Brick and Mortar

[epostle]

I understand that the Church is the Body of Christ and Christ her head, but if Christ is the Incarnate Word of God, then how is He an ‘extension’ of Himself? Recall that you said, “The Church is an extension of the Incarnation united by the Eucharist.” How do we get from the Christ Himself to the ‘extension’ of the Christ?

Am I being too picky?

The Church is Jesus on earth, am I being too vague?

But, I contend that’s not the root of the problem. The root is the virus like philosophy of relativism, the Word has subjective meaning, hence the Eucharist is ‘mere symbol’ without substance.

Agreed, the Eucharist explains our unity, something you can’t have with relativism. You describe the root, I described the consequences. No Eucharist, no unity.

Not only did they (hermits) have the Sacrament with them in their cells, but they carried it on their persons when they moved from one place to another. This practice was sanctioned by the custom of the fermentum, that certainly goes back to as early as 120 A.D. The rite of fermentum was a particle of the Eucharistic bread (sometimes dipped in the chalice) transported from the bishop of one diocese to the bishop of another diocese. The latter would then consume the species at his next solemn Mass as a token of unity between the churches. It was called a fermentum not necessarily because leavened bread was used but because the Eucharist symbolized the leaven of unity which permeates and transforms Christians, so that they become one with Christ.
Already in the second century, popes sent the Eucharist to other bishops as a pledge of unity of faith; and, on occasion, bishops would do the same for their priests.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/history.htm

“As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me” (John 15:4). The sustenance must come from the root and obviously without sustenance it must wither away. Just because we give a name to the cut off branch doesn’t give it life. What is the ‘sense of fullness’ if it doesn’t mean life itself; a partially living thing; a Frankenstein accumulation of dead body parts?

JoeT

We need not be so harsh. It’s like a little brother who runs away from home, and hunger has not sufficiently set in.

 

[JoeT777]

1ke made the following recommendation to your opening question #1

You thanked 1ke for that suggestion. All I did for ease, was gave the link to that section of the CCC Enter the Catechism at this paragraph. That’s all that was meant.

Where did THAT come from?

It appears that what went to ground was a corny joke.

I only intended to urge you to explain what ‘church’ meant to you, not just the catechism’s definition. It was never intended to offend.

JoeT