Last Supper, Host Glorified?

[guanophore]

Jesus was literally there in the flesh. So it was literal.

I agree with you, despite the fact that you are using a false dichotomy. A vision is a literal reality. Literal does not equate to physical.

That is why it is relevant that the Transfiguration happens before the events of the Passion, so that we see Jesus recorded in the Gospel in his heavenly body both before and after the Passion.

We also see that Jesus is leaving us an example of how appropriate it is to converse with the saints.

My former priest said that Jesus in the Eucharist, at the Last Supper, was glorified.

The way your priest used the term, and the way Jesus was transfigured, are not the same way that Aquinas is using the term “glorified”.

Jesus was really and truly physically present at the transfiguration.

Jesus was really and truly physically present in the bread and the cup at the last supper.

 

[Hope1960]

I don’t have to ask my former priest if Jesus’ body was resurrected in the Eucharist at The Last Supper. It wasn’t. He knows that, he’s a very intelligent man.
What I mean, is was Jesus glorified in the Eucharist based on OUR definition of Glorified?

 

[Hope1960]

Jesus was really and truly physically present in the bread and the cup at the last supper.

I know, but was He glorifiedin the. Eucharist, like He is now?

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t have to ask my former priest if Jesus’ body was resurrected in the Eucharist at The Last Supper. It wasn’t. He knows that, he’s a very intelligent man.

That’s exactly what I have been telling you all along, yet you keep disagreeing. That’s exactly what St. Thomas was saying!

The problem is that you keep insisting that your priest is right and St. Thomas is wrong. That’s NOT the case.

What I mean, is was Jesus glorified in the Eucharist based on OUR definition of Glorified?

There is no way to say that God is anything other than glorified.

 

[Hope1960]

There is no way to say that God is anything other than glorified.

What exactly is your definition of glorified, when you say Christ was always described as glorified?

 

[FrDavid96]

What exactly is your definition of glorified, when you say Christ was always described as glorified?

Look, I wrote this, more than 30 messages back in the thread when I already answered that question directly.

Hope1960:

Many people, my former priest included, think Aquinas was wrong.

I think you’re confusing different issues. I doubt that your priest would say that Aquinas is wrong on this.

One moment, you’re asking if the “host is glorified” (at the Last Supper) then you’re asking if it was Christ’s resurrected body present (under the form of bread) at the Last Supper.

Which is it?

Yes, at the Last Supper, the Host (whatever bread Christ used) was glorified because it became the Body of Christ.

However, it was not the resurrected Body of Christ because the resurrection did not yet happen.

When Aquinas uses the word “glorified” in that article, he means “resurrected.” He does not mean glorified in the sense of “possessing glory.” That seems to be the cause of the confusion here.

I don’t see why I should have to keep going back and repeating the same thing over and over and over again.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m done here.

I don’t see any point in repeating the same thing over and over again if someone won’t even bother to read what I’m writing.

I’ve set the thread to “muted.”

 

[LoyalViews]

Well said.
(Sixteen ridiculous characters)

 

[Hope1960]

I’m done here.

I don’t see any point in repeating the same thing over and over again if someone won’t even bother to read what I’m writing.

I’ve set the thread to “muted.”

You’ve never said what your definition of glorified is. You keep saying glorified is a synonym for resurrected in the Summa etc. I never said I thought, nor did my former priest think Jesus was resurrected at the Last Supper. Nor did I ask, as you posted in post #15, if Christ’s resurrected body was present in the Host at the Last Supper.

Anyone else have enough patience to help with this question?

What I’ve known all along:

1. at the Last Supper Jesus hadn’t died yet.
2. at the Last Supper Jesus wasn’t resurrected yet.
3. I know what glorified means.

 

[guanophore]

I know, but was He glorifiedin the. Eucharist, like He is now?

When Jesus rose from the dead, his physical body was resurrected, and exists now in a glorified state. Aquinas uses the word “glorified” differently than it can be applied to Jesus body prior to His resurrection.

Jesus held Himself in His Own Hands at the Last Supper. His body had not yet been raised from the grave, so it is a different meaning of the word “glorified”.

That’s exactly what I have been telling you all along, yet you keep disagreeing. That’s exactly what St. Thomas was saying!

The problem is that you keep insisting that your priest is right and St. Thomas is wrong. That’s NOT the case.

Some people can only think in black and white.

There is no way to say that God is anything other than glorified.

It is difficult for our finite human intellect to grasp some of these mysteries.

What exactly is your definition of glorified, when you say Christ was always described as glorified?

I think the definition the OP is using is the one that is relevant. That is where the confusion lies. I don’t think Fr.David is confused.

I know what glorified means.

Apparently not, since you do not seem to realize that there are different meanings for this term, and you are erroneously applying a definition to an application where it does not belong.

 

[Hope1960]

Then give me the definitions.

 

[guanophore]

How did the Host become Jesus glorified body when He hadn’t died yet?

I think the definition you are using is the one that is most relevant. Can you define how you are using the word in this sentence?

These verses in John would seem to provide a context:

John
13:31–32

1. …Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
2. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

It is enough to mae one’s head spin!

 

[Hope1960]

Im taking about what was explained in post#27

 

[guanophore]

Im taking about what was explained in post#27

I mean like His body that was at the Transfiguration; Like His body that could walk through doors, etc., without being resurrected yet.

Impassibility

Subtlety

Clarity

and Agility

Ok,

1. Where did you get this definition?
2. what makes you think that this applies to Jesus prior to the resurrection (like at the transfiguration)?
3. what has given you to believe that this is the kind of Glorification that applies to the Host?

 

[Hope1960]

1. Somewhere online, don’t remember where.
2. Something I read here on CAF, a while ago.
3. See #2.

 

[guanophore]

Somewhere online, don’t remember where.

1)While I think discovering theological concepts online is a great place to begin research (I learn something new everyday here at CAF) it seems a rather vague foundation to investigate a spiritual phenomenon. Have you researche

d the meanings of these words in a theological context?

Something I read here on CAF, a while ago.

you might want to go back and refer to that source also. Not everything you read on here is accurate.

1. Why is it important to you to understand how the nature of Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist is different from the nature of His resurrected body?

 

[Hope1960]

Because transubstantiation is confusing to me and since Jesus held His own body inHis hands at the Last Supper, it makes more sense to me that it was glorified.

 

[guanophore]

Because transubstantiation is confusing to me and since Jesus held His own body inHis hands at the Last Supper, it makes more sense to me that it was glorified.

If that makes sense to you, then what is the problem?

 

[Hope1960]

The problem is that Aquinas says His body wasn’t glorified at the Last Supper. And round and round we go.

 

[guanophore]

The problem is that Aquinas says His body wasn’t glorified at the Last Supper.

What I am asking is, why is that creating a problem for you? Is there some reason that you are obligated to agree with Aquinas?