Is the Communion of Saints the most profound pun ever?

[dylanschrader]

Please don’t tell me we are not receiving the complete Christ in the Eucharist. Christ’s Divinity is present in Christ no more and no less than Christ’s humanity. When we receive His humanity, we equally receive His Divinity.

Obviously we receive the whole Christ. That’s the point–we receive the Person of Christ. Divinity is a nature. It’s something the Person has.

We don’t receive divinity unattached from anything. We receive the Person of Christ wholly in everything he is.

We don’t, however, receive the Person of the Father in the Eucharist.

Think of the analogy of the Incarnation: the Second Person became man. Divinity became man only in the Second Person.

The Father did not become man.
The Holy Spirit did not become man.

 

[NotWorthy]

Obviously we receive the whole Christ.

And look at my post regarding the Catechism #795 to show what the whole Christ entails.

That’s the point–we receive the Person of Christ. Divinity is a nature. It’s something the Person has.

What’s the point? We receive the whole Christ (as you said)? Or we receive the Person of Christ (as you said)? If Christ’s Divinity is an integral part of Christ, and we cannot separate His Divinity from His Humanity…

We don’t receive divinity unattached from anything. We receive the Person of Christ wholly in everything he is.

and what is included in “wholly in everythign he is”? “Christus Totus”

We don’t, however, receive the Person of the Father in the Eucharist.

I have not made the claim that we receive the Person of the Father.

I have made the claim that we receive Christ’s Divinity. Hence we HAVE to receive the Holy Spirit’s Divinity as well as God the Father’s Divinity for they are inseparable.

Think of the analogy of the Incarnation: the Second Person became man. Divinity became man only in the Second Person.

The Father did not become man.
The Holy Spirit did not become man.

I am not able to get my hands around this section. You are making it sound like Christ Incarnate is not the complete Christ.

I ask you to explain the words at Mass.

“By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in His Divnity, as He humbled Himself to share in our humanity.” This statement is made in the context of preparing the bread and wine for the consecration.

 

[dylanschrader]

And look at my post regarding the Catechism #795 to show what the whole Christ entails.

What’s the point? We receive the whole Christ (as you said)? Or we receive the Person of Christ (as you said)? If Christ’s Divinity is an integral part of Christ, and we cannot separate His Divinity from His Humanity…

In the Eucharist, we receive Christ’s humanity and his divinity. We receive them in the Person of Christ.

and what is included in “wholly in everythign he is”? “Christus Totus”

The Eucharist is the whole Christ present according to the mode of substance. This means that the Eucharist is the Person of Christ present according to the mode of substance.

The phrase “whole Christ” is also used to describe the Mystical Body. The Mystical Body, however, is not a part of Christ according to the mod of substance.

The Church is Christ’s Body in an important spiritual sense, but she is not Christ’s Body according to the mode of substance.

In the Eucharist Christ’s literal Body (the one in which he was crucified, etc.) is present according to the mode of substance.

The mystical Body is not present in the Eucharist according to the mode of substance since it, in fact, is a communion of persons and does not exist substantially in itself.

I have not made the claim that we receive the Person of the Father.

I have made the claim that we receive Christ’s Divinity. Hence we HAVE to receive the Holy Spirit’s Divinity as well as God the Father’s Divinity for they are inseparable.

We receive divinity (the divine nature) in Christ. We do not, therefore, receive the Father and the Holy Spirit in the same way that we receive Christ in the Eucharist.

Why?

Divinity itself (the divine nature) is not the Father. Divinity is a nature, the Father is a person.

We receive the nature (divinity) in the Person of Christ, not in the Person of the Father in the Eucharist.

I am not able to get my hands around this section. You are making it sound like Christ Incarnate is not the complete Christ.

I ask you to explain the words at Mass.

“By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in His Divnity, as He humbled Himself to share in our humanity.” This statement is made in the context of preparing the bread and wine for the consecration.

Christ, the Second Person, became incarnate. That is what the Church has always said.

We share in the divinity of Christ in Heaven, but this does not mean that we become Christ according to the mode of substance.

