transubstantiation

[Gorgias]

Even with our limited understanding of the universe, we could see how a 4-dimential object could exist within a 3-dimential object without changing the 3-dimential object at all.

That allows for an interesting mental image, but it might confuse the issue. If I can only perceive three dimensions, then when I look at a 4-D object, I see only a 3-D projection of the 4-D object. If the object moves, I see a different 3-D object. However, the 4-D object has not changed; my perception of it has changed, however.

In the Eucharist, however, we do have a real and substantial change! It’s not simply that our perception has changed, but that there’s real change in the substance, and therefore, there’s a whole new and different thing that’s there!

 

[dronald]

No: it’s not Jesus in a ‘spiritual’ sense, it’s Jesus in a ‘real’ sense. In terms of appearances, it appears to be bread & wine; but in terms of metaphysical reality, it’s Christ.

But when Jesus spoke of being eaten didn’t He say it was in a “Spiritual” sense? Eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ is what we do in Spirit and Truth, for the flesh profits nothing. Isn’t that Biblical?

 

[benjohnson]

That allows for an interesting mental image, but it might confuse the issue. If I can only perceive three dimensions, then when I look at a 4-D object, I see only a 3-D projection of the 4-D object. If the object moves, I see a different 3-D object. However, the 4-D object has not changed; my perception of it has changed, however.

Certainly! My example was just to show that it’s possible that objects before us can have a hidden truth to them that we can’t see - even without invoking God’s words of promise to us.

In the Eucharist, however, we do have a real and substantial change! It’s not simply that our perception has changed, but that there’s real change in the substance, and therefore, there’s a whole new and different thing that’s there!

Indeed! When the Eucharist is present - that is what is real and true. The rest of our world is like a vapor under the sun when compared to Christ’s Body and Blood.

 

[billcu1]

Certainly! My example was just to show that it’s possible that objects before us can have a hidden truth to them that we can’t see - even without invoking God’s words of promise to us.

Indeed! When the Eucharist is present - that is what is real and true. The rest of our world is like a vapor under the sun when compared to Christ’s Body and Blood.

This is a very good question. I remember the scriptures saying that when he spoke of his body and blood many of the disciples left. Only the 12 remained. Hence the quote “Where would we go?” Did he mean literally his blood and body? EEk.

Bill

 

[eamonnroma]

The term transubstantiation was not used in early times, I think that the first known use of the term was in the 11th century. This takes nothing away from the truth of the word.

I think we need to accept that we cannot and will not ever be able to understand the transubstantiation process. The Orthodox churches tend not to use it, yet their belief is the same as ours in the Eucharist. If it is something we really cannot understand - why try to explain it? Why not have faith, and believe, believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[benjohnson]

I think we need to accept that we cannot and will not ever be able to understand the transubstantiation process. The Orthodox churches tend not to use it, yet their belief is the same as ours in the Eucharist. If it is something we really cannot understand - why try to explain it? Why not have faith, and believe, believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Lutheran viewpoint (in my opinion) is similar to the Orthodox view - we hold it as a Mystery of Faith.

To be fair to our Catholic friends, we need to understand that the dogma of Transubstantiation was a bulwark against the various heresies about the Eucharist at the time. If understood in that light, it ceases to be a church dividing issue in my opinion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But when Jesus spoke of being eaten didn’t He say it was in a “Spiritual” sense? Eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ is what we do in Spirit and Truth, for the flesh profits nothing. Isn’t that Biblical?

Yes, the Jews (disciples) in Jesus hearing understood Jesus to be speaking literally of consuming His flesh and blood, and they left Him. Jesus never implies; To eat His flesh and drink His blood as to be understood symbolically.
Spirit is a person, the bible never defines the Spirit as defining a symbol of something. The word spirit that relates to a symbol is a new tradition invented by men from the Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide protestant expression of faith. Spirit=symbolism is never biblical.

The Crucifix remains a stumbling block to those who hold to a symbolic bread and wine, of Jesus body and blood.
In the Eucharist God is the same today, yesterday and forevermore.The Eucharist is not new to the Hebrew faith, the Eucharist fulfills the Hebrew old testament faith of the Passover lamb sacrifice.

