/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>673443

The best summary of Catholic (and Orthodox/Oriental too, no matter how much they deny it) Eucharistic theology is "On Eucharist" part of Summa Theologiae. It was good enough for Christ after all.

But I do admit it's a bit long and you do need some framework to understand it. Nonetheless it's good and I could rephrase it for you.

So ask what you want about: the sacrament itself (73). The matter of this sacrament: its species (74), the transubstantiation (75), the real presence (76) and the accidents (77) of bread and wine. The form (78) and effects (79) of this sacrament. The recipient in general (80) and at its institution (81). The minister (82) and the rite (83) of this sacrament.

>>673448

Is the Seven Secrets of the Eucharist by Vinny Flynn any good?

>>673461

Quick note of veneration - it's about order, hierarchy. One of joys of heaven is that you know and fully accept for a certain fact "those people are below me, those people are above me". And God loves order, that's why we come to God not only directly but by mediators.

>inb4 "MUH TIMOTHY"

Understand what "one mediator" means. It's about Christ being man and God and not prayer.

But yeah, if you started thread you should at least be some more specific. What is that you don't understand or are not sure of when it comes to Eucharist?

>>673454

Never heard of but after quick search it seems ok

>>673480

>What is that you don't understand or are not sure of when it comes to Eucharist?

Real presence vs trabsubstantiation, and which is the one in the Bible. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

>>673469

>unambiguous parts of the entire Bible and somehow it's the one part that Protestants think is "just a metaphor".

A lot of the bible is allegorical.

>>673481

Well, Real Presence in its original and true form meant what Transubstantiation mean - that Christ (i.e. his substance - body, blood, soul and divinity) is really in Eucharist - there are no longer bread or wine here, just body and blood of Christ.

First came gnostics who denied it as a whole since they hated material world and couldn't concive thier delusions with fact that God is matterialy here with us in Eucharist. And then in middle ages some come who said that Eucharist cannot be Body of Christ because it cannot be empirically showed.

During Refromation Luther started to preach consubstantiation - he belived in Real presence, that Christ is substantially here in Eucharist but he also belived that bread remains - hence con-, both substances at once - and that Eucharist is Body of Christ only during service. And then came Calvin (or was it Zwingli) who said that Real Presence means that Christ is trurly but only spiritually present in Eucharist.

To futher understand Transubstantiation I really recomend two things. First is readding Summa especially Question 75 of Thrid part. It explains this doctrine profoundly. Articles to this questions are as fallows:

>Is the Body of Christ in this sacrament truly, or figuratively?

>Do the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the consecration?

>Is it annihilated?

>Is it changed into the body and blood of Christ?

>Do the accidents remain after the change?

>Does the substantial form remain there?

>Is this change instantaneous?

>By what words it may be suitably expressed?

Second is listening to or careful reading of great hymns Adoro te devote and Verbum Supernum Prodiens.

>>673501

I'd rather not cherry-pick based on which parts I'm comfortable with.

>>673509

>1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you;a do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

The bible only talks about remembering or calling to him when you eat or drink, where do you get the part of worshiping it?

>>673533

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

Eucharist IS Christ. Christ is worthy of worship.

>>673555

As a catholic…. lol

>>673555

America is Godforsaken

>>673555

lmao

>>673533

>where do you get the part of worshiping it?

John 6. Jesus makes it as clear as day. The people ask him outright "Uhhh 'eat your flesh'. That's cannibalism. You're just talking metaphorically, right?" and Jesus responds no, he's talking literally. What was the response?

>From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Some people were so disgusted at the idea that they turned their back on Jesus. There would be no reason to do that if Jesus was talking metaphorically. It's dumb as winnie the pooh to take everything in the Bible literally except the one part where Jesus himself said outright "This is not a metaphor. This is not a parable. You must eat my flesh and drink my blood to have life in you. Literally"

>>673555

Now that's spicy.

>>673615

They love to pretend that St. Paul isn't warning us of partaking of the Eucharist unworthily, even onto death.

>>673547

>>673615

>“This is My body, which is for you;a do this in remembrance of Me.”

Yes, he says to eat his body and drink his blood, literally. However how does that mean to put bread into something and treat it as God? That is no longer simply eating bread and drinking blood, you don't even eat the bread in the Eucharist, Or are you guys talking about communion?

>>673680

The Eucharist is what Protestants call communion, yes. You're talking about Eucharistic Adoration, which is recognizing the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and worshiping him. The Eucharist is his real body, therefore you should show the proper reverence and adoration as you're in the physical presence of Christ himself.

