At the last Supper did Jesus hold His own glorified body in His hands, in the Eucharist, or not? I read an old post about this and one poster said that since Jesus lives out of time and space, He did but I read something from St. Thomas Aquinus who said otherwise. Who’s right?

Well, since I am a Thomist, my answer would reflect that of Thomas. It was not His glorified body since His body was not yet glorified.

The assumed human nature did not exist outside of space and time during the Lord’s earthly ministry.

In any event, you may read for yourself the thought of Thomas in the Summa, the Tertia Pars, Question 81:

How could He partake of His own body and blood?

In other threads they answer that it’s a sacramental mode but I don’t understand that, either. Can you help me please?

If Jesus is God, how could he not?

That doesn’t help. Don Ruggero, are you a priest?

Is it because He is outside of time and space?

Why not? Are you saying that this is somehow an impossibility for the Almighty?

Yes, I am.

The institution of the Eucharist was not a thing apart. It emerges from the rite of the Passover meal. The bread which He took and blessed and broke as the one presiding at the rite of Passover, in which He is fulfilling the law’s command by doing and partaking, is elevated to a new reality by Him: His flesh for the life of the world.

What is foreshadowed in the ritual meal, since the Exodus more than a thousand years before this night: the lamb of God that is offered in sacrifice. The lamb of God that is slaughtered at the temple. The lamb of God whose flesh nourishes at the moment of the Lord’s pass over. The lamb of God whose blood brings salvation and whose blood forestalls the divine wrath and whose blood preserves life but where it is absent there is death. Jesus is the Lamb of God, as the Gospel of John keeps reiterating, which the other lambs foreshadowed and pointed to – and so the elements of the Passover supper pass from being this symbolic lamb to being the true Lamb through the Eucharist.

The bread. The cups of wine. All these are types of that reality which Jesus institutes in the Eucharist and it is from these elements that Jesus, in the heart of performing and partaking of the Passover ritual, institutes the Eucharist.

The necessity of fulfilling completely the requirements of the celebration as well as the consumption of the Passover, of which the elements that were used to institute the Eucharist is an integral part, is what Thomas is addressing in Article 1 of Question 81.

Now I’m really confused.

Is that 79, 1 ad 2?

Never mind I don’t know where I got that question. I still don’t get your answer though. :o

So He was able to hold his own body and blood before its glorified state because He’s God and the laws of time and space don’t apply to Him?

“in” in, toward; statuere, set-up.

All of time sets the table. Judas is unequivocally exposed.
Yet none other of the apostles knows the significance of this year’s Passover Seder.
Is it possible that their ignorance at that time, up to and including that years Passover Seder, nullifies the demands that would have been placed on the Evangelist to later make strict temporal “meaning” in the narrative of the sanctification mystery wrought only by the soul of Christ? After all he says and commands, his suffering remains obscured from their view by the time and their conditioning. Jesus says what he says, no amount of effort can make them or us grasp it.
The Eucharist we have now is the same substance the body and blood of Christ, yet our ignorance and conditioning are of a different kind since we know what the Apostles were only wondering about (Lk 22:46) and have received his body and blood religiously. His suffering is now as if hidden in the past. Just as it remained for most, hidden from them in that present of which we trust the Evangelist saw, heard, touched and in the institution of the Eucharist, took from his hands.

I don’t know where question 81 is. :confused:

Pope Paul VI said that Christ is present physically in the Eucharist, “but not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place”.

Pope Paul VI wrote in 1965:
To avoid misunderstanding this sacramental presence which surpasses the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind[50] we must listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. This voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way Christ is made present in this Sacrament is none other than by the change of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood, and that this unique and truly wonderful change the Catholic Church rightly calls transubstantiation.[51] As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but become the sign of something sacred, the sign of a spiritual food. However, the reason they take on this new significance and this new finality is simply because they contain a new “reality” which we may justly term ontological. Not that there lies under those species what was already there before, but something quite different; and that not only because of the faith of the Church, but in objective reality, since after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.

Question 81. The use which Christ made of this sacrament at its institution

  1. Did Christ receive His own body and blood?
  2. Did He give it to Judas?
  3. What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible or impassible?
  4. What would have been the condition of Christ’s body under this sacrament, if it had been reserved or consecrated during the three days He lay dead?

For No. 3: Reply to Objection 1. 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. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating, inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ’s Passion.

  • passible means: capable of feeling or suffering.

We are speaking of the Summa Theologica. We are speaking of the Tertia Pars which follows the Prima Pars, the Prima Secundæ, and the Secunda Secundæ. It is question 81 under the Tertia pars.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit