F
Faith1960
Guest
What do you mean it’s assimilated?
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
It doesn’t seem like there’s a whole lot here to refute – it’s just common sense. Other than the fact that he’s misunderstood what the doctrine says (that is, the Eucharist doesn’t “turn back into bread” – rather, it’s digested and ceases being what it had been), he’s objecting to a natural function. When he eats a Big Mac and it’s digested, does it remain a Big Mac? Of course not! That’s all that the doctrine is saying! Once the Eucharist no longer has the physical appearance of bread and wine, it ceases to exist as the Eucharist. That’s simple, easy-to-understand, and just plain common sense.
The sacramental presence is gone, but the grace received remains. That is, the physical species are consumed, but the effects of the spiritual reality continue on. This, too, is common sense: once the ‘steak dinner’ is digested, it no longer remains – but the physical benefits of the meal continue to exist.
Your interlocutor is simply misunderstanding what he’s reading.
I would agree with him on this one. After all, he’s in quite the confusing and ridiculous dilemma, all because his Protestant tradition (and conditioning) has put him there, in disbelief of the Eucharist!
I
Ignatius
Guest
Your interlocutor is simply misunderstanding what he’s reading.
Yes, to the unbeliever it is foolishness, just as Christ Crucified is" a stumbling block to unbelievers and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23)
M
Maria_Monte
Guest
Digestive processes don’t turn it back into bread. That’s the first problem. I mean, once it’s
“assimilated or annihilated by our digestive system,” it wouldn’t be bread but the chemicals that would make up bread (if the Eucharist really were bread, which it is not).
Jesus does enter the body “whole and entire” - this includes His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
His argument contradicts itself.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
You don’t have to be *that *careful with your language.
Even though the Eucharist not be bread, digestion yet breaks it down into constituent chemicals of bread.
tee
I
Ignatius
Guest
That is more precision than caution. Precision always helps clarity in these matters.
C
cadet17
Guest
When we receive communion, it is a spiritual meal, not just a physical one. At communion, while Christ enters our bodies through consumption, He also touches our soul in a deep way. Our spirit is fed in full. Communion cannot be thought about the same way that regular food is. Regular food is slowly digested and turned into nutrients for our bodies. We “digest” communion before reception when we pray to give ourselves the proper dispositions for reception and afterwards when we make our prayer of thanks and petitions after reception. However, we receive the full spiritual grace from communion at reception, and the grace is proportionate to the time spent in preparation and reflection. The physical presence of God ceases once the species no longer subsists, however, the impression on our souls left by the act of communion is lasting.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
And it is precisely true to say that digestion breaks the Eucharist down into the chemical constituents of bread.
Clearly, there are no such things as *chemical constituents of the Eucharist *becuse the chemical components of the Eucharistic species are recognized neither as bread nor wine.
tee
F
Faith1960
Guest
What do you mean it’s assimilated?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Without having read all the other comments, the short answer is that the Eucharist provides spiritual nourishment, and like any other nourishment, such as bread, it is of finite duration. This is implied by the nature of the Sacrament and is why there are those who receive communion daily. This is really not so mysterious. If Holy Communication were like the Sacrament of Baptism, one’s First Communion would suffice.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Hello Robyn p.
I would point out that in a sense, “one-flesh communion” is meant to be permanent, and in another sense “one-flesh communion” mysteriously preserves the individuality.
I would use “one flesh communion” in the marital sense as an example.
I’ll try to get back to this thread later and give a more complete approach on a computer. Right now I am using an android so that would be impractical.
Hope this helps.
God bless.
Cathoholic
I would point out that in a sense, “one-flesh communion” is meant to be permanent, and in another sense “one-flesh communion” mysteriously preserves the individuality.
I would use “one flesh communion” in the marital sense as an example.
I’ll try to get back to this thread later and give a more complete approach on a computer. Right now I am using an android so that would be impractical.
Hope this helps.
God bless.
Cathoholic
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Think of an earthly marital relationship first (as soon we are going to use the analogy of the Heavenly marital relationship as the Church and the physical aspect that is “not permanent” yet in another sense IS permanent).