By Hebrew divine law, God commanded that the sacrificial lamb must be consumed (eaten) for death to Passover and for the atonement of sin, much to say here regarding Jesus the Lamb of God who fulfilled the divinely commanded Perpetual (never ends) Law of Passover with His Last Supper, that mirrors the Hebrew liturgy, unchanged in the Latin Mass practiced today in the Catholic Church.

The Spirit is God and Truth is revealed in God incarnate, both persons is God PRESENT in Spirit and Truth in Eucharist, where the Trinity is present. For no one goes to the Father except through the Son’s body, blood, soul and divinity presence.
NO one can go before the Father in True worship in the Spirit with a symbolic lamb represented in bread and drink without the true presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity.

To reach a simple understanding of Tran substantiation as it relates to the substantial Change of bread and wine. We view the crucifixion as the fulfillment of the perpetual divine law in the Passover, which Jesus commanded, we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life.

Transubstantiation becomes an ecumenical dialogue with those who never left the Apostolic faith of a real presence of Jesus body and blood in Eucharist, who object or have a misunderstanding of Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation becomes a dialogue of reconciliation with those who hold to a symbolic bread and wine representing Jesus body and blood. When the crucifixion becomes the stumbling block and the Hebrew/Catholic understanding of a divine Sacrament of God’s presence revealed in the works of God, and the faith of Christians.

Peace be with you

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Lutheran viewpoint (in my opinion) is similar to the Orthodox view - we hold it as a Mystery of Faith.

That view, I hope, is everyone’s view. The devil is in the details.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

eamonnroma;12579905]The term transubstantiation was not used in early times, I think that the first known use of the term was in the 11th century. This takes nothing away from the truth of the word.

That is true, but every ECF who catechizes on the Eucharist, all of them are unanimous, when they write about a change that takes place in the Eucharist. Some even use such terms as “transform” very loosely. Yet all ECF’s describe the church’s definition of Transubstantiation without ever using the word.

I think we need to accept that we cannot and will not ever be able to understand the transubstantiation process.

NO one can define God’s Essence. Transubstantiation does not attempt to exhaust the mystery of God’s presence with a definition. The simple faith has no problem with Transubstantiation and do not need Transubstantiation, to believe in Jesus true presence in Eucharist. Ask the seven year olds who are receiving their first holy communion for the first time?

Transubstantiation process, only confirms that a substantial change has taken place in the bread and wine. Substance is the key word, the Church uses that relates to the mystery of the Eucharistic presence of Jesus body and blood. She officially teaches that the “Substance” of Change cannot be measured or quantified. The Church does not relate Substance to the carnal understanding of things which can be measured and weighed.

Substance by the Church’s mind, who teaches with the mind of Christ with Transubstantiation remains a mystery. Just as God’s Essence is hidden (mystery) in the Presence of Jesus (God incarnate) when Jesus walked the earth, yet Jesus is fully God and fully human in the presence of His Apostles.

The Orthodox churches tend not to use it, yet their belief is the same as ours in the Eucharist.

Yes, the Orthodox believe the same as we do in Eucharist without ever using the Term of Transubstantiation that a (substance) Change takes place in the bread and wine, into the (substance) of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity. It is here, where Transubstantiation need not be rejected or objected too, when it never adds or changes to our Apostolic faith of the true and real presence of Jesus body and blood in Eucharist.

If it is something we really cannot understand - why try to explain it?

Because man’s intellect and scientific advances of understanding contested, objected, denied and rejected the Eucharist with it’s new knowledge that shook the faith as being fictional and superstitious. Transubstantiation became the battle cry which defeated these great secular minds with their own understanding and silenced them. Leaving the True presence of the Eucharist as Rock unchanged in the Apostolic faith. Where is the science community today who protested against our Eucharist?

**Transubstantiation humbles the wisdom of the secular world, that attacks our faith, using science, nature to protest against our faith in Jesus real presence revealed in Eucharist. Science asked the Church for her reason of hope and faith in Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist. The Catholic church responded with “Transubstantiation”./B] The Science community refrained from insulting, writing books and articles against our Eucharistic faith. When they are met with Transubstantiation.

Why not have faith, and believe, believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ

.
The Orthodox already believe as we Latin Catholic’s do in the real presence of Jesus body and blood without needing the term Transubstantiation. Because their Orthodox faith in the blessed Sacrament does not object to transubstantiation.

