The Eucharist (Aquinas 101) 

May Our Lord and his most holy mother keep you strong in your search for the truth, God bless.

Thank you, God bless!

@@ThomisticInstitute Amen!

There is a low gluten option but it is not entirely gluten free. Receiving our Lord in the species of wine from a cup not used by congregants who receive the usual species of bread may be the safest option. One drop of Our Lord's Blood still contains the whole of His body, blood, soul, and divinity.

I think maybe because deification has more to do with Grace in general and not just the Eucharist. And also because deification as a word is not exactly in the jargon of St. Thomas Aquinas (though what the concept means is present in the Summa and in this video).

I hope this helps! "He also made the point that the Church only believed the spiritual transformation until it called a council to change it's doctrine." I wonder at what period of the Church. 🤔 "We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving." - Justin Martyr, roughly 155 A.D (roughly 122 years after the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.)

You can also ask: if that is only spiritual, why did his audience considered it as a hard saying? Then at the end why do the other disciples still left Him?

So Christ meant to say his flesh is of no avail??? 🤔 Surely not.

If you read the early Christian writers, the Fathers of the Church, you find that they believed in the real (physical) presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The anger and despise on the Most Blessed Sacrament is obviously abnormal. Keep searching for Jesus, my friend. Jesus gives his life bodily so as to give it spiritually to us. But as He is the God incarnate, the understanding of the real presence must not betray the mystery of Incarnation. The passage you mentioned was not a disposal of the flesh (as in some kind of depreciation, what would be strongly contradictory and against the context), but an affirmation that the changing of substance (of the species) of bread and wine is accessible to us only through faith and and not through the perception of our bodily senses. St Thomas Aquinas “Adoro te Devote” Eucharistic hymn sings it explicitly (‘Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur/ Sed auditu solo tuto creditur’: _”Sight, touch, taste are all deceived in their judgment of you/ But hearing suffices firmly to believe”_ ). The Pastor is just getting it all wrong, my friend. In the strength of the Holy Spirit, whenever consecrated bread was said to be the signal of the Presence in the Old Testament in a somewhat scattered way, the New Covenant fulfills it in the Eucharist, the True Bread of Life, the True Bread from heaven: Jesus, by delivering his own earthly life to the Father for our sins, gave his body and blood (signals of life in the Old Testaments) so that we can partake in the communion with Him in the deepest sense. Terminating all inefficacious sacrifice of Jewish Law, Jesus took all sacrifices into his own body and made it the only perfect one (Hebrew 7, 27), abolishing sacrificialism. When Jesus preached about the Eucharist in the Cafarnaum synagogue (John 6, 22-66), the emphasis that there he did not speak symbolically about His body and His blood was a cause for striking scandals; here, by the way, it is the ONLY passage documented in the Sacred Scriptures in which discipleship people abandoned him for simply not accepting the preaching (John 6, 66), such is the loathing that aroused when the communicated Eucharistic message to be held on the Last Supper. In emblematic preaching, he proclaimed to the faithful that everyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood “has eternal life” (John 6, 54). It would be simple to assume that the language proposed a symbolic use for flesh and blood, with the note that such a thesis would not cause the scandal and would already bequeath, without trauma, an “offer of mental doctrinal confort” accessible to all. In John 3, 3-15, when Nicodemus asked how could one be born again returning to mother’s womb, Jesus of course showed that the language was symbolic, and to be born again of WATER and SPIRIT was a clear reference of sacramental baptism. In three chapters later, symbolic language was not the case: Jesus goes on to explain it even more explicitly. His flesh is, in fact, truly eaten, and His blood, truly drunk, as real food and drink (John 6, 55). This was said all in context *four times in an increasing order of clarity*. Three chapters earlier the metaphorical language was explained on being born again. Here Our Lord is not only stick to denotative language, but even more clarifying and insistent. Realize that the Scriptures bring passages with vehement condemnation for the Jews to eat the flesh by sipping their blood (Gen 9: 2-4); therefore, it would certainly be known to Jesus that the disciples would assimilate the preaching to a blasphemous prescription about something banned, or even to the doctrinal defense of a rude anthropophagy. Why did Jesus, who knew all the Scriptural writings, being the One to whom the Scriptures came to testify (John 5, 39), did not give them a sweet warm clarification? The Bible was unquestionable here: Jesus simply knew Truth would scandalize his hearers (John 6, 61) and beforehand he knew those who would not BELIEVE (John 6, 64), instituting the Most Blessed Sacrament through which he announced His real presence, and by this way, differentiates the believers, those who eat his flesh and drink his blood - that is, the men in whom Christ remains, and thus remain in Christ, obtaining eternal life (John 6, 54.56) -, from the unbelievers (John 6, 53). Disposing of this sanctifying grace, people simply puts their souls to risk. Actually, if anyone with mortal sin eats the body and blood of the Lord, that not only means an unfruitful disposition to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament, but a grave sacrilege: _“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord”_ (1 Corinthians 11, 27). This can only be explained by the real and substantive presence in those strict physical elements of the Sacred Body of Christ, despite the preserved material accidents, because no one can be condemned of vilipending boiled wheat or fermented grape juice. Not only this, but a serious consciousness in faith is demanded: _“Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. _*_For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves”_* . Greetings from 🇧🇷 Brazil.

that was written to bishops of a church who participate in the eucharist...Paul hast a verse mentioning how to properly eat the body and flesh of jesus in the same letter

@@datboi6066 Where? Communion is mentioned in 1 Corinthians but I don't see it in Ephesians.

