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

[Linusthe2nd]

We receive Jesus Christ, " …Whole and entire…," his Glorified Body, Soul and Divinity. This is the same body which now sits at the right hand of God, in its natural but Glorified mode, as opposed to the Sacramental mode in which He is simultaneously Present in every consecrated Species throughout the whole world. It is the same Body which rose from the dead and walked among the Apostotle and Disciples for forty days, which ate with them, talked with them - and appeared where his wished, at a flash, without being hindered by walls and locked doors, a mode of presence which had absolute power over earthly matter, a Body which, while being visibly present, was not subject to matter.

But in His Eucharistic Presence he is not visible, is he? No, you can’t see him, he is invislble. Nor can you sense his presence by any of your other senses. Why? Because he was catering to our human sensibilities which would be repulsed at the thought that we were consuming his human body, even if it was a Glorified Body. Also, it was because his Sacramental mode of presence demanded that he conform the manner of his presence to the demands of the species and because he wished to be present in every particle of the species that was distributed.

How does He do this? Remember, in his Glorified Person he has absolute power over matter, he can be Present however he wishes, he is not limited by the exigencies of earthly matter, and the species are earthly matter.

How is He present? He is present sacramentally. He is in the species but is not a part of them, nor are they a part of him. Theologians define it this way: the species contain his presence, that is ,they convey his presence, they carry his presence to us. The Council of Trent says that he is **under **the species. These expressions convey the same meaning. The species are the instruments he uses to convey his presence to us, to " locate " his precence in specific objects, the bread and wine.

Is his presence a material presence, is it a physical presence? Yes, but it is a material and a physical presence which is Glorified, it is no longer earthly matter, it is heavenly matter, a matter that can be " sensed " only if He wishes it to be sensed. Remember there only two things which exist in the universe and in Heaven, material beings and spiritual beings. And Christ, even in his Glorified state, which has been his state of existence since his Resurrection, is a material being as well as a human soul and a Divine Spirit. And it is all of this we receive, but in his Glorified mode of existence.

Do we actually touch Christ when we receive him? Absolutely. How could we consume his flesh and blood if we did not touch him, if he did not touch us? Some have rejected this thought. However, remember that he invited Thomas to " touch " the wounds in his side and in his hands. And this is the exact same body we receive, so we touch him just as Thomas did.

And what does it mean when Trent says we receive Christ, ," Whole and entire…? "
It means just that. We receive Christ just as he appeared to the Apostles. What they saw, is what they received, and it is what we receive. That is what a body is, right? Yes, that’s right, and what did they see? They saw Christ with all his bodily attributes, limbs, hair, clothes, sandles, the works - but in a Glorified manner, a manner that in the case of the Eucharist cannot be sensed.

All of this can be gleaned from the simple statements of the Council of Trent which can be read here, chapters 1-4:
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/CT13.html

You can also find it in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

See also the Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church:
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Also see the Summa Theologiae, part 3, the Holy Eucharist, ques 74-88

And the Supplement to the Third Part, ques 82-85

I’m not debating, I’m just stating what we must believe.

Linus2nd

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for this. It’s something that is very difficult to understand.

Saying that the Apostles received Christ by his presence to them living as a human/divine isn’t the same as the way we receive Christ. It always seems more of a spiritual receiving to me. Like it says we wouldn’t really want to eat real flesh and blood. The apostles did not, they received the spiritual also.

I’ve heard non catholics think that what we believe when we say that the bread and wine are jesus’ actual flesh and blood that we consume is like a form of cannibalism . I thought that was strange because I know I’ve never ate flesh or drunk blood at mass, but knew it to be the spiritual body and blood.

Just a side piece, some ancient tribes would eat actual flesh from the deceased as a way of guiding the souls into the living.
Not all that far removed from what we believe in a way is it?

No offence to anyone, just trying to get a better understanding of how we view the Eucharist.

Thanks.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for this. It’s something that is very difficult to understand.

Saying that the Apostles received Christ by his presence to them living as a human/divine isn’t the same as the way we receive Christ. It always seems more of a spiritual receiving to me. Like it says we wouldn’t really want to eat real flesh and blood. The apostles did not, they received the spiritual also.

I guess I didn’t make the last paragraph clear. You have to keep in mind what I said in the first paragraph. I was speaking of Christ as he appeared after the Resurrection, his Glorified body. That is what the Apostoles received. Just read the post again and keep that in mind. And don’t forget to read the links.

I’ve heard non catholics think that what we believe when we say that the bread and wine are jesus’ actual flesh and blood that we consume is like a form of cannibalism . I thought that was strange because I know I’ve never ate flesh or drunk blood at mass, but knew it to be the spiritual body and blood.

Christ’s Glorified body is not an earthly body. Only an earthly body would be associated with meat which would be eaten.

Just a side piece, some ancient tribes would eat actual flesh from the deceased as a way of guiding the souls into the living.
Not all that far removed from what we believe in a way is it?

An Infinity apart. Christ is not dead, he is living.

No offence to anyone, just trying to get a better understanding of how we view the Eucharist.
Thanks.

I hope that clears up your questions.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Restating post # 1 to correct a point of confusion in the last paragraph.

We receive Jesus Christ, " …Whole and entire…," his Glorified Body, Soul and Divinity. This is the same body which now sits at the right hand of God, in its natural but Glorified mode, as opposed to the Sacramental mode in which He is simultaneously Present in every consecrated Species throughout the whole world. It is the same Body which rose from the dead and walked among the Apostotle and Disciples for forty days, which ate with them, talked with them - and appeared where his wished, at a flash, without being hindered by walls and locked doors, a mode of presence which had absolute power over earthly matter, a Body which, while being visibly present, was not subject to matter.

But in His Eucharistic Presence he is not visible, is he? No, you can’t see him, he is invislble. Nor can you sense his presence by any of your other senses. Why? Because he was catering to our human sensibilities which would be repulsed at the thought that we were consuming his human body, even if it was a Glorified Body. Also, it was because his Sacramental mode of presence demanded that he conform the manner of his presence to the demands of the species and because he wished to be present in every particle of the species that was distributed.

How does He do this? Remember, in his Glorified Person he has absolute power over matter, he can be Present however he wishes, he is not limited by the exigencies of earthly matter, and the species are earthly matter.

How is He present? He is present sacramentally. He is in the species but is not a part of them, nor are they a part of him. Theologians define it this way: the species contain his presence, that is ,they convey his presence, they carry his presence to us. The Council of Trent says that he is under the species. These expressions convey the same meaning. The species are the instruments he uses to convey his presence to us, to " locate " his precence in specific objects, the bread and wine.

Is his presence a material presence, is it a physical presence? Yes, but it is a material and a physical presence which is Glorified, it is no longer earthly matter, it is heavenly matter, a matter that can be " sensed " only if He wishes it to be sensed. Remember there only two things which exist in the universe and in Heaven, material beings and spiritual beings. And Christ, even in his Glorified state, which has been his state of existence since his Resurrection, is a material being as well as a human soul and a Divine Spirit. And it is all of this we receive, but in his Glorified mode of existence.

Do we actually touch Christ when we receive him? Absolutely. How could we consume his flesh and blood if we did not touch him, if he did not touch us? Some have rejected this thought. However, remember that he invited Thomas to " touch " the wounds in his side and in his hands. And this is the exact same body we receive, so we touch him just as Thomas did.

And what does it mean when Trent says we receive Christ, ," Whole and entire…? "
It means just that. We receive Christ just as he appeared to the Apostles after his Resurrection. What they saw, is what we receive. That is what a body is, right? Yes, that’s right, and what did they see? They saw Christ with all his bodily attributes, limbs, hair, clothes, sandles, the works - all his accidents but in a Glorified manner, a manner that in the case of the Eucharist cannot be sensed.

All of this can be gleaned from the simple statements of the Council of Trent which can be read here, chapters 1-4:
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/CT13.html

You can also find it in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:catholicapologetics.info/…ucharist.shtml

See also the Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church:
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Also see the Summa Theologiae, part 3, the Holy Eucharist, ques 74-88

And the Supplement to the Third Part, ques 82-85

Linus2nd

.

 

[thistle]

I know in the Eucharist that we receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Risen Glorified Christ but as there is only one God we also receive the divinity of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for your reply.

We receive the glorified body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in a spiritual way, not literal way. Because Christ is risen, we can’t consume his actual body, so we must talking spiritually?

Jesus said not to touch him as he had not yet accended to the father, yet he allowed Thomas to touch him. But this was after he had accended to the father?

Thanks

 

[Errham]

This isn’t so much a question that I’d like to ask as it is a topic that I’d like to open for discussion. I’ve noticed that just about everyone has a different view on the topic, and I’d like to hear yours. The question being: Why did Jesus require us to consume his body and blood? What do we actually gain from it?

For me, in order to answer this question one must understand the profound theological significance behind it. In the Old Covenant, the Shechina - the presence of God - rested in the Holy of Holies, in the Temple of Jerusalem. The Ark of the Covenant - the living presence of God on earth. Now, in the era of the New Covenant, the era of the temple as a building has passed. We receive the Eucharist in order to become the actual temple itself. The Ark of the Old Covenant, written in stone and sealed in the blood of the sacrifices at the temple, has been transformed. By consuming the Eucharist, the Ark of the New Covenant, sealed with the blood of Christ, becomes written in our very bodies. We become the new temple, that the divine presence rests in. The Temple of the New Covenant is not a building. It is the organic and living body of Christ, the church, and we are made sharers in this divine duty through the sacrament of the Eucharist. In addition to its significance on earth, it also grants us a taste of Heaven, where God will reside in us and us in God, and gives us the strength to continue in pursuit of this everlasting paradise.

That’s just my two cents, at least. I’m very curious to hear your views on the issue.

 

[Vico]

This isn’t so much a question that I’d like to ask as it is a topic that I’d like to open for discussion. I’ve noticed that just about everyone has a different view on the topic, and I’d like to hear yours. The question being: Why did Jesus require us to consume his body and blood? What do we actually gain from it?

For me, in order to answer this question one must understand the profound theological significance behind it. In the Old Covenant, the Shechina - the presence of God - rested in the Holy of Holies, in the Temple of Jerusalem. The Ark of the Covenant - the living presence of God on earth. Now, in the era of the New Covenant, the era of the temple as a building has passed. We receive the Eucharist in order to become the actual temple itself. The Ark of the Old Covenant, written in stone and sealed in the blood of the sacrifices at the temple, has been transformed. By consuming the Eucharist, the Ark of the New Covenant, sealed with the blood of Christ, becomes written in our very bodies. We become the new temple, that the divine presence rests in. The Temple of the New Covenant is not a building. It is the organic and living body of Christ, the church, and we are made sharers in this divine duty through the sacrament of the Eucharist. In addition to its significance on earth, it also grants us a taste of Heaven, where God will reside in us and us in God, and gives us the strength to continue in pursuit of this everlasting paradise.

That’s just my two cents, at least. I’m very curious to hear your views on the issue.

1. Union with Christ and the faithful

“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh blood, abideth in me, and I in him” John 6:57

“For we being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread” 1 Corinthians 10:17

1. Increase of sanctifying grace and spiritual relish or delight of soul (delectatio spiritualis).
2. Forgiveness of venial sin and preservation from mortal sin and eternal happiness

• blotting out venial sin and preserving the soul from mortal sin
• Eucharist is the pledge of our resurrection and eternal happiness

Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. ii

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for your reply.

We receive the glorified body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in a spiritual way, not literal way. Because Christ is risen, we can’t consume his actual body, so we must talking spiritually?

Jesus said not to touch him as he had not yet accended to the father, yet he allowed Thomas to touch him. But this was after he had accended to the father?

Thanks

Yes we receive Christ in a spiritual way, his body had become compatible with life as it will be in heaven. And the power of his soul made his body invisible and imperceptible to us. He made his body become similar to a spirit but not an actual spirit.

I have never seen an explanation of why Jesus did not want Mary to touch him, because we know that Thomas did. It is a mystery. Perhaps he thought it would be, for some reason, better for Mary that she not touch him, that it had nothing to do with himself but had to do with Mary’s spiritual good. I think he wanted to impress on Mary that he was no longer an earthly body but a heavenly body and he thought if Mary touched him she might become confused in her mind and that might be a spiritual danger for him. Whereas, Thomas had a different psychological temperament and was necessary for him to touch his body.

When Thomas touched him he had not yet ascended to the Father, that would happen 40 days later.

Linus2nd

 

[RichardJos]

EUCHARIST BENEFICIAL EFFECTS - ECCLESIA de EUCHARISTIA
Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women in the Consecrated Life and All the Lay Faithful on the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church. April 17, 2003
The Church draws her life from the Eucharist. (1)

Eucharistic Sacrifice is “the source and summit of the Christian life”(1)

The Church was born of the paschal mystery (3)

Eucharist stands at the center of the Church’s life (3)

Eucharist builds the Church, and the Church makes the Eucharist" (26),

Eucharist is gift par excellence, for it is the gift of himself, of his person in his sacred humanity, as well as the gift of his saving work. (11)

Eucharist is the sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated down the ages. (11)

In the Eucharist, he shows us a love which goes “to the end”, (cf.Jn13.l) a love which knows no measure. (11)

The Mass is the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross-is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. (12)

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice (12)

The Mass involves a most special presence … because if is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present. (15)

Those who feed on Christ in the Eucharist need not wait until the hereafter to receive eternal life: they already possess it on earth, as the first-fruits of a future fullness which will embrace man in his totality. (18)

Eucharistic Bread is defined by St. Ignatius of Antioch as medicine of immortality, and antidote to death. (18)

Eucharist is truly a glimpse of heaven, appearing on earth. (19)

Eucharist unites us to the heavenly liturgy. (19)

It is unworthy of a Christian community to partake of the Eucharist amid division and indifference towards the poor. (1 Cor 11:17-22,27-34) (20)

The Mass is the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. (12)

The Mass involves a most special presence … because if is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present. (15)

Eucharist builds the Church, and the Church makes the Eucharist" (26),

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks for your reply.

We receive the glorified body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in a spiritual way, not literal way. Because Christ is risen, we can’t consume his actual body, so we must talking spiritually?

No, it’s not just “spiritual”, it’s literal – we receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ sacramentally.

I’m still scratching my head at Linus’ assertion that it’s physical and material, and my recollection of Thomas’ assertion about grossing us out is slightly different than the way that Linus has stated it, but I haven’t re-read the docs he’s linked for us, so I’ll defer comment for now.

But, rest assured, it’s literally Christ: but it’s Christ sacramentally and substantially, and not in physical accidents.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, it’s not just “spiritual”, it’s literal – we receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ sacramentally.

I’m still scratching my head at Linus’ assertion that it’s physical and material, and my recollection of Thomas’ assertion about grossing us out is slightly different than the way that Linus has stated it, but I haven’t re-read the docs he’s linked for us, so I’ll defer comment for now.

But, rest assured, it’s literally Christ: but it’s Christ sacramentally and substantially, and not in physical accidents.

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

 

[simpleas]

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’m just thinking it all through to try and be able to explain it to myself first and for most, and then to anyone who says it’s all based on the pagan human sacrifice etc, and a form of cannibalism.

I have never thought of it as cannibalism but can see why some people automatically think that when they hear we eat the real flesh, drink the blood of a sacrificed person.

Christ lives now in a heavenly place/state, he is glorified. Is he both human and divine in this place/state or what I thought was divine. That is why I think in spiritual terms regarding the body and blood of Christ, although I can’t explain that fully either

Only that Christ’s divine presence is made present in the bread and wine, obviously not actual flesh and blood, if I’m thinking Christ is spiritually divine with the one God and Holy spirit.
If we thought of Christ as human and divine living in heaven, we couldn’t consume his body and blood because he is a live, we cannot eat a living being without draining life from that person.

I’m most likely to ponder on this at the vigil Mass tonight.

Your answer, thoughts are most welcome, as it helps to hear how others understand in their way.
I just need to break it all down and put it back together sort of speak in order to have a better understanding.

Thanks and Happy Easter to all.

 

[Vico]

I’m just thinking it all through to try and be able to explain it to myself first and for most, and then to anyone who says it’s all based on the pagan human sacrifice etc, and a form of cannibalism.

I have never thought of it as cannibalism but can see why some people automatically think that when they hear we eat the real flesh, drink the blood of a sacrificed person.

Christ lives now in a heavenly place/state, he is glorified. Is he both human and divine in this place/state or what I thought was divine. That is why I think in spiritual terms regarding the body and blood of Christ, although I can’t explain that fully either

Only that Christ’s divine presence is made present in the bread and wine, obviously not actual flesh and blood, if I’m thinking Christ is spiritually divine with the one God and Holy spirit.
If we thought of Christ as human and divine living in heaven, we couldn’t consume his body and blood because he is a live, we cannot eat a living being without draining life from that person.

I’m most likely to ponder on this at the vigil Mass tonight.

Your answer, thoughts are most welcome, as it helps to hear how others understand in their way.
I just need to break it all down and put it back together sort of speak in order to have a better understanding.

Thanks and Happy Easter to all.

Since the Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under each species, – and as shown below is it not necessary to receive both species – worthy reception is not to be compared to cannibalism, since cannibalism implies no reception of divinity. Subjectively it would be cannibalism for those that do not believe.

Council of Trent Session XXIII:CHAPTER I.
That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.
Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness,(f) and following the judgment(g) and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating,(h) are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, (l) that communion under either species is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution(k) of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord:

for He who said;

• Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said;
• He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said
• The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,

• He who said;

• He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless;
• He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)

thecounciloftrent.com/ch21.htm

 

[simpleas]

Since the Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under each species, – and as shown below is it not necessary to receive both species – worthy reception is not to be compared to cannibalism, since cannibalism implies no reception of divinity. Subjectively it would be cannibalism for those that do not believe.

