Which "body" is the Eucharist?

[thevoiceofone]

The Last Supper as a eucharistic celebration is difficult to explain to Protestants who deny the true presence of our Lord within the elements of the host. Without my Catechism handy, unfortunately, I will put forth this opinion: I don’t see any difference in the value of Christ’s flesh before or after His resurrection. I’m just going to throw that out there.

Anyway, it is no accident that St. Jerome included the multiplication of loaves in the same chapter (6) as the bread from heaven teaching in John’s gospel. Besides, remember the tomb was empty. Christ’s body is not a ghost or a shadow of His flesh that walked the earth and hung on the cross; it is His real flesh, the one and the same. There’s really no difference. As to what the apostles ate at the last supper… I believe He transubstantiated the bread that night just as He has done ever since thru the priest at mass. Why not? He proved Himself thru so many signs and wonders as a man. Where One of the Trinity is, the other Two are present… always. He was God at the last supper too. It was His flesh they ate, just like we eat; truly living, truly life-giving flesh.

 

[GEddie]

I will put forth this opinion: I don’t see any difference in the value of Christ’s flesh before or after His resurrection…Christ’s body is not a ghost or a shadow of His flesh that walked the earth and hung on the cross; it is His real flesh, the one and the same. There’s really no difference.

with all due respect, there is a significant difference. In the Cenaculum, our LORD was a natural, “deathable” human body, just like you or me; as the subsequent events proved. By receiving HIM in that state, you would have received natural, deathable substance; in essence, the stuff we already possess in our own beings.

But after Easter, though the solid form was the same HE wore to HIS death; its nature was changed. HE was no longer subject to death, nor bound to the earthly world, as HE showed by HIS Heavenly Ascension. Receiving HIM now gives us something infinitely more, literally. We remain mortal, but we build up substance for our Spiritual Bodies (1 Co 15) in Heaven.

Which “body” was offered in the Cenaculum of Jerusalem is somewhat of a mystery to us since we were not there. But the earlier poster’s idea of a “time machine” is not that far off. In the Mass, we have not only Calvary, but the Resurrection (which in history took place right next to Calvary). The Body we receive is HIS Ressurectional, ever-living, glorified human BODY!

ICXC NIKA!

 

[thevoiceofone]

GEddie,

I see your point, in response to my little notion about our Lord’s pre-resurrected flesh, but I’m not totally convinced that I’m in error… not yet. I’m thinking about a couple things, in my defense.

First, the Gospel of John makes a frequent point about everything happening according to the will of Jesus, not against it. He shows that Jesus was always in control, and that was a very important point to make to his original audience, that, and the fact that Jesus (the Word made flesh) was always one with God, that He *was *God, not just a man like you and I who was somehow *elevated *to a divine status. John makes it clear that Jesus *chose *to die on His cross. That implies many things. Could He not have come down off His cross as His hecklers suggested? He let His body die that we might be reconciled to God, and I don’t doubt that you know all that. But, before He died, He *was *alive, and proven to be supernatural by healing the living and the dead, “slipping” out of angry crowds, etc, etc. Anyway, again, I don’t mean to preach to the choir here. But, consider, also, the devil tempting our Lord to jump off a high place because he knew the Lord would not fall to the ground, “Lest He dash His foot upon a stone.” The Lord did not did not deny the truth of that statement, only that it was wrong to tempt the Lord God.

Also, maybe I’m taking your argument out of context, but the divinity of Christ was one of the major causes of schism in the Church. Please don’t think I’m accusing you of being schismatic. Certainly not! I see that our opinions about this matter are only slightly different, perhaps. But, that early question the Church had to answer was when… when was Jesus, the man, the son of Mary, truly divine? When was He God? Was he God from the first moment His human cell(s) were in Mary’s womb? Was He God after He emerged from His baptismal waters? After the Resurrection? That question caused a lot of division. I believe He was never not divine (yes, that was an intentional double-negative). So then, what was the nature of His flesh? Even His garments are told to have had a supernatural effect.

