Last Supper, Host Glorified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is basically what I said before when I said Jesus’ Body is not divided by the Eucharist. Even though the Eucharist is in different locations it is the same one Body and makes us a part of the one Body.

So following that logic then if the Eucharist at the last Supper was the resurrected glorified body would that create a contradiction because Jesus’ Body would be glorified (Eucharist) and not glorified (his earthly body) at the same time?

If it is a contradiction then the Eucharist could not have been his glorified resurrected body at the Last Supper. The Eucharist is in a class of its own and can not be subject to the usual rules of physics. If I hack a piece of flesh off my body and give it to you there is no contradiction if it changes. But the Eucharist is not a hacked off discarded piece of flesh. But it remains as the One Body of Christ. Nor is it separated from that Body as would be in the case with hacked off flesh.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think His body was resurrected in the first Eucharist.
 
Hope1960 said:
My definition is in post #27. What else could it be?
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation is miraculous, but “bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body”.

So you said: “I mean like His body that was at the Transfiguration”.

St. Thomas wrote that:
“Christ’s was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons.”
–Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 54
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm#article2
Click to expand...
“The clarity which Christ assumed in His transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode of being.” …“That the glory of His soul did not overflow into His body from the first moment of Christ’s conception was due to a certain Divine dispensation, that, as stated above (III:14:1 ad 2), He might fulfil the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body. This did not, however, deprive Christ of His power of outpouring the glory of His soul into His body. And this He did, as to clarity, in His transfiguration, but otherwise than in a glorified body. For the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body, by way of a permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body.”
–Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 45
Click to expand...
 
Vico said:
The clarity which Christ assumed in His transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode of being.” …“That the glory of His soul did not overflow into His body from the first moment of Christ’s conception was due to a certain Divine dispensation, that, as stated above (III:14:1 ad 2), He might fulfil the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body. This did not, however, deprive Christ of His power of outpouring the glory of His soul into His body. And this He did, as to clarity, in His transfiguration, but otherwise than in a glorified body. For the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body, by way of a permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body.”

–Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 45
Click to expand...
All I can say is…huh?
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
The answer depends upon the definition of the word glorified.
Click to expand...
Hope 1960 has not been able to arrive at a definition, different than the one Aquinas denied as applicable to the Eucharist.
fisherman_carl said:
The Eucharist is in a class of its own and can not be subject to the usual rules of physics.
Click to expand...
This much is certainly true!
Hope1960 said:
I don’t think His body was resurrected in the first Eucharist.
Click to expand...
No, but your mind seems to be trapped in a temporal timeline. Jesus and the Eucharist exist outside of the space/time continuum.
Hope1960 said:
All I can say is…huh?
Click to expand...
Yes, I feel the same way whenever I read Aquinas. This is why I prefer to leave it as a mystery.
 
Hope1960 said:
…
All I can say is…huh?
Click to expand...
At the Transfiguration, Christ assumed some clarity of glory. Now, there are two types of glory of which one is the mode of being and the other is the essence. So first you must understand the difference between essence and mode of being. The way in which something has being is modality. Essence is what a thing is.

Then you need to know what passibility is (from Latin passibilis) it means “able to suffer, experience emotion”. God is impassible but Jesus Christ in human nature is passible.

Refulgence means “to shine brightly” (Latin refulgēre).
The clarity which Christ assumed in His transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode of being.” …“That the glory of His soul did not overflow into His body from the first moment of Christ’s conception was due to a certain Divine dispensation, that, as stated above (III:14:1 ad 2), He might fulfil the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body. This did not, however, deprive Christ of His power of outpouring the glory of His soul into His body. And this He did, as to clarity, in His transfiguration, but otherwise than in a glorified body. For the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body, by way of a permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body.”
Click to expand...
–Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 45
 
Again, to the Summa… huh? Also Dumb question, but did the Last Supper Eucharist glow? I ask because of your definition of refulgence.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Again, to the Summa… huh? Also Dumb question, but did the Last Supper Eucharist glow? I ask because of your definition of refulgence.
Click to expand...
Some may have perceived a glow in a vision (like St. Ignatius) but there is no record of it. Yet a physical effulgence of a glorified body is different than a vision. So St. Thomas states that neither at the Transfiguration nor at the Holy Supper were glorified bodies as to mode of being, but there was at the Resurrection.

What is the first thing that you do not understand in the statements of St. Thomas Aquinas?
 
Last edited:
So is he basically saying Christ’s body was glowing because his soul over flowed with his glory while body remained unglorified or passible?
 
Hope1960 said:
So, was Jesus in the Eucharist, at the First Supper glorified or not? Aquinas says no
Click to expand...
I’m not about to debate with Aquinas

The Resurrection had not yet occurred; still John 6: 47-57 is speaking about he Glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

John 6 also makes clear that those who deserted Him, were thinking along human logic lines: “How can he give us His BODY” to eat"? Cannibalism; which Christ refutes.

So mysteriously and miraculously; it was the Glorified Body of Christ.

I am absolutely convinced that TIME does exist for God.

So WHAT does Thomas say?

Blessings,
PJM
 
fisherman_carl said:
So following that logic then if the Eucharist at the last Supper was the resurrected glorified body would that create a contradiction because Jesus’ Body would be glorified (Eucharist) and not glorified (his earthly body) at the same time?
Click to expand...
Let me approach it from a different angle. I receive Jesus’ body at my first holy communion. I receive it again many times during my life. I receive it on my dying day. Since Jesus is not divided, I receive the same Jesus, the same body and blood, each time I receive. From the viewpoint of the Eucharist, my first communion and my last communion are simultaneous. Temporal time lines do not apply. The Eucharist in a sense stitches our life together because every time we receive Jesus it is the same Jesus and consequently the same time, no matter where we are in our temporal tme line.
 
Not an expert…but I believe Jesus was telling the Apostles what to expect AFTER he was crucified…I really doubt any of the Apostles would have made that jump on their own.

Jesus DID put his presence into the bread and wine though, so I’ll chalk it up to one of those “Mysteries of faith…”
 
Last edited:
fisherman_carl said:
So is he basically saying Christ’s body was glowing because his soul over flowed with his glory while body remained unglorified or passible?
Click to expand...
That His transfiguration was not in a glorified body because “the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body, by way of a permanent quality affecting the body”, but there was an “outpouring the glory of His soul into His body”.
 
Last edited:
Of the Summa? The whole, entire thing. 😦
All I want to know is a definite answer if the Eucharist Jesus held at the Last Supper was glorified or not.
Father David turned this into a huge complicated thing, but the question and answer should be a very simple one.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Of the Summa? The whole, entire thing. 😦
All I want to know is a definite answer if the Eucharist Jesus held at the Last Supper was glorified or not.
Father David turned this into a huge complicated thing, but the question and answer should be a very simple one.
Click to expand...
I mean to what was said in this thread. Your answer depends upon what you mean by glorified. If you use the meaning as St. Thomas gave it, then the answer is no. Note that the consubstantiation is a miracle in that the elements change from bread and wine to the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, but do not exist in place in the same way as a body. (See Pope Paul VI, Mysterium fidei posted before: “beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.”.)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top