Can one get sick from the Eucharist?

[Namesake]

“In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” (CCC 1374)

“This presence is called real” (CCC 1374)

“that Christ becomes present in this sacrament.” (CCC 1375)

But not physically. Sacramentally, but not physically. Right?

 

[holdencaulfield]

“Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner” (CCC 1413)

 

[Namesake]

“Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner” (CCC 1413)

That’s correct. I’m just trying to help you here.

Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist. The wine does not change into physical blood. It’s a very important point.

 

[holdencaulfield]

But not physically. Sacramentally, but not physically. Right?

No, we believe that it is physical.

Link

 

[holdencaulfield]

That’s correct. I’m just trying to help you here.

Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist. The wine does not change into physical blood. It’s a very important point.

Show me a Church document stating that He is not physically present.

 

[Namesake]

Show me a Church document stating that He is not physically present.

The priest who answers questions on this web site stated clearly that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist.

I don’t know of a document that states that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist.

Show me a document that states that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. I think this is a vitally important point that you should understand.

 

[holdencaulfield]

The priest who answers questions on this web site stated clearly that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist.

I don’t know of a document that states that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist.

Show me a document that states that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. I think this is a vitally important point that you should understand.

Show me the thread where he said that. By the way, priests aren’t infallible. This thread may clear some things up on what we believe

St. Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110])

St. Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151])"*

 

[holdencaulfield]

1. How is Christ present in the Eucharist?

1373-1375
1413

Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way. He is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. In the Eucharist, therefore, there is present in a sacramental way, that is, under the Eucharistic species of bread and wine, Christ whole and entire, God and Man.

1. What is the meaning of transubstantiation?

1376-1377
1413

Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered.Source

Also Source

 

[Namesake]

holdencaulfield:
And of course if you take a look through a microscope you’ll see bread and wine, not flesh and blood. Right?

So even the inner appearance is bread and wine. Right?

 

[holdencaulfield]

And of course if you take a look through a microscope you’ll see bread and wine, not flesh and blood. Right?

So even the inner appearance is bread and wine. Right?

Yes, we believe that although the bread and wine still look the same and has all the characteristics of bread and wine, it is no longer bread and wine anymore it is the Body and Blood.

I hope this helps.

 

[Namesake]

Yes, we believe that although the bread and wine still look the same and has all the characteristics of bread and wine, it is no longer bread and wine anymore it is the Body and Blood.

I hope this helps.

Yes, I think it does. The bread and wine do not physically change, at least not in a way that can be shown through physical examination.

Is that correct?

 

[Cristiano]

And of course if you take a look through a microscope you’ll see bread and wine, not flesh and blood. Right?

So even the inner appearance is bread and wine. Right?

I think that you are just playing with words! You are using the word “physically” but you are not giving any unique and logically closed definition of it at all! Please refer to post #14 and then come back with what you think is a physical presence. Once you have done that we can discuss even further otherwise it is like keep saying for the nth time “you did it!” “no, I did not!”.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I do think I saw that post where he said sacramentally, and honestly I have no idea what he meant. I think he meant that it was present sacramentally, because otherwise he would be going against Church teachings.

This thread my help as well. Thread

 

[Namesake]

I think that you are just playing with words! You are using the word “physically” but you are not giving any unique and logically closed definition of it at all! Please refer to post #14 and then come back with what you think is a physical presence. Once you have done that we can discuss even further otherwise it is like keep saying for the nth time “you did it!” “no, I did not!”.

Everything I have read about transubstantiation avoids stating that the bread and wine change physically. I don’t think that is playing with words at all. I think it is an important concept.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Everything I have read about transubstantiation avoids stating that the bread and wine change physically. I don’t think that is playing with words at all. I think it is an important concept.

sub·stan·tial /səbˈstænʃəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suhb-stan-shuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.: a substantial sum of money.
2. of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real.
3. of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a substantial physique.
4. basic or essential; fundamental: two stories in substantial agreement.
5. wealthy or influential: one of the substantial men of the town.
6. of real worth, value, or effect: substantial reasons.
7. pertaining to the substance, matter, or material of a thing.
8. of or pertaining to the essence of a thing; essential, material, or important.
9. being a substance; having independent existence.
10. Philosophy. pertaining to or of the nature of substance rather than an accident or attribute.
    –noun
11. something substantial.

Source

 

[Cristiano]

**Everything I have read about transubstantiation avoids stating that the bread and wine change physically. **I don’t think that is playing with words at all. I think it is an important concept.

I think because the best way to look at it is just through substance and accident. Physics is about substance and accidents and so we seem to reach a paradox because we are using a descriptive method that does not appear to be logically closed.

 

[Namesake]

I think because the best way to look at it is just through substance and accident. Physics is about substance and accidents and so we seem to reach a paradox because we are using a descriptive method that does not appear to be logically closed.

It can’t be much more logically closed than to say there is no physical change whatsoever as far as can be determined through physical means. That is 100% closed ended.

 

[Cristiano]

It can’t be much more logically closed than to say there is no physical change whatsoever as far as can be determined through physical means. That is 100% closed ended.

nth+1 time “you did it” “no I did not”

 

[Caesar]

This topic reminds me of a debate St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about whether it was possible or not for one to get drunk on the Precious Blood.

 

[Namesake]

nth+1 time “you did it” “no I did not”

If I can’t to your satisfaction produce a closed concept then can you help me?

By the way, regardless of your insulting objection, stating that no physical change can be detected by any means whatsoever is a totally closed case.