Last Supper, Host Glorified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hope1960

Guest
How did the Host become Jesus glorified body when He hadn’t died yet? Aquinas said it wasn’t glorified.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure. However, God is God and He can do it by His divine will. Jesus’s flesh was meat indeed, as the hymn goes. Body, blood, soul, and fulness of divinity. Perhaps it was transubstantiation or some other miracle of Christ.
 
Wesrock said:
God is not bound by time or space.
Click to expand...
What about Aquinas saying the Host wasn’t glorified? There’s another, older thread about this and someone said Aquinas was “hedging his bets very carefully”. I don’t have Aquinas’ quote though.

Was the Host glorified or not. My former priest said Aquinas was wrong, and that the First Eucharist WAS glorified.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that the host is and was at the Last Supper Christ’s glorified body and so, if Aquinas did write as you say, he was incorrect on this point.

Edit: Please see FrDavid96’s posts below for further clarification, as it appears my own understanding fell short.
 
Last edited:
I am not aware of any official teaching concerning the events in the Cenacle.

However, being an armchair theologian for a minute with my private view: events don’t always occur in a linear fashion, as we understand it.

For example, on the 4th Luminous Mystery - the Transfiguration - we see Jesus in the Gospel in his glorified form alongside Moses and Elijah.

And on the 1st Luminous Mystery - the Baptism of Our Lord - Christ is baptized, although this is the baptism of St John the Baptist and not sacramentally the same as baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

And even the 2nd Luminous Mystery - the Wedding Feast - this mystery in some way prefigures the Eucharist. Jesus turns the water into wine… and he can just as much turn wine into blood.

So if Jesus was in his glorified form during the Transfiguration, then it is likewise possible for him (hidden behind the Host) to be in his glorified form in the Cenacle as well.
 
Last edited:
Ok, thanks. You agree with my former priest. By former, I mean he’s still a priest, but was transferred to another parish. I still email him with faith related questions.
 
Thanks. I just had to look up the word Cenacle. I’d never heard of it before.
 
I don’t really get that article. Is it saying Aquinas was right and Jesus in the Eucharist wasn’t glorified or was Aquinas wrong and Jesus in the Eucharist was glorified?
 
The link is to the 3rd part of the Summa Theologiae question 81.

St. Thomas essentially presents three objections to a belief and then shows why each objection fails. Article 3 deals specifically with what kind of body Christ gave at the Last Supper.

St. Thomas even presents the opinion of Hugh of Saint Victor which states that because Christ, at different moments in His earthly life prior to His Passion, assumed properties of a glorified body (the Transfiguration, etc.) it follows that His body given at the Last Supper must also have been such an instance.

However, he says this simply doesn’t follow. He says that Christ gave his body as it was:
For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. 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.
Click to expand...
Aquinas holds that Christ gave Himself to the disciples in a non-glorified manner at the Last Supper.
 
Last edited:
Many people, my former priest included, think Aquinas was wrong.
 
Yeah well, Jesus didn’t come to many people and personally tell them that they had written so well of Him that He would give them whatever they want. So… ¯_(ツ)_/¯
 
Hope1960 said:
Many people, my former priest included, think Aquinas was wrong.
Click to expand...
Hope1960 said:
Anyone else want to chime in?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
  1. He’s my former priest and, yes, he said that.
  2. I want to know if Jesus, in the Eucharist, was glorified at the Last Supper.
 
Hope1960 said:
  1. He’s my former priest and, yes, he said that.
  2. I want to know if Jesus, in the Eucharist, was glorified at the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
Again, I doubt the priest would disagree with St Thomas on this. If he does, he needs to go back to the seminary.

I’m telling you that you’re confusing 2 different questions.

No priest would deny that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist (even at the Last Supper) is glorified.

No priest would disagree with St Thomas by claiming that the resurrected body of Christ was present in the form of bread at the Last Supper.
 
My former priest said that Jesus in the Eucharist, at the Last Supper, WAS glorified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top