(I will try to use general non-specific terminology here to respect the holiness of the marital embrace)
***First let’s look at the earthly marital relationship . . . ***
The “physical” feature even in a mere earthly marriage has a deeper characteristic of bonding than a simple physical aspect would suggest.
There is a uniting that is deeper than mere physical, is Sacred and holy and is WHY St. Paul warns to keep a marital “relationship” within the confines of a valid marriage.
1st CORINTHIANS 6:15 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
“Well WHY NOT St. Paul? Why should we never do this?”
Fortunately St. Paul tells us “why not”.
St. Paul explains “why not” because there is MORE in that one-flesh union than a mere “high five” or handshake.
And St. Paul uses marital language (“The two shall become one.” see also See Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:8, Matthew 19:5, 1st Corinthians 7:5 and Ephesians 5:31).
1st CORINTHIANS 6:15-19 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 **Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? **For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.” 17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
In other words, something real remains even after the “physical aspect” . . . “disappears”.
Something real in this relationship remains even after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain.
That’s why people who physically “consummate” their marriage cannot get an annulment or decree of nullity (based upon this aspect—they MAY have a decree of nullity concerning other aspects).
Because something real (though intangible) remains after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain in one-flesh communion, we safeguard ourselves against fornication and adultery (that proverbial supernatural “glue”, is only meant for a marital commitment BECAUSE something real remains even after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain).
***Now let’s look at the Heavenly marital relationship which begins on earth . . . ***
There is an intangible yet real aspect that remains after appropriate Covenantal one-flesh communion in a marital situation between husband and wife, and likewise there is an intangible yet real aspect that remains after appropriate Covenantal one-flesh communion in reception of the Eucharist—a supernatural marital situation (the Church is the spouse of Christ as St. Paul asserts in Ephesians 5).
When we receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, when we have “one-flesh Communion” with Jesus the way we were intended to (by eating His Flesh), something real remains ALSO even after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain!
So in a sense the real presence ends, but in another sense “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me and I in him” continues (and leads to eternal life for those that don’t throw this relationship away).
JOHN 6:51,54-55, 58 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." . . . 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. . . . .58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
Just as with the marital embrace, there is an aspect that continues long after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain, likewise in our reception of the Eucharist there is an aspect that CONTINUES long (“for ever”) after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain.
The objector would assert this for his relationship with Christ ONLY spiritually! (He gets it partially right [what he affirms] but partially wrong too [what he denies])
Assuming he asserts he IS one (in some sense) with his wife and not merely “was one” with her, ask him WHY he would deny this enduring continuing physical-spiritual relationship connection with Jesus Christ, yet affirms it for a mere earthly marital relationship.
His denial is based on him denying Christ in the Eucharist, not in objecting merely because the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain. (He may not even realize this until you point it out and walk him through it)
See Dr. Pitre’s outline here for more insights.
brantpitre.com/~brant243/jesus_bridegroom_single_cd_outline.pdf
So even though the Eucharist in a sense, “NO LONGER” remains" . . . . in another sense the Eucharist DOES remain and it is associated with that physical reception.
(I will try to use general non-specific terminology here to respect the holiness of the marital embrace)
***First let’s look at the earthly marital relationship . . . ***
The “physical” feature even in a mere earthly marriage has a deeper characteristic of bonding than a simple physical aspect would suggest.
There is a uniting that is deeper than mere physical, is Sacred and holy and is WHY St. Paul warns to keep a marital “relationship” within the confines of a valid marriage.
1st CORINTHIANS 6:15 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
“Well WHY NOT St. Paul? Why should we never do this?”
Fortunately St. Paul tells us “why not”.
St. Paul explains “why not” because there is MORE in that one-flesh union than a mere “high five” or handshake.
And St. Paul uses marital language (“The two shall become one.” see also See Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:8, Matthew 19:5, 1st Corinthians 7:5 and Ephesians 5:31).
1st CORINTHIANS 6:15-19 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 **Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? **For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.” 17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
In other words, something real remains even after the “physical aspect” . . . “disappears”.
Something real in this relationship remains even after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain.
That’s why people who physically “consummate” their marriage cannot get an annulment or decree of nullity (based upon this aspect—they MAY have a decree of nullity concerning other aspects).
