When we receive Comunion, are we consuming the Virgin Mary as well?

[graceandglory]

Since Jesus has no human father, if we thought His DNA was only his Mother’s, that would make Him a clone, not a twin, wouldn’t it?** I am sure the Holy Spirit came up with something else, and His DNA was uniquely His own**, although He inherited some from His Mother. These are things not really productive to speculate on too much though.

WOW! My mind has blown!!!
:hypno:
Jesus is Son of Adam.
He is the New Adam.
He would have the same DNA as Mary and ADAM.

 

[Richca]

The problem here is the lack of understanding of transubstantiation. Yes, Christ is really, truly, substantially present in the Eucharist, but it is a sacramental presence. It is a miracle we cannot truly understand.

The substance of the Eucharist, what it really is, is Christ’s Body and Blood, while the accidents-what it appears to be -are bread and wine. You will not find Christ’s DNA in the transubstantiated Body and Blood, just as you will not find actual blood cells and tissue cells.

And never do we think that Mary is present in the Eucharist, although the poster didn’t mean any harm.

The body that Jesus now has in heaven is the same body that he had earth, it is a body of flesh and blood, though now immortalized and spiritualized. Since the eucharist contains or is the body and blood of the risen Christ, I see no reason why you wouldn’t find actual blood cells, tissue cells, and even DNA in it. How can you have blood without blood cells or how can you have flesh without tissue cells? Jesus said, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I though that it was “Co-redemtrix” not “co-redeemer” and that has not even been declared yet. “Co redeemer” makes it sound like Mary is also our savior besides Jesus.

And no, never though about eating Marys flesh. Sounds like a lot of mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion to me actually.

“Redemptrix” is simply the feminine form of redeemer.

 

[Gorgias]

TSince the eucharist contains or is the body and blood of the risen Christ,

It doesn’t “contain” the body and blood of Christ, it is the body and blood of Christ, sacramentally present.

I see no reason why you wouldn’t find actual blood cells, tissue cells, and even DNA in it.

Because it’s sacramentally present, not physically present. The physical accidents are, all of the them, the accidents of bread and wine.

How can you have blood without blood cells or how can you have flesh without tissue cells?

Because it’s a sacramental presence.

 

[TimothyH]

The reason I brought that up is that there was so much discussion of DNA and the reception of Jesus in the Eucharist. The two are separate. DNA was in the body of Christ on earth, not the Body received in Eucharist.

Evan is correct.

It is the real presence of Christ, not the physical presence of Christ.

It is the entire substance of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It is not the physical Body and physical Blood of Christ.

I am ready to be called a heretic now.

-Tim-

 

[ConstantineTG]

The reason I brought that up is that there was so much discussion of DNA and the reception of Jesus in the Eucharist. The two are separate. DNA was in the body of Christ on earth, not the Body received in Eucharist.

Yes, but your reproach of me is unnecessary. I am well informed in the matter from Catechism and Church teachings.
However a number of those who posted on this thread have spoken of DNA. I realize there seems to be some failure to understand transubstantiation which after all is a divine mystery as CB Catholic remarked. It is not easy for any of us to understand divine mysteries.

It is strange how often people read into others words what they do not say.
I did not defend discussion of DNA, I defended Evan as not being alone in the discussion as others have discussed DNA prior to him in this thread. It was unfair to him to be singled out and I defend people when I feel that they are unfairly singled out. There is a distinction between defending a person, than in agreeing with their points. The DNA discussion had be going for pages, and is not one I would focus upon in any case, because it can muddy understanding the true divine mystery of transubstantiation.

My reminder would simply be that when the priest offers us the sacred host, he says, “The Body of Christ”, mentioning no other person. When he says the word of Consecration he speaks in Person of Christ, not in the name of any other person.

Kindly, Trishie

Reproch is such a strong word

The problem here is that Transubstantiation was thought up not to be used in such discussion. We are leading ourselves to such a huge pitfall here by overthinking what is taught by inserting other things that wasn’t part of the context of what was originally taught. If we say DNA is there and some scientist puts the Eucharist to a DNA test and finds no human DNA there, what now? We abandon our faith? Transubstantiation is a philosophical explanation to the Eucharist, nothing more.

 

[Richca]

It doesn’t “contain” the body and blood of Christ, it is

the body and blood of Christ, sacramentally present.

Hello Gorgias, I think we have had this discussion before. I will have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the eucharist though. In the Baltimore Catechism, question 343 says “What is the Holy Eucharist” The answer: “The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received.” By divine power, the whole body of Christ is contained in a little host, even a little particle of the host. And not only that, Christ’s divinity is in the little host and every little particle of the host or the blood.

Because it’s sacramentally present, not physically present. The physical accidents are, all of the them, the accidents of bread and wine.

 

[Gorgias]

Hello Gorgias, I think we have had this discussion before.

LOL… yes, we have!

I will have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the eucharist though. In the Baltimore Catechism, question 343 says “What is the Holy Eucharist” The answer: “The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received.”

