MERGE: What do we recieve in the Eucharist--and why receive?

[simpleas]

You are welcome. Did you happen to read about Many Disciples Turn Away – John 6
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying:

How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said to them:
Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
59 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said:
This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them:
Doth this scandalize you? 62 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not.
For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 65 And he said:
Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
66 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
​

Also Matthew 8:18-22; Luke 9:57-62; Luke 14:25-33

Thanks, yes I have read the above, mainly at Mass or when I’ve read the Bible, I haven’t read much explaination in depth to be honest, only this :

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

I pretty much understand the fact that we receive the body and blood through consuming it as bread and wine for our human digestion, I just stumble over imaging eating Jesus’ living human/Divine body like it was when the disciples saw him alive.

Obviously God can do anything, and more, than my tiny mind could ever think of!

Thanks again.

 

[Vico]

Thanks, yes I have read the above, mainly at Mass or when I’ve read the Bible, I haven’t read much explanation in depth to be honest, only this :

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

I pretty much understand the fact that we receive the body and blood through consuming it as bread and wine for our human digestion, I just stumble over imaging eating Jesus’ living human/Divine body like it was when the disciples saw him alive.

Obviously God can do anything, and more, than my tiny mind could ever think of!

Thanks again.

Perhaps the possibility of aversion is the reason that God, by his power, causes an appearance of bread and wine rather than of human flesh and blood.

USCCB link that you gave states: “The presence of the risen Christ in the Eucharist is an inexhaustible mystery that the Church can never fully explain in words.”

 

[simpleas]

Perhaps the possibility of aversion is the reason that God, by his power, causes an appearance of bread and wine rather than of human flesh and blood.

USCCB link that you gave states: “The presence of the risen Christ in the Eucharist is an inexhaustible mystery that the Church can never fully explain in words.”

 

[Richca]

I think Simpleas was interpreting ’ literal ’ to mean Christ’s earthly corporality. If that is the case then Simpleas is correct, we would not consume Christ literally. However if ’ literal ’ is understood as Christ’s heavenly or Glorified corporality then you are correct. In that case ’ spiritually ’ and ’ literally ’ express the exact same sense. By all means go over all that I have said in post # 4 again. It is quite deep. It takes care to see it all correctly. It is an attempt by the Church and the Fathers and the Catechisms to explain how corporality and physicality is understood to apply equally to the earthly body and to the glorified body. But it is important to understand that they are the same only analylogically. That is, the same reality is to be understood differently, the earthly and the heavenly.

Linus2nd

I don’t think a distinction needs to be made between the body and blood of Christ while he was on earth and that same body now glorified since his resurrection and ascension into heaven in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The same body of flesh and blood that was born of the Virgin Mary, that suffered and was crucified on the cross for the salvation of the world, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven is the same identical body and blood in the Eucharist, albeit, now incorruptible, immortal, and glorified. At the Last Supper, the apostles ate and drank the body and blood of Jesus before he died on the cross and rose from the dead. From this, I think we can gather that a glorified body is not essential for God to perform the miracle of transubstantiation in the eucharist. The ancient faith of the Church is that the body that rose from the dead and which we eat as our spiritual food in the eucharist is the very body born of the Virgin Mary. This is expressed in the eucharistic hymn Ave verum composed in the latter half of the 14th century with its doctrine firmly grounded in the faith of the early Church:

Hail true body born of Mary Virgin; which truly suffered and was immolated on the cross for mankind. Whose side, pierced, poured forth water and blood. Be for us a foretaste [of glory] at the moment of death. O Sweet Jesus! O Merciful Jesus! O Jesus, Son of Mary.

 

[Vico]

I don’t think a distinction needs to be made between the body and blood of Christ while he was on earth and that same body now glorified since his resurrection and ascension into heaven in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The same body of flesh and blood that was born of the Virgin Mary, that suffered and was crucified on the cross for the salvation of the world, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven is the same identical body and blood in the Eucharist, albeit, now incorruptible, immortal, and glorified. At the Last Supper, the apostles ate and drank the body and blood of Jesus before he died on the cross and rose from the dead. From this, I think we can gather that a glorified body is not essential for God to perform the miracle of transubstantiation in the eucharist. The ancient faith of the Church is that the body that rose from the dead and which we eat as our spiritual food in the eucharist is the very body born of the Virgin Mary. This is expressed in the eucharistic hymn Ave verum composed in the latter half of the 14th century with its doctrine firmly grounded in the faith of the early Church:

Hail true body born of Mary Virgin; which truly suffered and was immolated on the cross for mankind. Whose side, pierced, poured forth water and blood. Be for us a foretaste [of glory] at the moment of death. O Sweet Jesus! O Merciful Jesus! O Jesus, Son of Mary.