Because something real (though intangible) remains after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain in one-flesh communion, we safeguard ourselves against fornication and adultery (that proverbial supernatural “glue”, is only meant for a marital commitment BECAUSE something real remains even after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain).
***Now let’s look at the Heavenly marital relationship which begins on earth . . . ***
There is an intangible yet real aspect that remains after appropriate Covenantal one-flesh communion in a marital situation between husband and wife, and likewise there is an intangible yet real aspect that remains after appropriate Covenantal one-flesh communion in reception of the Eucharist—a supernatural marital situation (the Church is the spouse of Christ as St. Paul asserts in Ephesians 5).
When we receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, when we have “one-flesh Communion” with Jesus the way we were intended to (by eating His Flesh), something real remains ALSO even after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain!
So in a sense the real presence ends, but in another sense “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me and I in him” continues (and leads to eternal life for those that don’t throw this relationship away).
JOHN 6:51,54-55, 58 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." . . . 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. . . . .58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
Just as with the marital embrace, there is an aspect that continues long after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain, likewise in our reception of the Eucharist there is an aspect that CONTINUES long (“for ever”) after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain.
The objector would assert this for his relationship with Christ ONLY spiritually! (He gets it partially right [what he affirms] but partially wrong too [what he denies])
Assuming he asserts he IS one (in some sense) with his wife and not merely “was one” with her, ask him WHY he would deny this enduring continuing physical-spiritual relationship connection with Jesus Christ, yet affirms it for a mere earthly marital relationship.
His denial is based on him denying Christ in the Eucharist, not in objecting merely because the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain. (He may not even realize this until you point it out and walk him through it)
See Dr. Pitre’s outline here for more insights.
brantpitre.com/~brant243/jesus_bridegroom_single_cd_outline.pdf
So even though the Eucharist in a sense, “NO LONGER” remains" . . . . in another sense the Eucharist DOES remain and it is associated with that physical reception.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I can’t see how visiting a prostitute is analogous to marriage in the Church. If this were so, it would seem that a person who engages in formication or adultery becomes and remains “united” forever, and any conjugal relationship thereafter is adulterous. This ignores what is spiritual and sacred and thus indissouluble in a Catholic marriage. If the analogy were correct, it would seem to present a huge problem.
I don’t believe the sacrament of Holy Communion is quite the same as the sacrament of Baptism or Marriage.
J
JoeT777
Guest
I think one problem you’ll never overcome is that the Eucharist isn’t consume, rather it is the Body and Blood of Christ that consume us, you could say bite by bite.
The difference is between night and day; "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. [John 1:5]. The Eucharist is not the symbol the non-Catholic tend to make it, nor does it have the attributes as a symbol. The Eucharist exists in them only if they believe it is a real piece of bread and then its reality is only in the sense that it is a semblance of the Christ they envision. The reality in the Eucharist exists whether or not the darkness comprehends.
Stressing the mysterious nature of this food, Augustine imagines the Lord saying to him: “I am the food of grown men; grow, and you shall feed upon me; nor shall you change me, like the food of your flesh, into yourself, but you shall be changed into me.” It is not the eucharistic food that is changed into us, but rather we who are mysteriously transformed by it.Christ nourishes us by uniting us to himself; “he draws us into himself.”[Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, 70]
Simply put its not the same digestion, it’s not even our digestion, it is us who is giving over to Him ourselves as he strengthen us to be received by Him.
JoeT
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Thomas White. You said:
I did not mean to imply they were the same. I take responsibility for lack of clarity in my writing.
You also said:
There are intangible aspects of the marital act that “endure”, even after the marital act is over. Even after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain!
And if that is true for the marital act, how much more true would there be intangible aspects that remain after we receive the Eucharist?
Robyn P said:
Even though the "material appearances . . . “NO LONGER” remain” when we receive the Eucharist, there are intangible effects that remain.
I am saying if we admit that with something like one flesh communion in an earthly sense, why would we not admit such a truth with one-flesh communion in a Eucharistic sense?
Why would we not admit such a truth with one-flesh communion concerning receiving Christ in the Holy Eucharist?
Why would we not admit there is something special that remains even AFTER . . . the "material appearances . . . “NO LONGER” remain”
The only thing the objector can say is. “Well I don’t believe in Christ in the Eucharist.”
