Question on the Eucharist

[HickmanJosh]

If the substance of the Eucharist becomes literally Christ then why does the Host fail to have Christ in it if it ceases to look like bread(or have the appearances of bread)?

Phrased differently: how is it that if a validly consecrated host somehow has its appearance changed it no longer has the real presence?

or am i completely mistaken?

 

[GloriousOrder]

If the accidents of bread cease to exist (via decomposition, digestion, etc.) in the Host, it cannot be Christ. The Church teaches that the Host requires two things to be truly called Christ’s Body: the substance of Christ, and the accidents of bread. You cannot know if a piece of bread is consecrated (it’s only bread), but you CAN know if a piece of bread is NOT consecrated (because it’s all mushy and, perhaps, digested, without going into too much detail). I don’t think God would deign to be flushed down the toilet once His accidental Body decomposes.

That’s the end of my involvement in this subject.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace. If the outward sign is not there, neither is inward grace.

 

[Spirithound]

If the substance of the Eucharist becomes literally Christ then why does the Host fail to have Christ in it if it ceases to look like bread(or have the appearances of bread)?

Phrased differently: how is it that if a validly consecrated host somehow has its appearance changed it no longer has the real presence?

Your different phrasing has it backwards. The appearance is not changed by the Real Presence of Jesus ceasing. The Real Presence ceases when the appearance changes. Simply speaking, the Real Presences ceases when the bread ceases to be bread, and the wine ceases to be wine. This is because bread and wine are the only substances which can become the Body and Blood. When the Blood of Christ is metabolized, there is nothing left that can be taken for wine, only the communicant’s own blood, which cannot be the Blood of Christ.