 

[NotWorthy]

In the Eucharist, we receive Christ’s humanity and his divinity. We receive them in the Person of Christ.

dylan, good morning!!! I’m going to be gone for the next 12 hours. But I’d like to see if you can show me in the Catechism where we receive Christ totally, but yet incompletely (only in the person).

I’d like to see where we share in Christ’s Divinity in Heaven, but only his Heavenly Divinity, not His eartly Divinity, since evidently that’s what communicants only receive when they receive the entire Body of Christ.

The Eucharist is the whole Christ present according to the mode of substance. This means that the Eucharist is the Person of Christ present according to the mode of substance.

I’d like to see where the Eucharist is the Whole Body of Christ, but only the Whole Body of Christ that is encapsulated in the physical substance.

Thanks for your patience!!

P.S. I do so love you guys!!!

 

[dylanschrader]

dylan, good morning!!! I’m going to be gone for the next 12 hours. But I’d like to see if you can show me in the Catechism where we receive Christ totally, but yet incompletely (only in the person).

I never said that we receive Christ incompletely. Receiving the Person of Christ means receiving the whole Christ, who is a Person not a thing.

I’d like to see where we share in Christ’s Divinity in Heaven, but only his Heavenly Divinity, not His eartly Divinity, since evidently that’s what communicants only receive when they receive the entire Body of Christ.

I have no idea what you mean by “heavenly divinity” and “earthly divinity.”

I’d like to see where the Eucharist is the Whole Body of Christ, but only the Whole Body of Christ that is encapsulated in the physical substance.

Thanks for your patience!!

P.S. I do so love you guys!!!

Substance is not physical. As I said previously, substance is a technical, philosophical term which the Church uses to mean “the thing that makes something what it is,” that is, “the thing that underlies the accidents of something making it to be thing thing that it is.”

I will try to provide some documentation, but I, like you, have other commitments during the day.

 

[seanie]

Catechism # 795

Now, I’ll restate my case. When we receive the Eucharist, we receive Christ in His Entirety. Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity. (Christus totus)If the Saints are part of the Body of Christ, as the Catechism states, then we receive the saints when we receive the Eucharist.

Those baptized Catholics on earth are part of the Body of Christ too. Do you receive them too when you receive the Eucharist?

 

[dylanschrader]

This discussion is not entirely new, by the way.

There were heresies in the Middle Ages that tried to say Christ’s Mystical Body was present in the Eucharist, while his True Body was the Church.

Terminology was a little confusing because those terms later became switched.

Eventually it became standard that Corpus Mysticum refers to the Church, while Corpus Verum refers to the historical and sacramental Body of Christ. You’ll see the terms used this way in current writings. For example, the encyclical Mystici Corporis is about the Church.

The idea is that receiving the Corpus Verum in the Eucharist expresses and brings about the Corpus Mysticum is present in the Church from the beginning.

The Church never held, however, that the Corpus Mysticum is a substance and is present, therefore, substantially in the Eucharistic species.

 

[dylanschrader]

Here are some quotes which talk about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and the Mystical Body:

From The Eucharist: Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church, #17:

Christ, risen and ascended into heaven with his glorified, earthly body, remains on earth in his Mystical Body, the Church, in her members (cf. 1 Cor 12:5) and in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. He said beforehand: “If I do not go away, the Counsellor will not come to you” (Jn 16:7). He who made possible the Corpus Verum in the incarnation, now gives life to the Corpus Mysticum, the Church.

From Mysterium Fidei:

This presence is called “real” not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but ‘par excellence,’ because it is a substantial presence by which Christ, the Godman, whole and entire, becomes present. It would therefore be wrong to explain this presence by imagining a “spiritual” nature, as it is called, of the glorified body of Christ, which would be present everywhere, or by reducing it to a kind of symbolism, as if this most august sacrament consisted of nothing else than an efficacious sign of “Christ’s spiritual presence and of his intimate union withe his faithful members in the mystical Body.”

From Address to Peasant Workers at the International Eucharistic Congress in Bogota, Columbia (ND 1587a):

And the entire tradition of the Church recognizes in the poor the sacrament of Christ, certainly not identical to the reality of the Eucharist, but in a perfect, analogical and mystical correspondence to it.

 

[NotWorthy]

This discussion is not entirely new, by the way.