Also, I think of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was granted freedom from the stain of original sin so that her body would be perfect for the baby Jesus, and Jesus was, of course, free from sin. It is original sin that brought death into the world, so was He not free from death, by His nature? Surely, He would not have died unless He had willed to do so (to achieve His purpose). It was therefore an action on His part, was it not, instead of a weakness of His flesh? I do not deny that he felt pain and thirst and all that as we do, but it stands to reason that His flesh would not have died without Him willing it to do so. That makes sense to me, anyway.

Also, I can not believe that any corruption would have taken place to His precious body.

Admittedly, the notion I’m arguing here is my own. I’ll even offer one point against my self, and that is that the apostles didn’t recognize Jesus, at first, after He resurrected and appeared to them. Yet, He bore the marks of His Crucifixion, so He was truly in His own skin… maybe in disguise? I don’t know why He appeared differently to them. But, again, the tomb was empty… the body that ascended is the same that lay in the manger (in a 4D way, perhaps, as was earlier suggested). That’s the main point I would focus on in this case.

I value your opinion. What do you think?

 

[GEddie]

GEddie,

I see your point, in response to my little notion about our Lord’s pre-resurrected flesh, but I’m not totally convinced that I’m in error… not yet. I’m thinking about a couple things, in my defense.

First, the Gospel of John makes a frequent point about everything happening according to the will of Jesus, not against it. He shows that Jesus was always in control, and that was a very important point to make to his original audience, that, and the fact that Jesus (the Word made flesh) was always one with God, that He *was *God, not just a man like you and I who was somehow *elevated *to a divine status. John makes it clear that Jesus *chose *to die on His cross. That implies many things. Could He not have come down off His cross as His hecklers suggested? He let His body die that we might be reconciled to God, and I don’t doubt that you know all that. But, before He died, He *was *alive, and proven to be supernatural by healing the living and the dead, “slipping” out of angry crowds, etc, etc. Anyway, again, I don’t mean to preach to the choir here. But, consider, also, the devil tempting our Lord to jump off a high place because he knew the Lord would not fall to the ground, “Lest He dash His foot upon a stone.” The Lord did not did not deny the truth of that statement, only that it was wrong to tempt the Lord God.

Sure on all counts. But I am not sure what this had to do with what I said.

Yes, our LORD let HIMself die; no, HE’d NOT have died otherwise. The fact is that HIS death was completed because, at Calvary, HE had a natural, deathable body. In this respect, HE was like you or me: not wholly, since HE was not required to die as we are; but in the sense that HE could die. Post Easter, this was not an aspect of HIM.

Also, maybe I’m taking your argument out of context, but the divinity of Christ was one of the major causes of schism in the Church. Please don’t think I’m accusing you of being schismatic. Certainly not! I see that our opinions about this matter are only slightly different, perhaps. But, that early question the Church had to answer was when… when was Jesus, the man, the son of Mary, truly divine? When was He God? Was he God from the first moment His human cell(s) were in Mary’s womb? Was He God after He emerged from His baptismal waters? After the Resurrection? That question caused a lot of division. I believe He was never not divine (yes, that was an intentional double-negative). So then, what was the nature of His flesh? Even His garments are told to have had a supernatural effect.

Again. I never suggested that HE was ever not divine. Only that before Calvary, HE was (by HIS own will) subject to bodily death, but after Easter, HE was not.

Also, I think of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was granted freedom from the stain of original sin so that her body would be perfect for the baby Jesus, and Jesus was, of course, free from sin. It is original sin that brought death into the world, so was He not free from death, by His nature? Surely, He would not have died unless He had willed to do so (to achieve His purpose). It was therefore an action on His part, was it not, instead of a weakness of His flesh? I do not deny that he felt pain and thirst and all that as we do, but it stands to reason that His flesh would not have died without Him willing it to do so. That makes sense to me, anyway.

