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.