Is the Communion of Saints the most profound pun ever?

[NotWorthy]

dylan, I want to take this one step at a time, because I think we’ve been talking past each other on a core issue. I want to get my hands around this so that I fully understand. I love the Eucharist (as I know you all do!!!) and I don’t want to spread a fallacyl

You say we receive Christ “in Person”.

I say we receive Christ “in Total” - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Are we both right when we say this? I see us saying two different things. But we can’t go further (Ok, Ok, I can’t go futher…) til we square this point away (unless you disagree with my approach to this solution).

I know that God is Three Persons, but one essence. If I received Christ - Body and Blood, Period - I’d accept that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are no more present in the Eucharist than They are anywhere else. But in the Eucharist, I receive Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

You see, everytime I read the three Catechism quotes I posted, it seems to become clearer. But enough rambling. Let’s get to the question at the beginning of this post before we go on.

Once again, though, God Bless you all for putting up with this!

BTW, Thanks for the suggestion to get Saint Therese’s book. I’ll definately be getting it soon!!!

 

[dylanschrader]

dylan, I want to take this one step at a time, because I think we’ve been talking past each other on a core issue. I want to get my hands around this so that I fully understand. I love the Eucharist (as I know you all do!!!) and I don’t want to spread a fallacyl

You say we receive Christ “in Person”.

I say we receive Christ “in Total” - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Are we both right when we say this? I see us saying two different things. But we can’t go further (Ok, Ok, I can’t go futher…) til we square this point away (unless you disagree with my approach to this solution).

I know that God is Three Persons, but one essence. If I received Christ - Body and Blood, Period - I’d accept that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are no more present in the Eucharist than They are anywhere else. But in the Eucharist, I receive Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

You see, everytime I read the three Catechism quotes I posted, it seems to become clearer. But enough rambling. Let’s get to the question at the beginning of this post before we go on.

Once again, though, God Bless you all for putting up with this!

BTW, Thanks for the suggestion to get Saint Therese’s book. I’ll definately be getting it soon!!!

We must be saying the same thing about receiving Christ. That’s why the Church says “Body, Blood, soul, and divinity”: It emphasizes that the whole Person of Christ is present in the Eucharist.

For example, the Roman Catechism (Catechism of Pius V) says:

Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. He should point out that the word Christ designates the God-man, that is to say, one Person in whom are united the divine and human natures; that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both, and whatever, is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood,–all of which must be believed to be in this Sacrament. In heaven the whole humanity is united to the Divinity in one hypostasis, or Person; hence it would be impious, to suppose that the body of Christ, which is contained in the Sacrament, is separated from His Divinity.

If we understand that God is three Persons having one Divinity, then we have to recognize the importance of saying that Divinity is present in the Person of the Son, who is present in his Person. The Father and the Holy Spirit are present, but their Persons are not present in the Eucharist in the same way the Person of Christ is present.

I think we may be understanding something different by the word ‘person’. I tried to explain previously (at some point ), what I understand the Church to mean by ‘person’.

Catechism:

252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks, dylan. Now, I see that we can proceed.

From this, I believe that we receive the Trinity of God, through the Channel of Christ.

I believe that we receive the Body of Christ (Corpus Mysticum(?)), through the Channel of Christ.

From your quote from the Catechism, and I hope I’m not snipping a part and losing the rest of the context:

that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both, and whatever, is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood,–all of which must be believed to be in this Sacrament. In heaven the whole humanity is united to the Divinity in one hypostasis, or Person

Now look again at Catechism 795:

Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ. The saints are acutely aware of this unity:

Let us rejoice then and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself. Do you understand and grasp, brethren, God’s grace toward us? Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ. For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . The fullness of Christ then is the head and the members. But what does “head and members” mean? Christ and the Church.

Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church whom he has taken to himself.

Head and members form as it were one and the same mystical person.

A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”

From this, I believe that we receive the Trinity of God, through the Channel of Christ.

I believe that we receive the Body of Christ (Corpus Mysticum(?)), through the Channel of Christ.

Am I taking two truths and deviating, or am I following along the logical conclusion of these two truths?

 

[NotWorthy]

Now, I’d like to tackle your first quote from the Catechism:

252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

In your quote we see that substance and essence are the same.

Now, let’s look at #202 again.

We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal, infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty, and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.
So when you say we receive one substance, I can’t exlude the rest of the Trinity from that substance.