Perhaps is it significant as a* foretaste* because the physical body of Christ before resurrection had not yet been glorified, although the soul of Christ, which we receive in the Eucharist, is and was always glorified.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps is it significant as a* foretaste* because the physical body of Christ before resurrection had not yet been glorified, although the soul of Christ, which we receive in the Eucharist, is and was always glorified.

Your distinctions are confused. The soul of Christ definitely had special powers after his resurrection because it was his soul that exercised the powers of levity agility, subtelty, impassibility, and clarity over his resurrected body. But it would not be correct, in my opinion, to say that he had these powers before his resurrection. Before his resurrection, he could only have exercised these powers through a special application of his Divine Power.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fr. Victor Feltes, Diocese of La Cross, Wisconsin, has recently given an explanation of the special powers Christ possessed in his resurrected body. These powers which he explains we will also possess in our resurrected bodies, are those of levity, agility, subtelty impassability, and clarity which I explained were supported by the Cathechism of the Council of Trent. I also explained that these special powers of Christ’s resurrected body explain his invisibility in the Eucharistic species, at least in part. Fr. Feltes does not go into the Eucharistic Presence.

parishableitems.wordpress.co…l-be-like-his/

Fr. Feltes is a regular blogger and well worth following.

Linus2nd

 

[Vico]

Your distinctions are confused. The soul of Christ definitely had special powers after his resurrection because it was his soul that exercised the powers of levity agility, subtelty, impassibility, and clarity over his resurrected body. But it would not be correct, in my opinion, to say that he had these powers before his resurrection. Before his resurrection, he could only have exercised these powers through a special application of his Divine Power.

Linus2nd

What I posted is about the glory of the soul of Christ, not about powers:

Perhaps is it significant as a* foretaste* because the physical body of Christ before resurrection had not yet been glorified, although the soul of Christ, which we receive in the Eucharist, is and was always glorified.

The body was glorified at the resurrection.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
663 Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: “By ‘the Father’s right hand’ we understand the glory and honor of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified.” 546
626 Since the “Author of life” who was killed 467 is the same “living one [who has] risen”, 468 the divine person of the Son of God necessarily continued to possess his human soul and body, separated from each other by death:

By the fact that at Christ’s death his soul was separated from his flesh, his one person is not itself divided into two persons; for the human body and soul of Christ have existed in the same way from the beginning of his earthly existence, in the divine person of the Word; and in death, although separated from each other, both remained with one and the same person of the Word. 469
“You will not let your Holy One see corruption”
​

The Catholic Encyclopedia has:
If we except Hugh of St. Victor, all theologians teach that the soul of Christ is elevated to participation in the Divine wisdom by an infusion of Divine light. For the soul of Christ enjoyed from the very beginning the beatific vision; it was endowed with infused knowledge; and it acquired in the course of time experimental knowledge.
Maas, A. (1910). Knowledge of Jesus Christ. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What I posted is about the glory of the soul of Christ, not about powers:

The body was glorified at the resurrection.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
663 Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: “By ‘the Father’s right hand’ we understand the glory and honor of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified.” 546
626 Since the “Author of life” who was killed 467 is the same “living one [who has] risen”, 468 the divine person of the Son of God necessarily continued to possess his human soul and body, separated from each other by death:

By the fact that at Christ’s death his soul was separated from his flesh, his one person is not itself divided into two persons; for the human body and soul of Christ have existed in the same way from the beginning of his earthly existence, in the divine person of the Word; and in death, although separated from each other, both remained with one and the same person of the Word. 469
“You will not let your Holy One see corruption”
​

The Catholic Encyclopedia has:
If we except Hugh of St. Victor, all theologians teach that the soul of Christ is elevated to participation in the Divine wisdom by an infusion of Divine light. For the soul of Christ enjoyed from the very beginning the beatific vision; it was endowed with infused knowledge; and it acquired in the course of time experimental knowledge.
Maas, A. (1910). Knowledge of Jesus Christ. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm

Christ was glorified at his Resurrection, body, soul, and Divinity, his Whole Person. And after his Ascension his Whole Person was seated at the right hand of the Father. He possessed the same spiritual powers during his forty days before the Ascension as at the right hand of the Father. In addition he possessed the same Divine powers which he always possessed, even before his death.

