The First Eucharist At The Last Supper

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

Hope1960

Guest
I’ve asked this before but does anyone know if the first Eucharist at the Last Supper was glorified or not? Jesus hadn’t died yet but my former priest and a “theologian” online, named Ron Conte believes it was.
 
Last edited:
But what I’m asking is if Jesus in the Eucharist during The Last Supper was His glorified body or unglorified?
 
I believe that it was. If God can preserve Mary from original sin based on the future merits of Christ, then I can’t see what stops Him from offering His glorified body to the apostles before the resurrection.
 
Not everything needs to be known with dogmatic assurance, methinks. But I’m just a layman
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
When Jesus gave His disciples the Bread and Wine , I believe that He was glorified For He had given this new Sacrament to the Apostles, who would in turn give of it to us after Jesus 's crucifixion and Resurrection . John 17-4 and John 17-9. note interest…John 17-3 GOD BLESS.
 
Last edited:
Just me thinking out-loud.

When God the Father changed the bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, He did so making the bread and wine, glorified.

Jim
 
BartholomewB said:
A quick look at the CCC suggests that, if an answer to your question is to be found in it anywhere at all, the most likely place to look would be somewhere between #1353 and #1365, shown in the two links below. However, the word “glorified” is nowhere to be found in those thirteen paragraphs, as far as I can see. What are we to make of that?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM
Click to expand...
Not sure. Anyone care to comment on this?
 
Hope1960 said:
I’ve asked this before but does anyone know if the first Eucharist at the Last Supper was glorified or not? Jesus hadn’t died yet but my former priest and a “theologian” online, named Ron Conte believes it was.
Click to expand...
I read your earlier post. I don’t think you’ll learn much more this time. 🙁

Plain and simple, we don’t know for certain whether it was his mortal passible body or his immortal impassible body.
Some (eg. Aquinas) held it was mortal/passible and some held it was immortal/impassible (eg. Hugh of St. Victor). So, you are free to look at what took place at the Last Supper in whichever of the 2 ways you prefer or whichever way seems more reasonable to you - - - always keeping in mind that there is no infallible surety for either possibility at this time. Until the Church would issue an infallible decree on the matter, we just have to accept that lack of certainty.

For those interested, here is the link to where Aquinas gives his explanation of the manner he believes Jesus’ passible body was present. It is not easy to understand & one needs to have some knowledge of the philosophical terms used.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
40.png
BartholomewB:
A quick look at the CCC suggests that, if an answer to your question is to be found in it anywhere at all, the most likely place to look would be somewhere between #1353 and #1365, shown in the two links below. However, the word “glorified” is nowhere to be found in those thirteen paragraphs, as far as I can see. What are we to make of that?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM
Click to expand...
Not sure. Anyone care to comment on this?
Click to expand...
The only paragraph that touches on the Last Supper is #1350:

The presentation of the offerings (the Offertory). Then, sometimes in procession, the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood. It is the very action of Christ at the Last Supper - “taking the bread and a cup.” “The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with thanksgiving.” The presentation of the offerings at the altar takes up the gesture of Melchizedek and commits the Creator’s gifts into the hands of Christ who, in his sacrifice, brings to perfection all human attempts to offer sacrifices.

I think the bolded portion is referring to the physical actions (“taking the bread and a cup”) at the Last Supper as Jesus instituted the Eucharist. I don’t see that it touches at all on the state (mortal or immortal) of Jesus’ body in the bread and wine after Jesus spoke the words of consecration.
 
Last edited:
St Thomas answers this in the Summa.

Question 81, article 3 Answer
…nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. 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...
 
Hope1960 said:
Is this dogma or an infallible teaching?
Click to expand...
That is merely the opinion of Saint Thomas.
My answer is essentially the same as explained by someone else above, that God is beyond the limits of time. Jesus can give the Apostles his glorified body and blood (all of himself in the Real Presence) even though he had not yet died and rose. We could also ask how Jesus could celebrate the first Mass when the Mass depends on His sacrifice on the Cross, which hadn’t happened yet? The same answer applies.

In addition, a glorified body is more fitting to be consumed, for then we are not eating the flesh of a man in the same way as we eat the flesh of animals. And, as a third point, if He gave them His glorified body, then the first Mass was like all the subsequent Masses, resulting in a continuity between the only Mass Jesus celebrated in person and all other Masses.
 
Hope1960 said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
St Thomas answers this in the Summa.
Click to expand...
Is this dogma or an infallible teaching?
Click to expand...
I would place it in the category of “doctrine.”

And by the way, St. Thomas is saying that the Apostles did not receive the glorified (ie impassible or resurrected) Body of Christ because the Passion had not yet happened. Instead, they received the Body of Christ (sacramentally, of course) as it existed then: as he writes “ready for the Passion.”
 
@FrDavid96, Writing eight or nine centuries before St.Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose seems to be saying the same thing, that the “Flesh and Blood” consecrated in the Eucharist are “the true Flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried” (“Vera utique caro Christi, quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: vere ergo carnis illius sacramentum est.”) We see no mention here of the Resurrection. Is that the correct meaning of Ambrose’s words, do you think? Or am I reading too much into a single sentence?
Let us use the examples He [Jesus] gives, and by the example of the Incarnation, let us prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It was the true Flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried; therefore this is truly the Sacrament of His Body. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.” Before the blessing of the heavenly words, another nature is spoken of; after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. And you say, “Amen”, that is, “It is true”. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks (On the Mysteries, 9.53-54).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Remember the last supper story, after Judas left the room? Jesus said, “Now the Son of man can be glorified”.
 
I was going to edit the phrase to “Now the Son of man is glorified”. During the Passion readings it is in the gospels. Maybe you could look up those words. Judas indicated by eating the bread with Jesus that he (Judas) was the betrayer.
It makes sense to me that Jesus was glorified at the time of the Eucharist. Since people don’t eat physical bodies, He transformed the bread and wine into Himself. And now we can receive “His body and Blood”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top