Eucharist

[Vico]

But what changed your mind?

Since Jesus had not yet been Glorified through the resurrection, His body and blood were not the the Glorified form of the Resurrection is a common opinion that I referred to. I understand that the Church has not defined this issue. If this is true it does not mean that there was no glorification at the Last Supper, for glorification occurred at other times such as at the Transfiguration.

 

[Faith1960]

Since Jesus had not yet been Glorified through the resurrection, His body and blood were not the the Glorified form of the Resurrection is a common opinion that I referred to. I understand that the Church has not defined this issue. If this is true it does not mean that there was no glorification at the Last Supper, for glorification occurred at other times such as at the Transfiguration.

So, then, to get this straight, you DO still believe that when Jesus held the Eucharist in His hands at the Last Supper, he was holding His own GLORIFIED body, right?

 

[Vico]

But what changed your mind?

So on this very thread you asked the question before and I answered it:

Originally Posted by 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?

Death and resurrection is not required to glorify the body.

 

[Faith1960]

So on this very thread you asked the question before and I answered it:

Originally Posted by 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?

Death and resurrection is not required to glorify the body.

But what made you change your mind? You replied, but didn’t really answer my question.

 

[Vico]

But what made you change your mind? You replied, but didn’t really answer my question.

No change of mind, only comments on different aspects of glorification: resurrection vs four properties of a glorified body at different times before his resurrection.

Here is what I said back then in 2015:

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 resurrection his body and blood were not then the glorified form.

Later I added in another thread in 2016:

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.

 

[Faith1960]

No change of mind, only comments on different aspects of glorification: resurrection vs four properties of a glorified body at different times before his resurrection.

Here is what I said back then in 2015:

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 resurrection his body and blood were not then the glorified form.

What about when Jesus said His body would be broken? Doesn’t that contradict the Bible where it says none of His bones were broken?

 

[Vico]

What about when Jesus said His body would be broken? Doesn’t that contradict the Bible where it says none of His bones were broken?

Where?

1 Corinthians 11:
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

His body was wounded but the bones not broken, as in the scripture.

Isaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our sins,
crushed for our iniquity.
He bore the punishment that makes us whole,
by his wounds we were healed.

John 19
33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, 34 but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. 35 An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may [come to] believe. 36 For this happened so that the scripture passage might be fulfilled:

“Not a bone of it will be broken.”
37 And again another passage says:

“They will look upon him whom they have pierced.”​

 

[Vico]

But what made you change your mind? You replied, but didn’t really answer my question.

St. Thomas Aquinas held (Summa Theologica III, Q81) that the glorified body was not present at the Last Supper, nor was the body impassible (a quality of a glorified body). Also that the passible was present in an impassible manner.

On the contrary, As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), “He bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was.” But then He had a passible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal body to the disciples.

Also he says:

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.
…
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.

newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm

Maybe the St. Thomas Aquinas position would benefit you to keep this opinion and put your mind at ease and also will be in full agreement with your priest that you spoke with.

I do try to follow the scholastic logic, however I am not so troubled by these matters because metaousious is a miraculous mystery.

 

[rinnie]

Since Jesus had not yet been Glorified through the resurrection, His body and blood were not the the Glorified form of the Resurrection is a common opinion that I referred to. I understand that the Church has not defined this issue. If this is true it does not mean that there was no glorification at the Last Supper, for glorification occurred at other times such as at the Transfiguration.

The way it was explained to me since there is not time for God, his Body and Blood were glorified (pretty much for what was to come). The easiest way to explain it is how the Blessed Mother was saved from Original Sin at her conception, because of what was to come from her Son.

IT is because God is outside of time, it does not exist for him, so he can work outside of it, Something that is hard for us to realize because in this world time is all we understand, again like most things the wisdom of God is so far from our level of understanding.