For instance, what do I receive any time I receive Grace? I receive the Holy Spirit into my soul. So when I receive the Eucharist, the Holy Spirit is an integral part of that Eucharist.

 

[dylanschrader]

Now, I’d like to tackle your first quote from the Catechism:

In your quote we see that substance and essence are the same.

Now, let’s look at #202 again.

So when you say we receive one substance, I can’t exlude the rest of the Trinity from that substance.

To say that Christ is present substantially in the Eucharist is to say that after the consecration where the substance of bread was formerly present, the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, soul, and divinity are now present. These substances are present, though, in the Person of Christ.

As an analogy, may we say that Divinity became incarnate?

The Synod of Rheims declared:

Credimus ipsam divinitatem … incarnatum esse, sed in Filio

That is, “We believe that divinity itself was incarnated, but in the Son.”

We cannot say, for instance, that because Christ became man the Father and the Holy Spirit became man. Why? Because Divinity and humanity are both in the Person of the Son. Even though God is man and a man is a Person of the Trinity, the Father is not human and the Holy Spirit is not human.

So, the fact that Divinity is present in the Eucharist does not mean that the other Persons are present in the same manner as the Second Person. Why? Because Divinity is present in the Eucharist in Christ. It’s always the “Body, Blood, soul and divinity” of Christ.

For instance, what do I receive any time I receive Grace? I receive the Holy Spirit into my soul. So when I receive the Eucharist, the Holy Spirit is an integral part of that Eucharist.

Yes, in receiving grace you receive the Holy Spirit into your soul but not in substance rather insofar as he acts in your soul through a free gift either to make it supernaturally alive or to move you to some action.

There are different modes of presence, and we have to be careful.

 

[dylanschrader]

Thanks, dylan. Now, I see that we can proceed.

From this, I believe that we receive the Trinity of God, through the Channel of Christ.

I believe that we receive the Body of Christ (Corpus Mysticum(?)), through the Channel of Christ.

From your quote from the Catechism, and I hope I’m not snipping a part and losing the rest of the context:
Now look again at Catechism 795:

From this, I believe that we receive the Trinity of God, through the Channel of Christ.

I believe that we receive the Body of Christ (Corpus Mysticum(?)), through the Channel of Christ.

Am I taking two truths and deviating, or am I following along the logical conclusion of these two truths?

The Corpus Mysticum is a spiritual, mystical reality. The Church is not ontologically identical with the Body Christ assumed in the incarnation as part of his human nature (Corpus Verum).

When the Catechism says that the Church and Christ are “one person,” it is expressing a real spiritual union in the language of St. Paul.

The Catechism is not making an ontological claim to the extent of saying that the Church and Christ are literally one hypostasis. If that were true, the saints in Heaven would no longer exist as persons, having been somehow completely and utterly subsumed into Christ to the point of annihilation.

 

[NotWorthy]

To say that Christ is present substantially in the Eucharist is to say that after the consecration where the substance of bread was formerly present, the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, soul, and divinity are now present. These substances are present, though, in the Person of Christ.

See this is where you lose me. From the Catechism:

three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.

You’re using substance to exclude the Holy Spirit and the Father.

The Catechism uses substance to include the Holy Spirit and the Father.

 

[NotWorthy]

As an analogy, may we say that Divinity became incarnate?

The Synod of Rheims declared:

That is, “We believe that divinity itself was incarnated, but in the Son.”

Which goes back to my statement, "We receive the Trinity, through the Channel of Christ (the Incarnate).

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, in receiving grace you receive the Holy Spirit into your soul but not in substance rather insofar as he acts in your soul through a free gift either to make it supernaturally alive or to move you to some action.

There are different modes of presence, and we have to be careful.

I’m trying to be careful.

I feel like we’re doing a dance, one that we’re slowly circling but getting closer together with each pass…

 

[NotWorthy]

The Corpus Mysticum is a spiritual, mystical reality. The Church is not ontologically identical with the Body Christ assumed in the incarnation as part of his human nature (Corpus Verum).

When the Catechism says that the Church and Christ are “one person,” it is expressing a real spiritual union in the language of St. Paul.

I agree. And #795, says quite emphatically that this is a real union, not symbolic, not just spiritual, but real. It says it three times! I don’t feel I’m trying to read into this paragraph more than is actually there.

The Catechism is not making an ontological claim to the extent of saying that the Church and Christ are literally one hypostasis.

But it sounds like it is!!!