Basic Christology. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity assumed our human nature in the undivided hypostatic. What cannot be assumed cannot be saved. In turn, Jesus offers us participation into His divinity by our consumption of His body, blood, soul, and Divinity. Not only we become united with the other members of the Body of Christ, but we are being deified to share in His divine life. Not as new gods, but in our union with Him.

*hypostatic union

Um, you don't understand Catholic theology. We do not re-sacrifice the Lord. The Mass is a participation in the one sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. This is the same as on Passover, when Jews answer the question, "why do we eat bitter herbs and unleavened bread?" The response is (to this day): "It is for what God did for me, as He led me out of Egypt." (I'm paraphrasing the Q&A). Passover is a participation of the saving act of the exodus. Mass - the new passover - is a participation in the one sacrifice of Christ. We don't re-sacrifice Christ.

@@kdmdlo I know Catholicism. I know Catholicism because I know my Lord and Savior. This is how I know that the original church has fallen into error. I read, discern and pay attention to the only source of God’s word. The entire letter of Hebrews slaps Rome in the face.

@@bobbyrice2858 Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion ... but not entitled to different facts. You asserted that The Church "re-sacrifices" ... and that is simply not true. But you bring up an interesting point. You say that "I read and pay attention ..." but how do you know that YOUR interpretation is correct? By what divine authority are you spared from interpretation errors? You claim to know - but couldn't you be wrong?

@@kdmdlo you ask how i know my interpretation is correct and which authority says so. Ok, so, my one true authority over me is Christ. Hes my high priest, mediator and savior. The Gospel is his authority. As a believer in Jesus, the holy spirit resides within me, guiding me, chastising me and molding me. The word of God is the final and ONLY authority i adhere to. My indwelt spirit confirms the word of Hod (scripture) by means of conviction. I read contextually vs dogmatic inflation of snippet verses in scripture lime Rome does with John 6, 1 cor 6, Rev 12 and so on. Scriptures word is revealed to me by the holy spirit. Its only possible by the spirit. Romans 8:9 ESV You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. If i were an unbeliever then my mind would be set on the flesh as an enemy to God. Romans 8:7 ESV For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. So, in believe and true radical transformed change we believers are ALL gifted the ability to understand scripture. The church is not a organization of authoritative bishops, priests and popes. Gods word speaks against this. Jesus said: Matthew 23:8 ESV But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And Matthew 23:10-11 ESV Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. [11] The greatest among you shall be your servant. This is Romes problem. Rome unilaterally and consistently rejects the Gospel today for its tradition. Believers are no linger blind to the word of God. Paul, speaking of unbelievers said: “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” So, in summery, if you made it this far lol ;) ….true salvation is a spirit change, we leave the desires of the flesh and exist in the convicted stare of the spirit in Christ. In christ we possess the supernatural ability to be taught by the holy spirit. Church leadership is ONLY for guiding the masses in sanctification by the word of God. The Word of God is in only one place. The TORAH and its echo, the NT gospel which ALL WERE in circulation ling before Rome. The Torah 2000 years prior and the NT gospel and letters before 70AD. IF you read the TORAH you will exit Rome if your heart is set on Christ vs his “church”. The true church are the believers in Christ. Not a formal organizational presence. Thats why the pillar and foundation is the masses of believers together as the body (plural/symbolic) OF( belonging) Christ. We as the Body promote THE TRUTH which is scripture. the truth is scripture, not the church.

@@kdmdlo 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 ESV The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [15] The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. [16] "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Notice no mention of church interpretive necessity. You wont find a single passage saying different. Rome had to invent such a notion.

I love the Church He founded ... the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Pax Christi!

People can love whatever they want. God does not love the Roman Catholic church that's why He calls it foolish church and a whore in the book of Revelation! @@kdmdlo

You need to study biochemistry. You got everything wrong except the part about it being carbs. And even that is wrong from a spiritual perspective.

@@GrislyAtoms12 you shit it into the toilet...you shit..jesus..i mean..christ..

@@GrislyAtoms12 do sheep eat shepherds??? Revelations on the john has acurrately predicted the holey poo feces will come true...

@@GrislyAtoms12 dont forget to wipe and admire...jesus...

@@GrislyAtoms12 jesus turned bread..into a feast... I can out miracle jesus... I can turn christ into shit... Christ=r,c,shit Rc(phonetic) shit Arse shit... Tada!!! So can you... And dont forget to wipe....