John. Throughout this Gospel, the numerous details indicate the author was an eyewitness. Also scholars generally agree that “the beloved disciple” mentioned in the Gospel is St. John. This Gospel was written probably about 80-90.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/REALWROT.HTM

 

[fred_conty]

Some people might say it’s impossible for Jesus to hold his glorified body because He hadn’t died yet, at the Last Supper. What would you say to that?

“impassible”, which means being unable to suffer, is used in two ways when referring to the Eucharist.

The first is that for the Eucharist, the accidents of bread, keep Christ in the Eucharist from being passable or keep him impassible. Meaning that whatever happens to the accidents of the bread does not happen to the very body of Christ. This is looking at it from a factual way and not a spiritual way. Christ cannot be hurt corporally in the Eucharist because the accidents of bread of the Eucharist prevent this.

The second way impassable is applied to the Eucharist is the state of Jesus himself in the Eucharist. Meaning he is present in the Eucharist in a passable or impassable way. And in this sense Christ at the Last Supper was present in the Eucharist as passible since he had not yet been glorified. Yet in our Mass, which is a repeat of the Last Supper today, Christ is present in his glorified body and impassable.

So therefore St. Thomas is not saying that Christ was there in his glorified body at the Last Supper, but rather he was there in an impassable way, meaning he was there under the “protection” of the accidents of bread and therefore impassible. But this dosen’t necessarily mean glorified. St. Thomas doesn’t say he was there at the Last supper glorified, but rather impassible.

An objection might be that Christ is truely corporally present, and if something happens to the accidents then it will happen to the corporal presence of Christ. And we do know for sure that Christ is present wherever we see the accidents of the bread. But the accidents are separate and not the body of Christ. And strictly speaking, the body of Christ cannot be touched. Even tho St. Thomas says that even the accidents of Christ’s body, along with his substance, are also present in the Eucharist, which is the mystery we cannot see with our eyes but only with our faith in Christ’s words. Note that there are really two sets of accidents; one of bread(seen), and one of Christ’s own(unseen).

One other item that is sometimes confusing is that the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ made present again. From this idea of “sacrifice” it may be thought that Christ cannot be a glorified victim since a victim indicates suffering. But if it is remembered that he is not a victim over and over each time Mass is being offered. But that he was a victim once when he made the expiation, and this is being made present again, the one sacrifice of Christ. But his current state is glorified, and so we receive him in the Eucharist in his current glorified state. What the apostles received at the Last Supper was his bodily passible state before he was made impassable thru glorification. If we look at this in a sensable way, whether glorified or passable state, we still receive Him.

As Jesus said, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, lives in me and I in him.” In the Eucharist, we become one with him.

There is one other way that the accidents of bread are important. The church has taught that as long as the accidents can be identified as accidents of bread, then Christ is still present within us. When those accidents of bread can no longer be identified as accidents of bread, then his real presence, after Communion, is then gone. So it makes real good spiritual sense to always spend about 10 minutes with our Divine Guest in prayer after Communion while he is one with us. This was the advice of St. Teresa of Avilon.

 

[Faith1960]

Yes.

Last Supper:

…Jesus… Eucharist (After Consecration)
Nature 1…Divinity… Divinity
Nature 2…Human Soul… Human Soul
Substance…Body and Blood… Glorified Body and Blood
Appearance…Body and Blood… Bread, Wine

According to this, St Thomas Aquinas said the Eucharist at the Last supper was in His “non- glorified body,” which not only goes against what you said, Vico, but ALSO goes against what my priest told me.

Is St. Thomas wrong about things?

ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/was-the-eucharist-at-the-last-supper-the-glorified-body-of-jesus/

 

[Faith1960]

According to this, St Thomas Aquinas said the Eucharist at the Last supper was in His “non- glorified body,” which not only goes against what you said, Vico, but ALSO goes against what my priest told me.

Is St. Thomas wrong about things?

ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/was-the-eucharist-at-the-last-supper-the-glorified-body-of-jesus/

Fred Conty, above, seems to believe it was Jesus’ non-glorified body held and eaten at the Last Supper.

 

[Faith1960]

Vico, in the thread titled The Last Supper, on Dec. 8 2015, you posted “At the Last Supper Jesus Christ said that His body would be broken and His blood would be shed. That is future tense. Since Jesus had not yet been Glorified through the resurrection, His body and blood were not the the Glorified form.”

Did you find something online that says Jesus was holding His glorified body, which changed your mind?

 

[Vico]

According to this, St Thomas Aquinas said the Eucharist at the Last supper was in His “non- glorified body,” which not only goes against what you said, Vico, but ALSO goes against what my priest told me.

Is St. Thomas wrong about things?

ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/was-the-eucharist-at-the-last-supper-the-glorified-body-of-jesus/

Yes, I have read that. What type of glorified body do they refer to. Consider this, that through multilocation Christ keeps His natural dimensional relations on earth (Last Supper) or in heaven (now) and at the same time His sacramental presence under the appearences of bread and wine. So the question is what was the sacramental presence under the appearances of bread and wine. It was the whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity. The Transfiguration of Jesus Christ was the glorification of the human body of Jesus and this occurred before the Last Supper, so why can’t his body at the Last Supper be his glorified body?

 

[Vico]

Vico, in the thread titled The Last Supper, on Dec. 8 2015, you posted “At the Last Supper Jesus Christ said that His body would be broken and His blood would be shed. That is future tense. Since Jesus had not yet been Glorified through the resurrection, His body and blood were not the the Glorified form.”

Did you find something online that says Jesus was holding His glorified body, which changed your mind?

The sacramental presence is not present in the same was as a body occupies space.

The glorified body usually spoken of is that of the resurrected body. In general there are four qualities of the glorified body:

1. 
   *]subtlety in His birth
   *]agility, when He walked upon the sea
   *]clarity, in the Transfiguration
   *]and impassibility at the Last Supper

 

[Faith1960]

The sacramental presence is not present in the same was as a body occupies space.

The glorified body usually spoken of is that of the resurrected body. In general there are four qualities of the glorified body:

1. 
   *]subtlety in His birth
   *]agility, when He walked upon the sea
   *]clarity, in the Transfiguration
   *]and impassibility at the Last Supper

1. 
   But what changed your mind?