H
Hope1960
Guest
Yeah, he was an “expert” in these things.
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
In that case, would it not be much more rational for you to accept his conclusions, instead of replacing them with random ideas off the internet?
H
Hope1960
Guest
It would, except it makes more sense to me that Jesus in the Eucharist was glorified.
Also, the things we’re discussing in this thread are “random things off the internet.”
Also, the things we’re discussing in this thread are “random things off the internet.”
A
Augustine3
Guest
I understand the general consensus is the priest drops a small piece of Eucharistic wafer into the Eucharist wine during mass to symbolize the unification and glorified body of Christ.
G
guanophore
Guest
Can you accept the possiblity that what seems to make the most sense to you may not be accurate?
Exactly! There is very little you can find here on CAF that will outshine Aquinas. That is limited to quotes from the Scripture and the Catechism. It would seem much more reasonable to defer to the theologian who spent his lifetime researching such matters.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Not really a false dichotomy, in the sense the word was being used in the question I was responding to. Was Jesus’ transfiguration a literal event or a vision? . Because Jesus was literally present it wasn’t merely a vision. In this sense the word literal is synonymous with a real or physically concrete event. This is how the word literal is used sometimes in every day language. it is obvious what distinction is being made here, so there is no reason to insinuate a false dichotomy. I am not sure why you are even bringing this up unless you are just trying to make an irrelevant point.
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, but it is often misused in opposition to “figurative” or “metaphorical”. There are many experiences (such as visions) that are “real” (literal) but not physical.
Sorry it is a pet peeve.
Last edited:
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
But the point is how is it being used in the context of this discussion, not in some other discussion. Words can have different nuances and meanings in different contexts.
I guess that is your cross to bear.
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
Indeed it is so I apologize if I konked you with it.I guess that is your cross to bear.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Why would it make more sense? Because his glorified body could do more things, like be in multiple places at once?
The event we celebrate in Mass occurs after the Resurrection occurred but looks backwards to Christ’s Passion and Resurrection. The Last Supper occurred prior to the Passion and Resurrection and looks forward to them. Could God have made the glorified Body of Christ present at the Last Supper before it was glorified? Sure, God can do anything. Especially since he operates outside of time. Am I going to tell you if he did that? No, it is a mystery. Perhaps, for Aquinas it was more fitting that Christ’s body should be not glorified or ressurected because this event had not yet occurred. And for Aquinas I think he would say the important part is it is the same body, that is it is Christ’s Body, both before and after glorification. He even says that all of Christ’s blood that shed on the Cross was returned to his body. Such that his body was whole and intact and the same body as before. So whether it is glorified or not, the main thing is it is the same Body. Its not like he got a new upgraded body and discarded his old one. It is the same human body that has been changed.
It occurs to me that if Christ’s Body was glorified in the cup at the last supper while his ‘earthly’ body was not then it would be like Christ’s body was glorified and not glorified at the same time. Which would be a contradiction. If we think of his body as being one indivisible body or unit even if it were ‘separated’ in perceived space. Rather than thinking of it being separate parts, but rather it is all his one body even if in different locations and thus makes us part of his one body rather than separate parts when we consume it. So it is not like we are chopping Christ into separate parts and consume his parts of his body. But perhaps it is more like his one body is made present to us where we are and we all mystically partake in it miraculously though in different places in space.
So because Christ’s one body was not glorified in the ressurected sense at the last supper he would have offered that body at that time. But after the ressurection his one body is glorified. And so that is what is offered after.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Haydock Commentary:Hope1960:
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
It is enough to mae one’s head spin!
- …Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
- If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
V
Vico
Guest
St. Thomas states in the Summa Theologiae that
And
H.H. Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 1965:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Thank you, Father. I misunderstood when it was explained to me previously a few years ago.
H
Hope1960
Guest
What I said in post #27.
P
PJM
Guest
GREAT Question with a simple answer:
Jesus is GOD
For God time does NOT exist; everything [literally] is present to Him as being :NOW"
Thanks for asking
PJM
H
Hope1960
Guest
So, was Jesus in the Eucharist, at the First Supper glorified or not? Aquinas says no.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
My personal opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Aquinas and others perhaps gave too much thought to trying to align Jesus’ earthly timeline with the Eucharist. The earthly timeline is temporal. The Eucharist transcends time. I see no need to suppose that the Eucharist at the Last Supper corresponded to Jesus temporal timeline.
I think that in the Eucharist we all receive the SAME Jesus. Jesus is not multiplied in the Eucharist. (The host is multiplied in its appearances, but Jesus remains one.) I receive the exact same Jesus as you or the next person in line or the person who received two weeks ago or two weeks in the future or the Apostles at the last Supper. In receiving the ONE Jesus, we are all united in him.
I think that in the Eucharist we all receive the SAME Jesus. Jesus is not multiplied in the Eucharist. (The host is multiplied in its appearances, but Jesus remains one.) I receive the exact same Jesus as you or the next person in line or the person who received two weeks ago or two weeks in the future or the Apostles at the last Supper. In receiving the ONE Jesus, we are all united in him.
H
Hope1960
Guest
So, JimG, do you think Jesus, in the Eucharist, at the Last Supper was glorified or not?
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
I think your question is essentially meaningless in terms of the Eucharist and it’s relation to eternity.
For example, another question from Jesus point of view: When you receive the Eucharist this weekend, will it be received in the same body as when you received it twenty years ago? Your body has changed, but it’s still you. Trying to related the Eucharist to a temporal time line is not possible.
A
Allie1
Guest
Yes, I believe that The Holy Eucharist was glorified from the time Jesus instituted it at the last supper. I believe that The Eucharist fully contains the life, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, who is God. It would be inconsistent and ludicrous to think that the first Eucharist, which God himself instituted, was somehow a lesser Eucharist than what we have now. The Eucharist from the time Jesus initiated at the last supper has always contained his life, blood, soul, and divinity. The Eucharist is and always has been glorified.
Last edited:
- Status