There were heresies in the Middle Ages that tried to say Christ’s Mystical Body was present in the Eucharist, while his True Body was the Church.

Terminology was a little confusing because those terms later became switched.

Evidently St. Theresa shares in this heresy. Vinny Flynn uses her autobiography to bolster this teaching.

Eventually it became standard that Corpus Mysticum refers to the Church, while Corpus Verum refers to the historical and sacramental Body of Christ. You’ll see the terms used this way in current writings. For example, the encyclical Mystici Corporis is about the Church.

The idea is that receiving the Corpus Verum in the Eucharist expresses and brings about the Corpus Mysticum is present in the Church from the beginning.

The Church never held, however, that the Corpus Mysticum is a substance and is present, therefore, substantially in the Eucharistic species.

Thanks, I’ll look up Corpus Verum and Corpus Mysticum and see the differences.

 

[NotWorthy]

Those baptized Catholics on earth are part of the Body of Christ too. Do you receive them too when you receive the Eucharist?

The way I understand it, the Church Militant on earth are an incomplete part of the Body of Christ. The Church Triumphant are fully part of the Body.

Wax in Wax, as the good man said.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dylan,

Thanks again for the link. I think we need to separate this discussion into two questions.

1. Is the Mystical Body of Christ part of the “Body of Christ” that we receive in the Eucharist?

If you read #795 of the Catechism, the average Catholic could come to that conclusion. At least in my opinion you could. I’ll look into you Corpus Vernum vs. Corpus Mysticus argument a little closer.

Admittedly, I’ve never heard the “Communion of Saints in the Eucharist” theory til I listened to this CD, so I know I’m on shaky ground.

I’ve GOT to resolve CV vs. CM and the Catechism #795 before I can understand it.

1. Are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit present in the Eucharist?

My arguement is that you can not separate the three. Where ever One is, there are the other Two. I thought this was common knowledge, so I’m sort of mystified by this argument.

 

[dylanschrader]

Dylan,

Thanks again for the link. I think we need to separate this discussion into two questions.

1. Is the Mystical Body of Christ part of the “Body of Christ” that we receive in the Eucharist?

If you read #795 of the Catechism, the average Catholic could come to that conclusion. At least in my opinion you could. I’ll look into you Corpus Vernum vs. Corpus Mysticus argument a little closer.

Admittedly, I’ve never heard the “Communion of Saints in the Eucharist” theory til I listened to this CD, so I know I’m on shaky ground.

I’ve GOT to resolve CV vs. CM and the Catechism #795 before I can understand it.

1. Are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit present in the Eucharist?

My arguement is that you can not separate the three. Where ever One is, there are the other Two. I thought this was common knowledge, so I’m sort of mystified by this argument.

This is a good way to break up the questions.

As for question #2, of course all Three Persons are present everywhere, but in the Eucharist is contained the Person of Christ according to the mode of being of substance.

It’s not that the First and Third Persons are not present but just that they are distinct from the Second Person, whose very Person (hypostasis) is present in the Eucharist.

I mean, God is everywhere insofar as he acts to hold everything in existence, But, in the Eucharist, Christ is present substantially. Christ is present in a tree, but the tree is not Christ–it’s still a tree. Christ is present in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is Christ–no other substance remains.

In order to understand Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, one has to understand the basic doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union. Once the concepts of “person” and “substance”/“nature” are understood, the terms used to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist make sense.

 

[seanie]

The way I understand it, the Church Militant on earth are an incomplete part of the Body of Christ. The Church Triumphant are fully part of the Body.

Wax in Wax, as the good man said.

So you receive the baptized on earth* incompletely* when you receive the Eucharist? Please.

St Therese btw never said she “received” her mother at her first Holy Communion. Please don’t use this glorious Saint to support this wild idea of Vinny flynn.

 

[NotWorthy]

So you receive the baptized on earth* incompletely* when you receive the Eucharist? Please.

St Therese btw never said she “received” her mother at her first Holy Communion. Please don’t use this glorious Saint to support this wild idea of Vinny flynn.

Seanie, regarding the baptized, I can’t say.