Council of Trent Session XXIII:CHAPTER I.
That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.
Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness,(f) and following the judgment(g) and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating,(h) are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, (l) that communion under either species is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution(k) of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord:

for He who said;

• Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said;
• He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said
• The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,

• He who said;

• He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless;
• He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)

thecounciloftrent.com/ch21.htm

Thanks for the info.

Yes I suppose one who does not fully understand/believe would think it’s cannibalism, but since we believe we eat the actual flesh of the living Jesus, then I’m still alittle

In the Mass it is written as spiritual food, so food for the soul I think, because no other food could satisify the soul because the soul isn’t matter.

Thank you.

 

[Vico]

Thanks for the info.

Yes I suppose one who does not fully understand/believe would think it’s cannibalism, but since we believe we eat the actual flesh of the living Jesus, then I’m still alittle

In the Mass it is written as spiritual food, so food for the soul I think, because no other food could satisify the soul because the soul isn’t matter.

Thank you.

It is not only the flesh. Cannibals eat human with human nature alone, not God with both divine and human natures.

 

[simpleas]

It is not only the flesh. Cannibals eat human with human nature alone, not God with both divine and human natures.

Forgive my ignorance, it is tricky to imagine eating the actual flesh of God in human form, that is why it seems to me that we eat spiritual flesh rather than human flesh with divine nature.

 

[Vico]

Forgive my ignorance, it is tricky to imagine eating the actual flesh of God in human form, that is why it seems to me that we eat spiritual flesh rather than human flesh with divine nature.

How do you define “spiritual flesh”?

“a spirit has not flesh and bones” – Luke 24:39

The body is the material part of a human that is animated by its immaterial rational soul. So the body and blood of Christ are material and the soul and divinity are immaterial, and taken together are the Eucharist. The accidents of bread and wine (which naturally inhere in the substances of bread and wine they modify) do not inhere in any subject or substance of the Eucharist upon the change of substance, yet not imaginary, and are sustained in existence by divine power.

It is sometimes difficult to understand that if a substance (thing) changes, it either changes into another substance or some non-essential feature of it changes. If the change is non-essential is continues to be referred to it in the same way. Since the bread and wine change substance, they are no longer referred to in the same way.

 

[simpleas]

How do you define “spiritual flesh”?

“a spirit has not flesh and bones” – Luke 24:39

The body is the material part of a human that is animated by its immaterial rational soul. So the body and blood of Christ are material and the soul and divinity are immaterial, and taken together are the Eucharist. The accidents of bread and wine (which naturally inhere in the substances of bread and wine they modify) do not inhere in any subject or substance of the Eucharist upon the change of substance, yet not imaginary, and are sustained in existence by divine power.

It is sometimes difficult to understand that if a substance (thing) changes, it either changes into another substance or some non-essential feature of it changes. If the change is non-essential is continues to be referred to it in the same way. Since the bread and wine change substance, they are no longer referred to in the same way.

Ok Thanks.
Yes the bread and wine turns into the actual flesh and blood of the risen Jesus and we consumme it as the actual flesh and blood, which is hard to imagine, because I then see flesh and blood, not just bread and wine. Yet it’s not considered any form of cannibalism because it is a divine person, one who is a live, but still real flesh and blood.

When I think of it spiritually, I think more about receiving Jesus through the soul rather than flesh and blood. We wouldn’t normally eat flesh and blood as humans. Maybe its just another way to try and imagine what we are eating, and as I find it tricky to think I eat the actual living Jesus’ flesh and blood, thinking I receive the presence of Jesus in the bread and wine for my soul, I find that alittle easier.

Thanks for taking the time to try helping me with this.

 

[Vico]

Ok Thanks.
Yes the bread and wine turns into the actual flesh and blood of the risen Jesus and we consumme it as the actual flesh and blood, which is hard to imagine, because I then see flesh and blood, not just bread and wine. Yet it’s not considered any form of cannibalism because it is a divine person, one who is a live, but still real flesh and blood.

When I think of it spiritually, I think more about receiving Jesus through the soul rather than flesh and blood. We wouldn’t normally eat flesh and blood as humans. Maybe its just another way to try and imagine what we are eating, and as I find it tricky to think I eat the actual living Jesus’ flesh and blood, thinking I receive the presence of Jesus in the bread and wine for my soul, I find that alittle easier.

Thanks for taking the time to try helping me with this.

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