H
Hope1960
Guest
I’ve read that He held his Glorified body in His hands and that He held His non-Glorified body in His hands.
Last edited:
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
This is a direct quotation from Sacrosanctum concilium.
Think about it for a second: is the Eucharist a pledge of the future glory of Christ, or a pledge of the future glory of humans who have a share in eternal life?
(The answer can be found at CCC 1419: “Christ gives us in the Eucharist the pledge of glory with him”.)
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
You should be sure.Gorgias:
Have you an authoritative quote for this?
I am not so sure.
Think about it for a second: if it was not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, then it would not be the Eucharist. It would be “something else.” The Church – authoritatively and definitively – states that the Eucharist was confected first at the Last Supper. Not “something similar to the Eucharist”, not “something almost the Eucharist”, but “the Eucharist.”
If the Church makes that statement, then she is saying that, in fact, the Eucharist at the Last Supper is the Eucharist we celebrate today: the substantial presence of Christ.
From the Catechism:
Now… is this what you’re asking, or is it the (relatively trivial) question about “substantial presence” vis-a-vis “glorified body”? After all, Christ – as God – does not require a glorified body in order to be able to share his substance with us. (However, sometimes, well-intentioned Catholics use the term “glorified body” when they really are talking about the “true presence”.) Are you simply asking @Hope1960 to be a bit more precise?
R
runningdude
Guest
Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am present. The Eucharist is the ultimate fulfillment of this promise.
Incidentally, Eucharist is the Greek word for Thanksgiving; it is not a coincidence what the pilgrims named tomorrow’s feast!
χαρούμενη ημέρα των ευχαριστιών (Happy Eucharist!)
Incidentally, Eucharist is the Greek word for Thanksgiving; it is not a coincidence what the pilgrims named tomorrow’s feast!
χαρούμενη ημέρα των ευχαριστιών (Happy Eucharist!)
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
But taking the whole paragraph into consideration, it talks about after Jesus “ passed from this world to the Father,…” indicating Jesus had already died and risen. At the Last Supper, Jesus hadn’t died yet.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that at the Last Supper Jesus held his non- glorified body in His hands.
My former priest disagrees and says St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that at the Last Supper Jesus held his non- glorified body in His hands.
My former priest disagrees and says St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Not precisely. I’m assuming you’re referring to the Summa Theologicae; in III.81, Aquinas answers these questions:
So, Aquinas doesn’t address the notion of Christ’s “glorified body”, per se, although he does address the notion of impassibility (that is, the ability to feel suffering and pain). He addresses it, seemingly, in order to get to his answer in III.81.4, which discusses what would have ensued if there had been Eucharist laying around between the Last Supper and Easter Sunday.
Now, clearly, Jesus’ physical body was passible on Holy Thursday (or else there wouldn’t have been the passion on Good Friday). However, it’s difficult to reconcile the notion of a ‘passible body’ and ‘the real presence in the Eucharist’, even at the Last Supper. Aquinas is walking a tightrope here: if he asserts impassibility, then he has to fight off the assertion that impassibility precludes the suffering of the crucifixion. On the other hand, if he concedes ‘passible body’ – due to the events of the Triduum – then he’s got the problem of having to explain how the Eucharist at the Last Supper was a real Eucharist (which he asserted at III.73.5) if it’s different from every other Eucharist ever, or worse yet, that it’s passible at every Mass (and therefore, capable of causing pain and harm to Jesus, if the sacrament is defiled). None of these options is a good one.
Now, “impassibility” isn’t synonymous with “glorified body”. Yet, it’s something that we predicate of God, and so, if you really want to, and you squint really hard as you’re looking at it, it’s possible to say that Aquinas is kinda talking about the ‘glorified body.’ Kinda.
Aquinas’ solution is that the apostles really did receive Christ’s body at the Last Supper, and therefore, since His body was about to undergo the Passion, it was a passible body they received. However, he points out, that what they received in the sacrament – the body and blood of Christ – was received in an impassible manner, even though His body was passible at that moment. He follows that up, in the reply to the first objection in the argument, by stating, “Christ is said not to have given His mortal and passible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and passible fashion.”
So, I would say that your spin on Aquinas and on your priest’s assertion are a bit skewed. Aquinas admits that Christ held his body in the Eucharist at the Last Supper, and did so in a way that’s not quite the same as the experience of a non-glorified body.
R
Richca
Guest
Jesus is physically present in the eucharist. Jesus’ true body made of matter, flesh, and bones and his true blood are substantially present in the eucharist though invisible. The body and the blood of Christ are material/physical realities like yours and mine. The same body of Jesus that was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered and died on the cross, and rose from the dead is substantially present in the eucharist. Jesus’ sacramental presence in the eucharist does not mean he is not corporeally and physically present but that his body and blood are truly present in a mode of existence different than the natural mode of the existence of his body, extended and visible, such as he is in heaven or when he walked on the earth. The eucharistic species of the bread and wine are also sacramental signs of eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood. Since the whole Christ is present in the eucharist, the whole body of Christ is present in the eucharist including the accidents of Christ’s body. But the accidents of Jesus’ body and blood are present after the manner of substance.