Faith is a gift from God. Transubstantiation can help the faith of those intellectuals who are ruled by the laws of nature.

Lutherans that I have engaged with here, possess an apostolic faith of the real presence, without the Church’s understanding of transubstantiation. When transubstantiation should never be a stumbling block to any faith holding to Jesus real and true presence in Eucharist. Symbolism has not graduated to transubstantiation.**

 

[Gorgias]

But when Jesus spoke of being eaten didn’t He say it was in a “Spiritual” sense?

No. He said that it is the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh; but he didn’t say “I didn’t mean ‘eat my body and drink my blood’.” There’s a subtle distinction there: the notion of ‘spirit and life’ comes in the context of Jesus’ response to the scandal of the disciples over His assertions of having come from heaven and being the source of life, not the command to “eat my flesh and drink my blood.” To take Jesus’ discussion about His relationship to the Father, and apply it back to His discussion about eating His flesh, is to make an error of context.

Eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ is what we do in Spirit and Truth, for the flesh profits nothing. Isn’t that Biblical?

Biblical, but cut-and-pasted: eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are Jesus’ commands (John 6:53); we worship in Spirit and Truth (cf John 4:24); our understanding of who is Christ’s father is a matter of Spirit, not of flesh (John 6:63). (After all, they had identified who Christ’s ‘father’ on earth was, back in v. 42, when they disputed that Jesus had come from heaven!)

If you want to mash together three phrases from two chapters and three distinct discourses, in an attempt to explain the Eucharist, that’s your business… but I’d suggest that you’ll end up with a mishmash of a result!

 

[billcu1]

No. He said that it is the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh; but he didn’t say “I didn’t mean ‘eat my body and drink my blood’.” There’s a subtle distinction there: the notion of ‘spirit and life’ comes in the context of Jesus’ response to the scandal of the disciples over His assertions of having come from heaven and being the source of life, not the command to “eat my flesh and drink my blood.” To take Jesus’ discussion about His relationship to the Father, and apply it back to His discussion about eating His flesh, is to make an error of context.

Biblical, but cut-and-pasted: eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are Jesus’ commands (John 6:53); we worship in Spirit and Truth (cf John 4:24); our understanding of who is Christ’s father is a matter of Spirit, not of flesh (John 6:63). (After all, they had identified who Christ’s ‘father’ on earth was, back in v. 42, when they disputed that Jesus had come from heaven!)

If you want to mash together three phrases from two chapters and three distinct discourses, in an attempt to explain the Eucharist, that’s your business… but I’d suggest that you’ll end up with a mishmash of a result!

Sounds like good 'ol Sola Scriptura!

 

[JonNC]

Sounds like good 'ol Sola Scriptura!

Actually, true sola scriptura would be found in The Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

Article X: Of the Holy Supper.

54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

The true sola scripturist first and foremost references scripture. Then, as is done by Melanchthon here, he supports scripture from the witness of Tradition - the Fathers of the Church (Vulgarius and Cyril in this case), and the historic Church, both East and West.

That’s how a sola scripturist defends the teaching.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

But when Jesus spoke of being eaten didn’t He say it was in a “Spiritual” sense? Eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ is what we do in Spirit and Truth, for the flesh profits nothing. Isn’t that Biblical?

Nope.

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to natural man. Man is a tripartite being composed of Spirit, Soul (or mind) and Body/Flesh. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving his revelation, and the mind/soul is the union of spirit and body. Here are some scriptures that illustrate this:

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [nephesh – soul].” (Genesis 2:7) (dust is the body, breath of life - pneuma - is the spirit, living being is the soul).

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing” otherwise his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

 

[billcu1]

Nope.

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to natural man. Man is a tripartite being composed of Spirit, Soul (or mind) and Body/Flesh. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving his revelation, and the mind/soul is the union of spirit and body. Here are some scriptures that illustrate this:

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [nephesh – soul].” (Genesis 2:7) (dust is the body, breath of life - pneuma - is the spirit, living being is the soul).

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing” otherwise his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

So your saying there is a difference in Jesus’ saying “my flesh” and “the flesh” as in “counts for nothing”. I have always heard the protestant version. An allegory. You say his flesh “Does count for something”. Can you elucidate on that?