Then you have to deal with THAT argument.
But the anti-Catholic’s objection of . . . “Well the real physical presence of Jesus is gone 5 or 10 minutes (or whatever) after you receive Jesus in your Catholic theology, . . . . therefore the Eucharist cannot be true.” . . . is an invalid argument. That’s all.
I am just pointing out that this anti-Catholic guy, if he uses this argument against the Eucharist (and Robyn P said he did use it), would almost certainly have to violate a principle he already likely affirms.
In a sense Christ remains in a special way, even after "material appearances . . . “NO LONGER” remain”.
You are correct here. The sacrament of Holy Communion is different than the sacrament of Baptism or the Sacrament of Marriage.
I did not mean to imply they were the same. I take responsibility for lack of clarity in my writing.
You also said:
My point concerns the holiness of the marital act and how there are aspects of the marital act that “endure”, even after the marital act is over. Not that “visiting a prostitute is analogous to marriage in the Church.”
There are intangible aspects of the marital act that “endure”, even after the marital act is over. Even after the “material appearances” . . . “NO LONGER” remain!
And if that is true for the marital act, how much more true would there be intangible aspects that remain after we receive the Eucharist?
Robyn P said:
And I am saying . . .
Even though the "material appearances . . . “NO LONGER” remain” when we receive the Eucharist, there are intangible effects that remain.
I am saying if we admit that with something like one flesh communion in an earthly sense, why would we not admit such a truth with one-flesh communion in a Eucharistic sense?
Why would we not admit such a truth with one-flesh communion concerning receiving Christ in the Holy Eucharist?
Why would we not admit there is something special that remains even AFTER . . . the "material appearances . . . “NO LONGER” remain”
The only thing the objector can say is. “Well I don’t believe in Christ in the Eucharist.”
Then you have to deal with THAT argument.
But the anti-Catholic’s objection of . . . “Well the real physical presence of Jesus is gone 5 or 10 minutes (or whatever) after you receive Jesus in your Catholic theology, . . . . therefore the Eucharist cannot be true.” . . . is an invalid argument. That’s all.
I am just pointing out that this anti-Catholic guy, if he uses this argument against the Eucharist (and Robyn P said he did use it), would almost certainly have to violate a principle he already likely affirms.
In a sense Christ remains in a special way, even after "material appearances . . . “NO LONGER” remain”.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I understand your point, but I couldn’t agree with the use of the term “marital language” to describe what St. Paul is saying in 1Corinthians.
St. Paul asks: "Do you not know that he who joins himself with a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one.’ "
What surely is meant is the two shall become “one in sin” and not marriage. It is a sin against the body.
St. Paul continues: “But he who is united to the lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality.”
This “unity” with the Lord is in contrast to the immoral act of the sinners. The act of the sinners really is not the same thing as “the holiness of the marital act” and why a consummated marriage cannot be annulled for that reason.
I guess I just wouldn’t have used the passage from 1Corinthians in attempting to make this argument. Otherwise, I understand the point about intangible effects remaining, and it is a valid point. With the anti-Catholic guy, I think I’d stay strictly with the “marital act” analogy and not mention 1Corinthians.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
I think your analogy is great. I actually thought of this a few days ago – how the Eucharist is similar to the one-flesh union of husband and wife – but wasn’t sure how I could go about explaining that to him. I like the way you did it though.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Robyn P. You said:
But it makes a great meditation.
Dr. Pitre has a whole book on this subject that I want to read all of this soon (here) called . . . Jesus the Bridegroom: The Greatest Love Story Ever Told
(I’ve read some but not all of it and the book looks great)
Thomas White. Concerning what I said about 1st Corinthians 6:16, you mentioned . . .
That’s fair enough Thomas. You don’t have to agree with that.
But please at least consider . . .
1st CORINTHIANS 6:16 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one."
When St. Paul says “the two shall become one”, St. Paul is hearkening us back to marital imagery. (I gave some Biblical citations in post 33 including Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:8, Matthew 19:5, 1st Corinthians 7:5 and Ephesians 5:31).
Here is marital imagery as seen in the book of Genesis (emphasis mine).