The issue is that HE could die, even by HIS own will. HE was not yet an Eternal body.

Also, I can not believe that any corruption would have taken place to His precious body.

Death is in itself a sort of corruption; a build-up of entropy that makes the human body unable to hold life. I know what you mean, though. Corruption in the natural, smelly sense that takes hold of dead human bodies, would not have been allowed to take hold of HIM.

Admittedly, the notion I’m arguing here is my own. I’ll even offer one point against my self, and that is that the apostles didn’t recognize Jesus, at first, after He resurrected and appeared to them. Yet, He bore the marks of His Crucifixion, so He was truly in His own skin… maybe in disguise? I don’t know why He appeared differently to them. But, again, the tomb was empty… the body that ascended is the same that lay in the manger (in a 4D way, perhaps, as was earlier suggested). That’s the main point I would focus on in this case.

I value your opinion. What do you think?

He did indeed keeep the solid form and material of HIS “original” body; the body HE died in. It was suited for that because none of the spiritual entropy of our world touched it, via junk DNA, mutations, ageing, etc.

But HIS resurrection was not simply a resumption of the breathing. It was a Heavenly breathing; a new life-source that made HIS embodiement deathless and eternal.

That is what we will need ourselves, and because of our own corruption, we will need new substance for it, as well. That is what we recieve in the Eucharistic BODY.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Cinder]

Thank you. I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the idea that we are “made present at Calvary.” I imagine myself being at the cross when I hear that, as if we are in a “time machine,” and He has not yet died or been glorified. It is this point, more than bloodloss, that I am stuck on.

I had a bit of trouble understanding this until I stopped fighting it and let it just BE. It helps if I remember that there is no time for God, He sees everything happening at once, Calvary, our birth, death, he knows what sins we have committed as well as the ones we will commit (he has counted every hair on our heads before we were born) and always is there waiting for us to turn to Him. Sometimes we just have to accept things on faith and not because it can or can’t be logically explained. Sort of like the Trinity, I know it can be explained, but I don’t understand it fully so I accept the premise on faith. Hope that helps.
Cinder

 

[TommyWommy]

I had a bit of trouble understanding this until I stopped fighting it and let it just BE. It helps if I remember that there is no time for God, He sees everything happening at once, Calvary, our birth, death, he knows what sins we have committed as well as the ones we will commit (he has counted every hair on our heads before we were born) and always is there waiting for us to turn to Him. Sometimes we just have to accept things on faith and not because it can or can’t be logically explained. Sort of like the Trinity, I know it can be explained, but I don’t understand it fully so I accept the premise on faith. Hope that helps.
Cinder

Indeed. My primary motive in asking such questions is to cut my teeth as a “baby apologist” I like to be prepared for dialogue with those who may have questions about my faith, as in 1Peter 3:15.

 

[Third_Day]

Thank you. I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the idea that we are “made present at Calvary.” I imagine myself being at the cross when I hear that, as if we are in a “time machine,” and He has not yet died or been glorified. It is this point, more than bloodloss, that I am stuck on.

At the Mass the priest first consecrates the bread and it is the body of Christ. He then raises the Eucharist. That is Christ being raised on the cross.

The priest then consecrates the wine and it is the blood of Christ
The separation of the body and the blood signifies the death of Christ.

Before the" Lamb of God " the priest breaks the Eucharist and places a piece of the Eucharist into the Chalice of blood reuniting the body and blood. This is the resurrection.

We are receiving the glorifed body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. At the Last Supper Christ was offering his glorified flesh to His apostles. THis is a Mystery of Faith. The sacrifice of the cross is eternal. It is outside of time. The apostle John saw in heaven “a Lamb standing as though slain” Rev 5:6.

St. Augustine:
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10

 

[TommyWommy]

At the Mass the priest first consecrates the bread and it is the body of Christ. He then raises the Eucharist. That is Christ being raised on the cross.