>>673742

>Are there any historical instances of this happening?

It happens every single day. The percentage of Catholics who regularly confess is in the single digits, so I would say the majority accept the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.

>COLLAPSE is not too strong a word. Fifty years ago, the great majority of Catholics in this country confessed their sins regularly to a priest. Confession, after all, is one of the seven Catholic sacraments. But now only 2 percent of Catholics go regularly to confession, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, a nonprofit organization affiliated with Georgetown University—and three-quarters of them never go, or go less than once a year

>Christ declares that the bread is his body. These words relate to a sacrament; and it must be acknowledged, that a sacrament consists of a visible sign, with which is connected the thing signified, which is the reality of it. It must be well known, on the other hand, that the name of the thing signified is transferred to the sign; and therefore, no person who is tolerably well acquainted with Scripture will deny that a sacramental mode of expression ought to be taken metonymically. [194] I pass by general figures, which occur frequently in Scripture, and only say this: whenever an outward sign is said to be that which it represents, it is universally agreed to be an instance of metonymy. If baptism be called the laver of regeneration, (Titus in. 5;) if the rock, from which water flowed to the Fathers in the wilderness, be called Christ, (1 Corinthians 10:4;) if a dove be called the Holy Spirit, (John 1:32;) no man will question but the signs receive the name of the things which they represent. How comes it, then, that persons who profess to entertain a veneration for the words of the Lord will not permit us to apply to the Lord's Supper what is common to all the sacraments?

>They are delighted with the plain and literal sense. Why then shall not the same rule apply to all the sacraments? Certainly, if they do not admit that the Rock was actually Christ, the calumny with which they load us is mere affectation. If we explain that the bread is called his body, because it is the symbol of his body, they allege that the whole doctrine of Scripture is overturned. For this principle of language has not been recently forged by us, but has been handed down by Augustine on the authority of the ancients, and embraced by all, that the names of spiritual things are improperly ascribed to signs, and that all the passages of Scripture, in which the sacraments are mentioned, ought to be explained in this manner. When we bring forward a principle which has been universally admitted, what purpose does it serve to raise a loud clamor, as if it were something new and strange? But let obstinate people cry out as they please, all men of sound judgment and modesty will admit, that in these words of Christ there is a sacramental form of expression. Hence it follows, that the bread is called his body, because it is a symbol of the body of Christ.

>>673748

I mean the Eucharist causing illness/death in those who partake in a state of mortal sin. I know people take it unworthily; I'm waiting to take even Protestant communion until I get past some habitual sins.

>>673680

>However how does that mean to put bread into something and treat it as God?

To use old Polish hymn:

The hidden Jesus I ought to worship in The Sacrament,

Give everything to Him, live by His love,

He gives us all of Himself, He lives with us here.

For His divine glory let us devote life to Him.

By faith, you need to humble yours senses and reason,

Because there is no more bread here, It's God, it's my Jesus.

You do not worship bread. There is no bread in Eucharist. Only Christ.

>>673688

>Cannibals

>Eating living and comple body and blood

>Eating soul

>eatign Divinity

Yeah, no. Read Justin's apology.

>>673748

As the Psalms prophesied, there will be those among Christ's flock who will sin unto death, yet God will not abandon Him or His flock.

>>673758

There is no such thing as a Protestant communion, and you're likely sinning if you do take it. It's a mockery of the authentic Eucharist.

>>673828

I'm not really even Apostolic. I'm technically protestant I guess, but from what I can see the apostolic version of the Eucharist is the one in the Bible.

>>673469

>It's one of the most straightforward, unambiguous parts of the entire Bible

Dude it's mentioned like three times. Faith alone and creation is literally hundreds

>>673470

Jesus wasn't a loaf of bread

>>673615

In the same chapter he also says that youbwill never hunger or thirst again. So can I just not drink water anymore.

>>673890

So when you go potty do you pee out blood?

>>673890

>>673895

Also since you seem to take that literally, Jesus said it is his flesh and blood, not it will become his flesh and blood after you eat it. So that would mean Jesus' blood is wine

>>673757

>This is my body - This represents my body. This broken bread shows the manner in which my body will be broken; or this will serve to recall my dying sufferings to your remembrance. It is not meant that his body would be literally "broken" as the bread was, but that the bread would be a significant emblem or symbol to recall to their recollection his sufferings. It is not improbable that our Lord pointed to the broken bread, or laid his hands on it, as if he had said, "Lo, my body!" or, "Behold my body! - that which "represents" my broken body to you." This "could not" be intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was not. His body was then before them "living." And there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his "living body" there changed at once to a "dead body," and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that all the while the "living" body of Jesus was before them.