Regarding St. Therese, Vinny Flynn quoted that story of her in the CD. I’ve ordered the book by the same name (the 7 Secrets of the Eucharist) so I can research this further.

But in the meantime, you can get the CD from the Mary Foundation - not exactly a known spreader of St. Therese heresies, as far as I know. You can order it free, or with an optional donation.

Are you saying St. Therese used different words? Or are you saying Vinny Flynn invented this cockamamie story? I certainly hope you’re not insinuating that I made that up.

 

[Walking_Home]

Seanie, regarding the baptized, I can’t say.

Regarding St. Therese, Vinny Flynn quoted that story of her in the CD. I’ve ordered the book by the same name (the 7 Secrets of the Eucharist) so I can research this further.

But in the meantime, you can get the CD from the Mary Foundation - not exactly a known spreader of St. Therese heresies, as far as I know. You can order it free, or with an optional donation.

Are you saying St. Therese used different words? Or are you saying Vinny Flynn invented this cockamamie story? I certainly hope you’re not insinuating that I made that up.

---

I do not believe anyone here is calling St. Therese a heretic. The problem here is–Vinny Flynn misinterpreting her words to fit his agenda.

 

[NotWorthy]

---

I do not believe anyone here is calling St. Therese a heretic. The problem here is–Vinny Flynn misinterpreting her words to fit his agenda.

Thanks, I understand.

Regarding Vinny Flynn, is he a known heretic? I wasn’t familiar with him until I got this CD from the Mary Foundation.

Does anyone else know?

 

[seanie]

---

I do not believe anyone here is calling St. Therese a heretic. The problem here is–Vinny Flynn misinterpreting her words to fit his agenda.

Yes that’s precisely it Walking_Home.

What our glorious Saint Therese said was that all the joy of heaven came into her heart at her first Holy Communion. And that she had thereby received a visit from her mother (not that she received a sacramental reception of her mother!)
“As Heaven itself dwelt in my soul, in receiving *a visit *for Our Divine Lord I received one from my Mother too.”

This is the emotionally charged sentence that Vinny Flynn turns into a novel doctrine for his CD.

NotWorthy: Relax. Of course I’m not insinuating you made it up.

 

[seanie]

Thanks, I understand.

Regarding Vinny Flynn, is he a known heretic? I wasn’t familiar with him until I got this CD from the Mary Foundation.

Does anyone else know?

It’s not for us to say who’s a heretic and I don’t doubt V Flynn’s intentions are good and he would not wilfully promote error. But I will say that if his method is to scour the writings of the Saints to come up with Eucharistic “secrets” then his work is best avoided. We see how he hijacked litte Saint Therese for his purposes.

In fact why not just read the “Story of a Soul” instead of the noveltes of lay apologists. That little saint yanked more souls out of sin in the first year after her death than anyone else could in a lifetime.

 

[NotWorthy]

“As Heaven itself dwelt in my soul, in receiving *a visit *for Our Divine Lord I received one from my Mother too.”

As Heaven itself dwelt in my soul… As Heaven itself dwelt in my soul…

I can see why Mr. Flynn felt that St. Therese claimed that her Mother in Heaven was received in her soul.

Guys, what am I getting wrong here?!? Doesn’t that quote cited bolster Mr. Flynn’s claim WITHOUT having to twist it around?

 

[dylanschrader]

As Heaven itself dwelt in my soul… As Heaven itself dwelt in my soul…

I can see why Mr. Flynn felt that St. Therese claimed that her Mother in Heaven was received in her soul.

Guys, what am I getting wrong here?!? Doesn’t that quote cited bolster Mr. Flynn’s claim WITHOUT having to twist it around?

St. Therese is speaking of a spiritual reality, of the closeness which she had with her mother because of the communion of saints as brought about by the Eucharist. She can speak about that in spiritual terms. No problem.

The Story of a Soul is not a rigorous, formal theological work. It’s a spiritual biography and it expresses things in spiritual rather than philosophical terms.

St. Therese would not have claimed that she ate her mother or any of the other saints.

The point is that if you wanted to speak about the presence of the saints in the Eucharist, it would be expressing their spiritual union with Christ, which is different from the substantial, ontological presence of Christ in the Eucharist.