If that were true, the saints in Heaven would no longer exist as persons, having been somehow completely and utterly subsumed into Christ to the point of annihilation.

I can’t grasp why Situation A) (Church and Christ become one, what I previously described as “hot wax being poured into hot wax”) would create situation B) (saints would no longer exist as persons).

For all things are possible with God!!!

 

[dylanschrader]

I agree. And #795, says quite emphatically that this is a real union, not symbolic, not just spiritual, but real. It says it three times! I don’t feel I’m trying to read into this paragraph more than is actually there.

But it sounds like it is!!!

I can’t grasp why Situation A) (Church and Christ become one, what I previously described as “hot wax being poured into hot wax”) would create situation B) (saints would no longer exist as persons).

For all things are possible with God!!!

The thing is: the Church uses ‘hypostasis’ and ‘person’ to mean a subject who is not other subjects. Thus, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: three hypostases. If the Church and Christ were literally one hypostasis, it would be impossible for the members of the Church to remain as distinct hypostases.

In the Trinity, the Persons are united as closely as possible: one substance. However, they are still three hypostases. How, then, could Christ and the Church be literally one hypostasis?

 

[NotWorthy]

The thing is: the Church uses ‘hypostasis’ and ‘person’ to mean a subject who is not other subjects. Thus, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: three hypostases. If the Church and Christ were literally one hypostasis, it would be impossible for the members of the Church to remain as distinct hypostases.

Except that Jesus is hypostases, and yet we have two distinct natures. One nature does not cancel out the other.

In the Trinity, the Persons are united as closely as possible: one substance. However, they are still three hypostases.

How, then, could Christ and the Church be literally one hypostasis?

I don’t know. You have to show me what the Church REALLY means on #795, because it refutes what you are saying.

 

[dylanschrader]

Except that Jesus is hypostases, and yet we have two distinct natures. One nature does not cancel out the other.

‘Hypostasis’ and ‘nature’ are two very different things. This is the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity. ‘Nature’ is used by the Church to mean ‘essence’ or ‘substance’.

 

[NotWorthy]

dylan?

You say,

If the Church and Christ were literally one hypostasis, it would be impossible for the members of the Church to remain as distinct hypostases.

I respond,

Except that Jesus is hypostases, and yet we have two distinct natures. One nature does not cancel out the other.

So you respond,

‘Hypostasis’ and ‘nature’ are two very different things. This is the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity. ‘Nature’ is used by the Church to mean ‘essence’ or ‘substance’.

Do you see why I’m having trouble with this doctrine. Just when I think I got it figured it out, you tell me “Who’s on First” again! I’m not saying you are mis-directing me, I’m just saying I still can’t grasp this, it’s like trying to catch a moonbeam in a jar!

Furthermore, you say

‘Nature’ is used by the Church to mean ‘essence’ or ‘substance’.

To which I show you the Catechism

We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal, infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty, and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.

By the way, sorry about the font. It doesn’t seem to change back when I try.

So when you say Christ has two natures, I say Amen!!! But one of those natures (the Divine nature) has one essence (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). If I receive Jesus in the Eucharist - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, then I’m receiving the Divine Essence (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

 

[NotWorthy]

I got this e-mail from my brother regarding this thread. Just when I thought he was coming to my rescue, he pulled the rug right out from under me (Thanks a lot, On Fire!!!)

I’ll be sitting back eating crow for a while (maybe I’ll put it in a gumbo). I am going to read the book by Mr. Flynn and the one you guys recommended by St. Therese.

I thank you again for your patience and understanding. I will be keeping an eye on this thread, but I won’t be adding anything soon, except in response to any future inquiries, until I learn more about the topic.

This comes from This Rock magazine: July-August 2004 issue.

Q: I was told the story of a ten-year-old girl whose father had died and on her way to church, she told her mother she missed him, and the mother replied, “Don’t worry; he will be with you in church.” The girl asked how. The mother answered, “When you receive the Eucharist, you will be receiving the body of your father.” This sounded weird to me.

A: This is not what the Church teaches. We receive the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ when we receive Holy Communion. But at no time are we closer to one another than when we are in sacramental union with him. This includes all those who have died in Christ as well. So in her Holy Communion with Jesus, if her father died in Christ, then she will be in communion with her father, but she will not be receiving her father.

My biggest dilemna is wrapping #202 and #795 into this theology, for they seem to conflict.