Pope Paul VI in his encyclical MYSTERIUM FIDEI (On the Holy Eucharist) mentioned the physical presence of Jesus in the eucharist: once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
R
Richca
Guest
I agree with Aquinas here. I don’t know what your former priest was basing his reasoning on. It’s clear from the scriptures that the Last Supper happened before Jesus’ crucifixtion and death and glorious resurrection. Jesus’ glorified body is not essential for him to transubstantiate it as he did at the Last Supper. It just so happens that since Jesus’ resurrection, every celebration of the eucharist is a transubstantiation of Jesus’ glorified body.
H
Hope1960
Guest
So His body in the Eucharist was glorified or not?
H
Hope1960
Guest
But what does”substantially present” a s “sacramentally present”, at its core?
G
Gorgias
Guest
You said that Aquinas discussed it. He didn’t… not really.
What’s at stake here, ‘glorified’ or ‘not glorified’?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
So let me get this straight. You believe that at the last supper Jesus practiced the Eucharist with the miracle of transubstantiation? Did I get that right?.. rather than read it as a figure of speech, “This is my body…” you would rather go spiritual?.. wow.
On what scriptural bases did you make your interpretation? What was it in the passage that made you make such an interpretation?
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
I would think that if I knew Jesus was Glorified, the whole thing about His being sacramentally present and substantially present would make more sense to me.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes, you read it right.
What would lead you to interpret it as a figure of speech?
Not spiritual – the Eucharist isn’t just a spiritual reality, it’s a reality that includes both physical (“accident”) and transcendental (“substance”) realities.
- it fulfills the assertions made in John 6
- it perfects the sacrifice of the Passover
- it fulfills the requirements for sacrifice found in the Mosaic law (i.e., consumption of the sacrifice / paschal lamb), while perfecting them in an unbloody way
The whole “this is my body” / “this is the blood of the covenant” is pretty plainly stated. You’ve got to remember that a sacrifice was not complete unless the participants ate of the sacrifice. Jesus provides a way to do so, without breaking the prohibitions against eating flesh and drinking actual blood.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Why? What about “glorified body” makes “sacramental presence” and “substantial presence” more sensible?
H
Hope1960
Guest
I’m not really sure. Maybe because after Jesus was Glorified, His body changed. In reading about this tonight, I was reminded that it’s a supernatural thing, and that the Holy Spirit is involved which made it clearer to me.
Last edited:
R
Reuben_J
Guest
You really have not heard this? Just to give you the benefit of the doubt though I’m not really sure you really want to hear it - Jesus said, “this is my body …” as he held the bread.
Unless you do not believe that he could do it, it’s really self-explanatory.
Unless you do not believe that he could do it, it’s really self-explanatory.
R
Richca
Guest
It means that the body and blood of Christ are really and truly present under the eucharistic species (appearances, accidents) of the bread and wine in the sacrament of the eucharist. At the consecration of the bread and wine at Mass that the priest performs, when he repeats the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, ‘This is my body…’, 'This is my blood…, a real change takes place in the nature or reality of the bread and wine at the level of substance in that the substance of the bread and wine is converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. So that what was formally and substantially bread and wine before the consecration, after the consecration is substantially the body and blood of the Lord with the appearances or accidents of the bread and wine remaining. After the consecration, the substances of the bread and wine are no longer present. Those substances are converted into the pre-existing substances of the body and blood of Jesus. Philosophically speaking, the substance of material substances is a composite of the substantial form and matter. Accordingly, since transubstantiation is a change of the whole substances of the bread and wine, the substantial form and matter of the bread and wine are changed into the form and matter of the body and blood of Jesus.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Reuben, Reuben!! why do you say what you say??
Jesus also said, “I am the vine you are the branches…” He said, “I am the door…” How about “I am the bread of life” or, “I am the light of the world.” These were all common metaphors used throughout the gospels. Do you think Jesus wanted us to believe He was a literal door? of course not, but why not? … Should we believe He was a literal vine? of course not, but why not? on what bases?
He said He was bread. Why should we treat this statement any different than the others? if so, on what scriptural bases? at the whim of one’s opinion, or because there is something in the passage that allows it?
It was common for Jesus to convey spiritual truth by natural means. There is no reasonable point made here to make an exception by one verse of scripture while ignoring the many others.
It smells of a bias read into the passage forcing an unreasonable interpretation by people determined to defend a doctrine that evolved centuries in time.
Blessings to you and happy thanksgiving.
Jesus also said, “I am the vine you are the branches…” He said, “I am the door…” How about “I am the bread of life” or, “I am the light of the world.” These were all common metaphors used throughout the gospels. Do you think Jesus wanted us to believe He was a literal door? of course not, but why not? … Should we believe He was a literal vine? of course not, but why not? on what bases?
He said He was bread. Why should we treat this statement any different than the others? if so, on what scriptural bases? at the whim of one’s opinion, or because there is something in the passage that allows it?
It was common for Jesus to convey spiritual truth by natural means. There is no reasonable point made here to make an exception by one verse of scripture while ignoring the many others.
It smells of a bias read into the passage forcing an unreasonable interpretation by people determined to defend a doctrine that evolved centuries in time.
Blessings to you and happy thanksgiving.
Last edited:
R
Reuben_J
Guest
They are not the same, so the analogies are not apt. He held the bread, he did not hold the door or the vine. There is no going around it and saying it is a metaphor. But like I said, I think you have heard this before.
If i say this is my iPad while holding it, like I am doing now, there is no way that I could mean it to be a metaphor, especially since I am typing on it.
If i say this is my iPad while holding it, like I am doing now, there is no way that I could mean it to be a metaphor, especially since I am typing on it.
- Status