The First Eucharist At The Last Supper

[Hope1960]

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”.

This makes the most sense to me, too, but are Catholics allowed to believe this or are we required to believe what Fr. David said?

 

[margaret42]

What did Fr David say?

 

[Hope1960]

It’s in posts#16 and 19.

 

[margaret42]

Catholics are required to believe in the sacraments-this one being the Eucharist- since Jesus founded them, and they are part of the Catholic life.

 

[Hope1960]

Catholics are required to believe in the sacraments-this one being the Eucharist- since Jesus founded them, and they are part of the Catholic life.

So are you saying that Catholics aren’t required to believe what St.Thomas said, which is that Jesus was unglorified in the Eucharist during the Last Supper?

 

[margaret42]

I would stay with the words Jesus said; what He says is the truth. You could type the question your concerned about on google, see what results come from the USCCB, and they would know about the ideas of “glorified” and “unglorified”.

 

[FrDavid96]

@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).

It’s all about the time (meaning chronos, the time on the clock/calendar).

St Ambrose is speaking in the present tense, about when the Eucharist is consecrated.

In this very particular (and admittedly obscure) topic, St. Thomas is writing only about the Last Supper itself. Only that one specific event.

I’m sure that St. Ambrose would have intended “resurrected” even though he didn’t use the word in that particular quote. Likewise, he would have intended “ascended.” etc. etc.

 

[lilypadrees]

I believe it was.

 

[Hope1960]

I believe it was.

You mean glorified, right?

 

[FrDavid96]

This is my opinion:

I put it into the category of doctrine (a rather low level of doctrine).

I would NOT say that “Catholics are required to believe it” as a matter of faith.

This is a rather obscure question. I honestly can’t imagine how anyone would be required to believe it; even though I do find it convincing.

We must believe that the Apostles did receive the Eucharist, ie the Body and Blood of Christ at the Last Supper. (I need to add that part simply to clarify that no one is attempting to deny it).

 

[CaptFun]

Just my (informed) layman’s “guess” but I would answer – both. Rather like Jesus’ body was glorified at the Transfiguration – even though he had not died yet.

If so at the Transfiguration, so at the Transubstantiation.

 

[BartholomewB]

Okay, @FrDavid96, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Nita]

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.

Like you, I also prefer the opinion that the Eucharist was Our Lord’s glorified body. If at the Last Supper the bread was changed into Jesus’ mortal body, then Jesus’ words --“Do THIS in remembrance of Me” – would raise questions in my mind. Specifically, wouldn’t that mean that our Communion now would also be Our Lord’s mortal flesh?
(It wouldn’t bother me if that were the case, any more than it bothered the apostles if it was Jesus’ mortal flesh. And I know there would be a very specific and good reason why Our Lord would have established it in the manner.)

“This” is so specific!!; as in Our Lord’s words “THIS is My Body/Blood”.

 

[Hope1960]

This is my opinion:

I put it into the category of doctrine (a rather low level of doctrine).

I would NOT say that “Catholics are required to believe it” as a matter of faith.

This is a rather obscure question. I honestly can’t imagine how anyone would be required to believe it; even though I do find it convincing.

We must believe that the Apostles did receive the Eucharist, ie the Body and Blood of Christ at the Last Supper. (I need to add that part simply to clarify that no one is attempting to deny it).

Good, because to me, a glorified Jesus in the Eucharist makes more sense.

 

[Hope1960]

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.

Are you the same Ron Conte who has the blog online? If so, are you a real theologian?

 

[Nita]

Like you, I also prefer the opinion that the Eucharist was Our Lord’s glorified body. If at the Last Supper the bread was changed into Jesus’ mortal body, then Jesus’ words --“Do THIS in remembrance of Me” – would raise questions in my mind. Specifically, wouldn’t that mean that our Communion now would also be Our Lord’s mortal flesh?
…

“This” is so specific!!; as in Our Lord’s words “THIS is My Body/Blood”.

After thinking about my question in bed last night I realized Jesus’ command to the apostles to “Do this…” applied only to the actions they were to do (words, getting bread and wine. etc.). It is God who does the “transubstantiating” and so the “This” WOULD NOT APPLY to any acts He may choose to do

 

[Richca]

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.

I agree with St Thomas Aquinas. Jesus did not receive his glorified body until his resurrection and his resurrection is the model of our resurrection when we will put on immortality and incorruption. So, at the Last Supper Jesus transubstantiated his mortal body, the very body the Apostles were looking at. Jesus only has one body and by death he paid the price or ransomed us from eternal death. A glorified body is not necessary for transubstantiation and neither does a glorified body take away its materiality and being made of flesh and bones.

