Last Supper, Host Glorified?

[FrDavid96]

Then explain it clearly and simply.

Exactly as I wrote earlier

Again, I doubt the priest would disagree with St Thomas on this. If he does, he needs to go back to the seminary.

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.

 

[Hope1960]

I don’t understand your second point, though. My former priest didn’t say Jesus was resurrected at the Last Supper, he said Jesus was glorified in the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Thomas Aquinas says the Eucharist at the Last Supper was in His non-glorified Body, which is what my former priest disagrees with.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t understand your second point, though. My former priest didn’t say Jesus was resurrected at the Last Supper, he said Jesus was glorified in the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Right.

Thomas Aquinas says the Eucharist at the Last Supper was in His non-glorified Body, which is what my former priest disagrees with.

Not quite. When Thomas says “non-glorified” he actually means “non-resurrected” because he’s using glorified as a synonym for resurrected. He is not using glorified in the sense that we would typically use it today.

Which is why I keep saying that your priest would NOT disagree with St Thomas.

The Eucharist can always be described as “glorified” so if that’s the question you asked your priest, naturally he would say “yes, glorified.”

On the other hand if you had asked “was Christ’s resurrected body present in the Eucharist at the Last Supper” I’m confident he would have said “no.”

 

[twf]

Father,
The crucifixion hadn’t happened yet either. I always understood that the Last Supper was truly the Eucharist, meaning it was truly a sacrifice… in which case the Holy Spirit made present a sacrifice that had not yet been made in time. As most Masses look backwards, the Last Supper looked forward… God not being bound by time. For that reason I also assumed it was the resurrected body. I guess I was wrong there.

 

[Hope1960]

So, let me get this straight, then. You agree that Jesus was glorified in the Eucharist at the Last Supper, right?

 

[FrDavid96]

So, let me get this straight, then. You agree that Jesus was glorified in the Eucharist at the Last Supper, right?

That depends on whether or not one want to use “glorified” in the same sense that St Thomas Aquinas was using it.

So, in what sense are YOU intending the word when you ask me the question?

 

[Hope1960]

That depends on whether or not one want to use “glorified” in the same sense that St Thomas Aquinas was using it.

So, in what sense are YOU intending the word when you ask me the question?

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

 

[TK421]

Was the Transfiguration a literal event or a vision? I always thought it was literal.

 

[Hope1960]

I don’t know. Good question.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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

 

[TK421]

I don’t know whether there is a need to further distinguish between “heavenly” and then “heavenly and resurrected”, but I would assume since the Transfiguration happened prior to His Passion & Resurrection, then the meal in the Cenacle could also be of his heavenly body. Not that it necessarily was, since Scripture doesn’t tell us, but just that there’s no reason why it couldn’t be.

A message I get from the Transfiguration is a re-affirmation of the divinity of Christ, and thus an assurance that the upcoming sacrifice would be an eternal expiation for sins (as opposed to the imperfect and temporary expiation provided through an animal). Like God is telling us, “This man already merits being heavenly”, and then in retrospect the reader (and Peter, John, James, and Andrew) sees that Jesus wasn’t dying for himself, but for the rest of mankind. 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.

I haven’t considered this question before and this is all entirely my private view. Are there other people that talk about this besides St Thomas?

 

[Kts1816]

Wow!
Never thought this way.
Very intetresting

 

[Kts1816]

Me,too a real event

 

[Hope1960]

I read something online about not trusting Ron L. Conte. I wanted to see if he was a real theologian.

 

[TK421]

Disregard my post. He is shady.

 

[Hope1960]

Disregard my post. He is shady.

I’m waiting for Fr. David to come back.

 

[guanophore]

How did the Host become Jesus glorified body when He hadn’t died yet? Aquinas said it wasn’t glorified.

I never thought much about this until I ran across this quote of Augustine…

St. Augustine of Hippo, Bishop, Doctor of the Church, N. Africa, (354-430)

Eucharistic Quotes:

“Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.”

“Recognize in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side… whatever was in many and varied ways announced beforehand in the sacrifices of the Old Testament pertains to this one sacrifice which is revealed in the New Testament.” (Sermon 3, 2; circa A.D. 410, original translation)

http://www.acfp2000.com/Saints/St_Augustine/st_augustine.html

He is actually not specific about how this came about, and in the Eastern Church, this is left in mystery. It is only in the West, where we have such a need to rationalize and explain everything, that this question arises. Mysteries like this can end up leaving me mind boggled, so I have chosen to leave it in a state of mystery. I will go with Augustine, who testifies that He held Himself in His own hands.

 

[FrDavid96]

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

I have no idea what you’re trying to ask.

You’re combining different events.

The Transfiguration occurred for only a moment. His body was not transfigured at any other time. So nothing about the Transfiguration applies to the Last Supper. He was not transfigured at the Last Supper.

Also, there was no walking through doors before the Resurrection. That was after the Resurrection.

I can’t answer a question until you get the time-line straight.

 

[Hope1960]

I have no idea what you’re trying to ask.

You’re combining different events.

The Transfiguration occurred for only a moment. His body was not transfigured at any other time. So nothing about the Transfiguration applies to the Last Supper. He was not transfigured at the Last Supper.

Also, there was no walking through doors before the Resurrection. That was after the Resurrection.

I can’t answer a question until you get the time-line straight.

I really don’t know how else to say it. My former priest said that Jesus in the Eucharist, at the Last Supper, was glorified.

 

[FrDavid96]

I really don’t know how else to say it. My former priest said that Jesus in the Eucharist, at the Last Supper, was glorified.

Look, I keep telling you this, but you just keep ignoring it.

Glorified means something DIFFERENT in our everyday language than the specific way St. Thomas Aquinas was using it in that particular article in the Summa.

In the Summa, “glorified” is being used as a synonym for “resurrected.”

I know you keep insisting that your priest says that Christ was “glorified” in the Eucharist at the Last Supper. OK fine. No problem. Christ is always described as “glorified.” So the question itself is a non-question. Christ is God, therefore always glorified. You cannot compare the answer your priest gave to the answer that St. Thomas gave because the WORDS ARE NOT BEING USED IN THE SAME WAY.

What you don’t seem to understand is that you cannot ask different people different questions and then expect their answers to be the same.

If you want to say that your priest is right and St Thomas was wrong (which is quite obviously the whole point of the thread) then you would have to go back and ask your priest the same question that St Thomas was addressing: whether or not Christ’s RESURRECTED Body was present in the Eucharist at the Last Supper?

You cannot keep mixing the words “glorified” and “resurrected” and then expecting different people to have the same answers.

I’ve told you multiple times here that if you were to be consistent in the vocabulary, you would be receiving consistent answers. For some reason, you just refuse to do that. You insist on changing the words around.