Bill

 

[benjohnson]

So your saying there is a difference in Jesus’ saying “my flesh” and “the flesh” as in “counts for nothing”.

Bill

Perhaps look at John 6:54

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day

The ‘eat’ is a translation from the Greek ‘trogo’ - meaning to gnaw. It’s really strong language that (for me) takes it out of a metaphorical understanding.

 

[rinnie]

Hmm. I see how your response makes sense – “does the validity of the Eucharist depend on the belief of the priest in transubstantiation?” – but when I first read Mark’s post, I took it to mean, “does a person who wants to receive the Eucharist need to believe in transubstantiation?” That is, it seemed that Mark was asking whether an Anglican – who believes in the Real Presence, but not in transubstantiation – could receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

(The answer, of course, is ‘no’ – not on the basis of ‘transubstantiation’, per se, but on the basis of the belief in the Real Presence. I would ask what, exactly, an Anglican means by the “real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,” and suggest that, the differences found there (between Catholic and Anglican understandings of the real presence) are what make it impossible for Anglicans to be in Eucharistic Communion in the Catholic Church.)

Why would they want to? Would it not be better to be in a Church that you accept and believe everything they teach?

If not why would you be there? Should we not all believe that our Church is the Pilar of All truth and has it?

And to the best of my knowledge unless you have some kind of permission from a Bishop you cannot.

 

[rinnie]

But in a physical and very real sense it must actually be bread and wine? As you stated, it would have all of the effects of wine and bread when consumed.

I can also assume that if taken into testing it would have all of the elements of bread and wine? I know Catholics don’t deny this, so in a very real sense it truly is still bread and wine; even if it’s also Jesus in a Spiritual sense?

If this is true, why did many walk away from Jesus when he state unless you eat the flesh of Man you have no eternal life in you?

They knew quite well what he said, and even said he was insane. Judas even snapped when he heard this, and that is when the devil entered him.

And if this is true, why did he ask Peter if he wanted to leave also? Why did he not stop them and explain as you seem to be doing dronald?

RC do not teach as many Protestants do that bread and wine are a symbol. The RCC teaches it is the true body of Christ from heaven.

Although he still remains a mystery, only because God has not revealed this to us, we believe it is indeed the true Body and Blood of Christ not a symbol as you seem to be stating.

 

[dronald]

Regarding all of the responses; must we believe then that a taker in the Eucharist can never become hungry or thirsty?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So your saying there is a difference in Jesus’ saying “my flesh” and “the flesh” as in “counts for nothing”. I have always heard the protestant version. An allegory. You say his flesh “Does count for something”. Can you elucidate on that?

Bill

I did. I wrote:

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing” otherwise his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Jesus says “my flesh” when referring to the eating His body and drinking His blood.

He says “the flesh” when He explains why the Jews cannot understand with their human reasoning.

“The flesh” = “human reasoning”.

The Holy Spirit gives life by animating our understanding and faith so that we might see and accept the truth of what Jesus is saying; the flesh - our human reasoning - counts for nothing because cannot help us at this point.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Regarding all of the responses; must we believe then that a taker in the Eucharist can never become hungry or thirsty?

When the disciples left Jesus at the well in Samaria to get something for him to eat and returned with food finding Jesus speaking with a Samaritan Woman, Jesus informed the disciples that He had already eaten.

When we consume the Eucharist doing the Works of God, our thirst and hunger for all things natural we no longer thirst or hunger for. Our thirst and hunger for Truth that our flesh yearns for is fulfilled and quenched in the Spirit and Truth in Eucharist, in God’s presence.

In Eucharist fulfills and exceeds that which the flesh thirst and hungers for which pertains to the flesh, which avails nothing, when it is the Spirit which truly is He who sustains and gives life to our mortal bodies in present with the promise of eternal life.

For that thirst and hunger which pertains to the flesh returns to dust, that life which pertains to the spirit removes the thirst and hunger with eternal life.

Our humanity thirst’s and hungers in search for his creator God who is life. The Eucharist quenches our thirst and hunger pains, when we enter God’s true and real body and blood presence, in Spirit and Truth.

Peace be with you