 

[Hope1960]

I agree with St Thomas Aquinas. Jesus did not receive his glorified body until his resurrection and his resurrection is the model of our resurrection when we will put on immortality and incorruption. So, at the Last Supper Jesus transubstantiated his mortal body, the very body the Apostles were looking at. Jesus only has one body and by death he paid the price or ransomed us from eternal death. A glorified body is not necessary for transubstantiation and neither does a glorified body take away its materiality and being made of flesh and bones.

Jesus’ body was glorified at the Transfiguration and He hadn’t died yet.

 

[Richca]

Richca:

I agree with St Thomas Aquinas. Jesus did not receive his glorified body until his resurrection and his resurrection is the model of our resurrection when we will put on immortality and incorruption. So, at the Last Supper Jesus transubstantiated his mortal body, the very body the Apostles were looking at. Jesus only has one body and by death he paid the price or ransomed us from eternal death. A glorified body is not necessary for transubstantiation and neither does a glorified body take away its materiality and being made of flesh and bones.

Jesus’ body was glorified at the Transfiguration and He hadn’t died yet.

Evidently, the glory that Jesus manifested in his body at the Transfiguration was not in all respects the glory of his resurrected body which is impassible, immortal, incorruptible. The Transfiguration was a temporary and miraculous manifestation of Jesus’ Godhead or divinity which overflowed into his soul and from his soul into his body. From the gospel accounts, we find that the Transfiguration occurs after Jesus had begun to teach the disciples about his coming passion, death, and resurrection which at this time the disciples didn’t fully understand as their view of the Messiah was of a glorious and political one so to speak.

So, Jesus took Peter, James, and John up the mountain where the Transfiguration took place to strengthen their faith in him as well as our faith and as Luke recounts Moses and Elijah were speaking of his coming exodus which Jesus was to accomplish in Jerusalem. And as before the Transfiguration Jesus had begun to teach the disciples of his approaching passion and death as well as his resurrection, so in the Transfiguration Jesus temporarily manifests the glory of his future bodily resurrection which as St Paul says is the pattern and cause of our hoped for resurrection for Jesus is the first born from the dead.

In the Church’s theological tradition, one of the four supernatural gifts God bestows on a glorified body is clarity which as St Thomas Aquinas says is a permanent quality of the soul which overflows into the body and makes the body all lightsome. And it was this gift that Jesus temporarily manifested in his body to the disciples at the Transfiguration where it is said that Jesus’ ‘face shone like the sun and his garments became white as light.’ Now, this is a permanent gift of a glorified, impassible and incorruptible body such as Jesus’ body at his resurrection so St Thomas says that at the Transfiguration Jesus did not bestow on his body the gift of clarity as a permanent supernatural gift since that is a property of a glorified and incorruptible body such as his resurrected body. The clarity or lightsomeness of Jesus’ body at the Transfiguration was a miraculous and transient manifestation.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

The other three supernatural gifts bestowed on a glorified body are impassibility or incorruptibility (immortality), subtlety, and agility. Jesus’ manifested agility as when he walked on the water and subtlety as when he was born from the Virgin Mary without Mary losing her virginal integrity or opening her womb. These were miraculous transient events displaying Jesus’ Godhead or divine power and should not be construed as if Jesus bestowed on his body the permanent supernatural gifts of his glorified resurrected and incorruptible body in which case he would not have been able to undergo his passion, crucifixion, and death nor accomplish God’s plan and Jesus’ mission in redeeming the human race.

So, St Paul says that God ‘sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Romans 8:3). And the eucharistic prayer IV says ’ He was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, a man like us in all things but sin.’ (cf. Hebrews 4: 15). Though Jesus was without sin of any kind even original sin, he voluntarily bore some of the effects of original sin in his body such as death and weariness to atone and make satisfaction for our sins as St Paul says:

‘For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures…’ (1 Cor. 15:3).

And as the Prophet Isaiah foretold:

‘Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our sorrows…
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,
and with his stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53: 4-5).

By his whole life and passion and death, Jesus also gave us an example of patience in suffering and its redeeming and sanctifying value. Jesus said ‘If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me’ (Matt. 16: 24). And St Peter says:

‘Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed’ (1 Peter 4:12).

And St Paul:

‘… and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him’ (Romans 8:17).