Linus2nd

 

[Vico]

Christ was glorified at his Resurrection, body, soul, and Divinity, his Whole Person. And after his Ascension his Whole Person was seated at the right hand of the Father. He possessed the same spiritual powers during his forty days before the Ascension as at the right hand of the Father. In addition he possessed the same Divine powers which he always possessed, even before his death.

Linus2nd

Christ was glorified entire, however only the body was not already glorified. Per the teaching of the fifth general council of Constantinople (553 A.D.) Christ was impeccable from his incarnation due to the hypostatic union.

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma:224 Can. 12. If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that one was God the Word, and another the Christ, who was troubled by the sufferings of the soul and the longings of the flesh, and who gradually separated Himself from worse things, and was improved by the progress of His works, and rendered blameless by this life, so as to be baptized as mere man in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and on account of the baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was deemed worthy of adoption as a son, and according to the likeness of the royal image is worshipped in the person of God the Word, and after the resurrection became unchangeable in thoughts and absolutely unerring, and again the same impious Theodore having said that the union of God the Word with the Christ was such as the Apostle (spoke of) with reference to man and woman: “They shall be two in one flesh”[Eph. 5:31]; and in addition to his other innumerable blasphemies, dared to say that after the resurrection, the Lord when He breathed on His disciples and said:“Receive ye the holy ghost”[Is. 20:22], did not give them the Holy Spirit, but breathed only figuratively. But this one, too, said that the confession of Thomas on touching the hands and the side of the Lord, after the resurrection, " My Lord and my God"[Is… 20:28 ], was not said by Thomas concerning Christ, but that Thomas, astounded by the marvel of the resurrection, praised God for raising Christ from the dead;

Catholic Encyclopedia has for Resurrection:
Christ’s Resurrection is necessarily a glorious one; it implies not merely the reunion of body and soul, but also the glorification of the body.

Maas, A. (1911). Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Christ was glorified entire, however only the body was not already glorified. Per the teaching of the fifth general council of Constantinople (553 A.D.) Christ was impeccable from his incarnation due to the hypostatic union.

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma:224 Can. 12. If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that one was God the Word, and another the Christ, who was troubled by the sufferings of the soul and the longings of the flesh, and who gradually separated Himself from worse things, and was improved by the progress of His works, and rendered blameless by this life, so as to be baptized as mere man in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and on account of the baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was deemed worthy of adoption as a son, and according to the likeness of the royal image is worshipped in the person of God the Word, and after the resurrection became unchangeable in thoughts and absolutely unerring, and again the same impious Theodore having said that the union of God the Word with the Christ was such as the Apostle (spoke of) with reference to man and woman: “They shall be two in one flesh”[Eph. 5:31]; and in addition to his other innumerable blasphemies, dared to say that after the resurrection, the Lord when He breathed on His disciples and said:“Receive ye the holy ghost”[Is. 20:22], did not give them the Holy Spirit, but breathed only figuratively. But this one, too, said that the confession of Thomas on touching the hands and the side of the Lord, after the resurrection, " My Lord and my God"[Is… 20:28 ], was not said by Thomas concerning Christ, but that Thomas, astounded by the marvel of the resurrection, praised God for raising Christ from the dead;

Catholic Encyclopedia has for Resurrection:
Christ’s Resurrection is necessarily a glorious one; it implies not merely the reunion of body and soul, but also the glorification of the body.

Maas, A. (1911). Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

I don’t know what point you are trying to make but both Christ’s body and soul were glorified at his Resurrection. His human nature, body and soul, was glorified. Impeccability does not necessary entail glorification, it simply means that he, his human nature, was without sin or fault of any kind from the moment of his conception. So his impeccability was not enhanced with his glorification. Impeccability cannot be improved upon. So if he was impeccable from the moment of conception, the glorification of his human nature would not, could not make him more impeccable. Impeccable is in the superlative mood, it i s absolute, it cannot become more perfect if it is already the most perfect that is possible.

Linus2nd

 

[Vico]

I don’t know what point you are trying to make but both Christ’s body and soul were glorified at his Resurrection. His human nature, body and soul, was glorified. Impeccability does not necessary entail glorification, it simply means that he, his human nature, was without sin or fault of any kind from the moment of his conception. So his impeccability was not enhanced with his glorification. Impeccability cannot be improved upon. So if he was impeccable from the moment of conception, the glorification of his human nature would not, could not make him more impeccable. Impeccable is in the superlative mood, it i s absolute, it cannot become more perfect if it is already the most perfect that is possible.

Linus2nd

Perhaps is it significant as a foretaste because the physical body of Christ before resurrection had not yet been glorified, although the soul of Christ, which we receive in the Eucharist, is and was always glorified.