The priest then consecrates the wine and it is the blood of Christ
The separation of the body and the blood signifies the death of Christ.

Before the" Lamb of God " the priest breaks the Eucharist and places a piece of the Eucharist into the Chalice of blood reuniting the body and blood. This is the resurrection.

We are receiving the glorifed body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. At the Last Supper Christ was offering his glorified flesh to His apostles. THis is a Mystery of Faith. The sacrifice of the cross is eternal. It is outside of time. The apostle John saw in heaven “a Lamb standing as though slain” Rev 5:6.

St. Augustine:
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10

Yes! Thank you. This is what I was referring to in post #11. We are made present to Good Friday and Easter Sunday

 

[thevoiceofone]

I think Third Day’s last post (#27, I think) sums it all up pretty well. I think it also helps to reconcile the discussion between GEddie and I. Whether our Lord’s flesh was truly “deathable,” in the normal sense, may or may not be. GEddie, you are probably right. I don’t know, but I don’t think it matters enough to argue such a thing to any further detail. I think we basically agree. Considering the “outside of time” concept, I think we all agree that the flesh shared by the apostles at the Last Supper was indeed the glorified flesh of our Lord. I’m satisfied with that.

 

[Des]

The reason being that our LORD’s natural Human Body held only natural life, which cannot be transferred from person to person, and which each of us has already. Because HE held only natural life, HE was able to die.

You have to be careful here. The Blood of Christ’s earthly body gave us ‘supernatural life’ at Baptism. His resurrected Body did not die on that Cross.

 

[Nita]

You have to be careful here. The Blood of Christ’s earthly body gave us ‘supernatural life’ at Baptism. His resurrected Body did not die on that Cross.

It’s more correct to say it was Our Lord’s sacrifice of His life that merited for us the restoration of sanctifying grace (supernatural life).

In Baptism, we do not receive Our Lord’s blood – but we do receive the life of grace He merited by dying (which involved shedding His blood) for us. It is only the the Sacrament of the Eucharist that we speak of receiving Jesus’ Body and/or Jesus’ Blood.

 

[Nita]

Here is how the Catechism speaks of it:

CCC 1340 By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus’ passing over to his father by **his death and Ressurection, the new Passover, is anticipated **in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the Kingdom.

 

[dnar]

The question remains…Will anyone ever answer which body did the Apostles eat at the Last Supper? Pre-glorified, or Glorified…

 

[Third_Day]

Here is how the Catechism speaks of it:

CCC 1340 By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus’ passing over to his father by **his death and Ressurection, the new Passover, is anticipated **in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the Kingdom.

Thanks for that quote.
We can say that Mary was conceived without sin in “anticipation” of the merits of Christ’s death and resurrection. Pius IX said Mary was conceived immune from all stain of original sin by “virtue of the merits of Christ.”

When Mary was conceived Christ had not died or risen yet the merits of Christ were given to Mary in anticipation.

I think the same could be said of the Eucharist received by the apostles. It was the glorified flesh of Christ in anticipation of his death and resurrection. Nothing is impossible with God.

 

[Third_Day]

The question remains…Will anyone ever answer which body did the Apostles eat at the Last Supper? Pre-glorified, or Glorified…

I would say Glorified. The apostles would have received the same Eucharist that we receive today. Why would it be any different?

I can’t find any quote from a Church Father or anywhere else on this question. I find it hard to believe it has not been answered by someone in history.

 

[dnar]

I would say Glorified. The apostles would have received the same Eucharist that we receive today. Why would it be any different?

I can’t find any quote from a Church Father or anywhere else on this question. I find it hard to believe it has not been answered by someone in history.

Okay, I would agree with you. I don’t know why it would be any different, just that I thought it sounded kind of neat that they were eating his glorified body when in fact that “body” didn’t exist yet at the time of the Last Supper.