A
afthomercy
Guest
If we can believe that every Eucharist celebrated after the Last Supper is a literal reenactment of the first Good Friday, then is it much of a stretch to believe that the Eucharistic body is the same as which was brought down from the cross that day 2000 years ago?
The words of institution prefigured the actual event and the words of consecration reenact the same event. One is a forward movement and the other is a backward movement (in time). Both converge at the same point (his death on the cross). In that lifeless and bloodless body, the apostles would have recognised the actualisation of the words “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup that is poured out for you is…”, which they had heard just the previous evening!
Those who heard the words of Institution were not learned Rationalists, possessed of the critical equipment that would enable them, as philologists and logicians, to analyze an obscure and mysterious phraseology; they were simple, uneducated fishermen, from the ordinary ranks of the people, who with childlike naïveté hung upon the words of their Master and with deep faith accepted whatever He proposed to them, This childlike disposition had to be reckoned with by Christ, particularly on the eve of His Passion and Death, when He made His last will and testament and spoke as a dying father to His deeply afflicted children. In such a moment of awful solemnity, the only appropriate mode of speech would be one which, stripped of unintelligible figures, made use of words corresponding exactly to the meaning to be conveyed. [New Advent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm ]
The Buenos Aires Eucharistic Miracle (1999) also points to it being the earthly body hidden behind the species.
In view of the above, is there any theological compunction on us to believe that it is the glorified body?
The words of institution prefigured the actual event and the words of consecration reenact the same event. One is a forward movement and the other is a backward movement (in time). Both converge at the same point (his death on the cross). In that lifeless and bloodless body, the apostles would have recognised the actualisation of the words “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup that is poured out for you is…”, which they had heard just the previous evening!
Those who heard the words of Institution were not learned Rationalists, possessed of the critical equipment that would enable them, as philologists and logicians, to analyze an obscure and mysterious phraseology; they were simple, uneducated fishermen, from the ordinary ranks of the people, who with childlike naïveté hung upon the words of their Master and with deep faith accepted whatever He proposed to them, This childlike disposition had to be reckoned with by Christ, particularly on the eve of His Passion and Death, when He made His last will and testament and spoke as a dying father to His deeply afflicted children. In such a moment of awful solemnity, the only appropriate mode of speech would be one which, stripped of unintelligible figures, made use of words corresponding exactly to the meaning to be conveyed. [New Advent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm ]
The Buenos Aires Eucharistic Miracle (1999) also points to it being the earthly body hidden behind the species.
In view of the above, is there any theological compunction on us to believe that it is the glorified body?