GENESIS 2:18, 21-24 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” . . . . 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
When God (through Moses) is teaching us of this, He is describing for us marriage.
And if we don’t understand that from reading Genesis, we can look at how Jesus refers to this passage of Genesis in St. Matthew’s Gospel (emphasis again mine).
We can see Jesus say . . . .
MATTHEW 19:4-6 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? 6 So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
When St. Paul uses the phrase, For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.” St. Paul is alluding to marriage.
In footnote 236 (below), the CCC (796) cites this very verse, 1st Corinthians 6:16 (among other verses) and states (italics original) . . . .
The Church is the Bride of Christ
CCC 796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."235 The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."238 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239
You are correct. It would be a difficult explanation (and may not be worth attempting).
But it makes a great meditation.
Dr. Pitre has a whole book on this subject that I want to read all of this soon (here) called . . . Jesus the Bridegroom: The Greatest Love Story Ever Told
(I’ve read some but not all of it and the book looks great)
Thomas White. Concerning what I said about 1st Corinthians 6:16, you mentioned . . .
1st CORINTHIANS 6:15-19 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? **For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.” **17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
That’s fair enough Thomas. You don’t have to agree with that.
But please at least consider . . .
1st CORINTHIANS 6:16 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one."
When St. Paul says “the two shall become one”, St. Paul is hearkening us back to marital imagery. (I gave some Biblical citations in post 33 including Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:8, Matthew 19:5, 1st Corinthians 7:5 and Ephesians 5:31).
Here is marital imagery as seen in the book of Genesis (emphasis mine).
GENESIS 2:18, 21-24 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” . . . . 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
When God (through Moses) is teaching us of this, He is describing for us marriage.
And if we don’t understand that from reading Genesis, we can look at how Jesus refers to this passage of Genesis in St. Matthew’s Gospel (emphasis again mine).
We can see Jesus say . . . .
MATTHEW 19:4-6 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? 6 So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
When St. Paul uses the phrase, For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.” St. Paul is alluding to marriage.
In footnote 236 (below), the CCC (796) cites this very verse, 1st Corinthians 6:16 (among other verses) and states (italics original) . . . .
The Church is the Bride of Christ
CCC 796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."235 The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."238 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239
This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church."240 And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."241 They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself “bride.” 242
E
ericc
Guest
Using the steak dinner example, once we have eaten it, it ceases to be steak. Once we have consumed the Eucharist, it no longer is the Eucharist. Inside the tummy, it longer is bread actually, just some carbohydrate in the process of being broken down further. There is nothing amazing about this. Once something no longer exist in the form it came in, it is no longer that item. However, the Eucharist did its function, that is to nourish us spiritually. We stay nourished. And that is independent of our digestive system.
No, no one can destroy Jesus. Catholics don’t claim Jesus is destroyed upon the consumption of the Eucharist. (I would be very very eager to find out who made that claim. Obviously a non-Catholic.)
He is in us and us in Him. No, he didn’t leave. We wanted him to stay actually. We have a very personal relationship with Him. Putting a few phrases like contradicting church doctrine, Christ is incorruptible, leaving Christ “whole and entire” shows a complete lack of understanding what we Catholics believe. In fact I very much doubt whether this “friend” know anything about our doctrines or what we believe. Cobbling such phrases together as if it meant something is a total giveaway.
If he is just going to copy paste stuff and presenting to you for discussion without doing the necessary homework, it really is showing a total disrespect of your time by responding to him. Typically, if someone were to do that, ask him the clarifying questions such as :
What do you mean/understand by that
Can you show me that this is our practice and doctrine
Do you know what we believe or is it you think you know what we believe
Why do you think we are wrong and you are right
What makes you think that your interpretation is correct or the only correct interpretation
Do you agree that we might also have a valid explanation for our doctrine
Is your source of information from the Church or you heard someone say something?
etc
His responses will tell you how much he knows, how biased is he, what his agenda is, whether he can be persuaded with reason. If he has done his homework and is genuine, ultimately it boils down to whose interpretation is more credible. We have Church History behind us all the way i.e. blue blood, pedigree. And even more importantly we have assurance from Christ himself that HIS Church will prevail against the gates of hell, he will be with us always and the HS will be there to teach us into all truths.
- Status