In your Baltimore Catechism, what does question 344 say? In the 1891 version I referenced, I read:

Q. 870. What is the Holy Eucharist?
A. The Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament which contains the body and blood, soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine.
Q. 871. What do we mean when we say the Sacrament which contains the Body and Blood?
A. When we say the Sacrament which contains the Body and Blood, we mean the Sacrament which is the Body and Blood, for after the Consecration there is no other substance present in the Eucharist.

So… when we say ‘contains’, we mean ‘is’.

Jesus Christ is present whole and entire not accidentally but substantially

Right. Not in physical accidents, but in substance.

The physical accidents of bread and wine mean virtually nothing in the eucharist.

Hmm… I would disagree. The physical accidents are now joined to the substance of Christ. The physical accidents are a participation in the real and sacramental presence of Christ, although they maintain the appearance of bread and wine.

By a divine miracle, the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ though it appears to look like bread and wine.

Nitpicking, but the consecrated bread and wine become (not are) Christ. They are no longer bread and wine.

I think we’re trying to say the same thing, although we get hung up on how ‘real’ and ‘sacramental’ doesn’t mean ‘physical’ (in terms of physical accidents).

So yes, Jesus is **physically **present in the eucharist which is why we give the worship of latria to it.

Hopefully, I’m not going off the rails with this (and I’m sure I’ll be told about it if I do), but… the Eucharist is a physical reality (that is, it’s not just a spiritual reality), and the presence of Christ exists in the Eucharist. This presence is real and sacramental. The ‘physical’ part, though, are the accidents… which are physically indistinguishable from the accidents of bread and wine.

 

[Richca]

LOL… yes, we have!

Quote: originally from Richca
The physical accidents of bread and wine mean virtually nothing in the eucharist.

 

[slotty]

Since Jesus has no human father, if we thought His DNA was only his Mother’s, that would make Him a clone, not a twin, wouldn’t it? I am sure the Holy Spirit came up with something else, and His DNA was uniquely His own, although He inherited some from His Mother. These are things not really productive to speculate on too much though.

Umm I think you missed the keyword of example.

I was using twins as an example of identical dna, blood types etc to show that whilst genetically they may be the same they are two separate entities.

The O.P brought up blood types and DNA etc etc. But you are right no point speculating especially as the conception of Jesus was miraculous in and of itself and miracles kind of defy conventional norms of this universe.

 

[Gorgias]

However, I don’t know where you get that the accidents of bread and wine after transubstantiation are joined to the substance of Christ. St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica Part 3, Q. 77, Art. 1, says that the accidents remain in the Holy Eucharist without a subject, i.e., they are not subjected in the substance of Christ’s body and blood.

Hmm… isn’t that odd…! I recall it as saying exactly the opposite! Thanks for the correction!

Also, I would like to ask, if Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist, how is it that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ?

Well, first off, they’re no longer ‘bread’ and ‘wine’. Rather, they’re the ‘body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ’ under the accidents of bread and wine.

I’m not sure what you’re asking, though. Christ is ‘substantially’ present, and ‘truly’ and ‘really’ present, but not ‘physically’ present. Doesn’t Thomas talk about Christ being present as in substance but not as in accidents? That is, he’s there in form but not in matter?

As far as Christ being contained in the eucharist, St Thomas Aquinas writes about this in the Summa Theologica Part 3, Q. 76, Art. 1.

Hmm. III.76.1 deals with whether Christ is wholly in the sacrament. And yes, Christ is wholly in the sacrament. Am I missing something?

As far as the Baltimore Catechism I quoted from earlier, it is the St Joseph Baltimore Catechism No. 2, Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1969-1962.

And in your version, does the next question discuss what “contains” means – that is, that “contains” means “is”?

 

[Richca]

Hi Gorgias,

Quoteriginally from Richca
Also, I would like to ask, if Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist, how is it that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ?

 

[Gorgias]

You appear to think that transubstantiation implies a formal change of substance only. For example, the substantial form of bread but not the matter is changed into the substantial form of Christ’s body. Thus, the consecrated bread would have the form of Christ’s body but the matter of the bread. This is not the meaning of transubstantiation. The correct meaning of transubstantiantion is that the whole substance of the bread, i.e., the form and matter, is changed into the whole substance of the body of Christ, i.e., the form and matter of Christ’s body.

Hmm… ok – form changes, matter changes, accidents of matter stay the same?

The form of the bread is changed into the form of Christ’s body and the matter of the bread is changed into the matter of Christ’s body. The whole substance of the wine, matter and form, is changed into the whole substance of Christ’s blood, the matter and form.

OK – this, at least, I can say sounds wrong. Even Thomas talks about it – the body and blood aren’t separated, but are present in each of the host and Precious Blood.

For the moment, I’ve gotta run… I’ll come back to this later…!!!

 

[Richca]

Hmm… ok – form changes, matter changes, accidents of matter stay the same?

No, how can they? The whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of the body of Christ and likewise with the wine and blood. The body and blood of Christ possess their own accidents that are distinct from the accidents of the bread and wine. However, by a divine miracle, after consecration, the accidents of the bread and wine remain without a subject and without matter.

Quote: originally from Richca
The form of the bread is changed into the form of Christ’s body and the matter of the bread is changed into the matter of Christ’s body. The whole substance of the wine, matter and form, is changed into the whole substance of Christ’s blood, the matter and form.