>Yet this is the absurd and impossible doctrine of the Roman Catholics, holding that the "bread" and "wine" were literally changed into the "body and blood" of our Lord. The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover Exodus 12:11; "It" - that is, the lamb - "is the Lord's Passover." That is, the lamb and the feast "represent" the Lord's "passing over" the houses of the Israelites. It serves to remind you of it. It surely cannot be meant that that lamb was the literal "passing over" their houses - a palpable absurdity - but that it represented it. So Paul and Luke say of the bread, "This is my body broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." This expresses the whole design of the sacramental bread. It is to call to "remembrance," in a vivid manner, the dying sufferings of our Lord. The sacred writers, moreover, often denote that one thing is represented by another by using the word is. See Matthew 13:37; "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man" - that is, represents the Son of man. Genesis 41:26; "the seven good kine are seven years" - that is, "represent" or signify seven years. See also John 15:1, John 15:5; Genesis 17:10. The meaning of this important passage may be thus expressed: "As I give this broken bread to you to eat, so will I deliver my body to be afflicted and slain for your sins."

>>673885

>Faith alone is literally hundreds

Faith alone is mentioned two times. Once in James and once in Galatians. Both times it says it bulshit but this is not purpose of the thread.

>>673888

Spiritualy? Yes. Carnally? Also yes if God so wills. See Alexandrina da Costa

>>673886

And Eucharist in not Bread.

>>673895

Eucharist is Body and Blood of Christ under species of Bread and Wine. When there is no species there is no Eucharist. When Matter of Sacrament cease to be (it gets decomposed) there is no loger Sacrament.

>>673899

>Jesus said it is his flesh and blood

Yes.

>not it will become his flesh and blood after you eat it.

No one hold this opinion

>So that would mean Jesus' blood is wine

No. "This is my Blood" He said while holding Chalice of Wine. Wine become his Blood. Spices remained substance changed.

>>673917

>This "could not" be intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was not.

<Literally "I don't believe it so it's false"

Rest is too, laughable.

>>673797

>You do not worship bread. There is no bread in Eucharist. Only Christ.

Speaking about the Eucharistic Adoration, then it wouldn't fit with "This is My body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of Me.”.

>>673687

I used to be catholic, I've been to Eucharistic Adoration services, and have felt a strange presence from it, but there is no way to tell it what i am in front of is Jesus/God. With the utmost respect to my catholic brothers, I'm not saying there is no possibility of it being Christ, but there is no objective way to tell that that is God. If am wrong than may God show me the truth.

>>673758

>I mean the Eucharist causing illness/death in those who partake in a state of mortal sin.

I'd like to make a small Orthodox correction.

In the "big picture of the things" Illness and even death happen for the benefit of those who partake unworthily. Therefore, if someone is "weak", then God can decide to forgive him even if he partakes in a state of mortal sin. On the other hand, to someone who participates regularly in the Church services and fights against sin all the time, God can punish him with illness even if he partakes with a very small unrepentant sin. This is so because "the Lord disciplines those he loves" (Proverb 3:12).

>>673926

Consider the following:

>>673931

Sauce on the stealing pls.

>>673936

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

Desecration during a Black Mass

>A Black mass is a Satanic ritual designed to satirize or invert a traditional Catholic mass. Consecrated hosts are a common ingredient in black masses, becoming the subject of desecration. The hosts must first be stolen from the tabernacle of a Catholic church, and/or secreted away by people who are posing as parishioners taking communion.

>In 2014, the Dakhma of Angra Mainyu held a public black mass at the Oklahoma Civic Center[36] and planned to include the desecration of a consecrated host, which was to be "stomped on". That did not transpire: instead, the host was returned through an attorney after the archdiocese filed a lawsuit for its recovery.[37][38][39][40]

It's become easy for them to steal hosts since so many priests give communion on the hand nowadays.

Just google it, it's common knowledge they do this

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=satanists+stealing+hosts&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

>>673926

>Speaking about the Eucharistic Adoration, then it wouldn't fit with "This is My body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of Me.”.

How? If this is body of Christ then it's worthy of adoration.

>>673919

>Faith alone is mentioned two times.

https://8ch.net/christian/res/670892.html

>And Eucharist in not Bread

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

>bread

>No. "This is my Blood" He said while holding Chalice of Wine. Wine become his Blood. Spices remained substance changed.

So is what was inside Jesus wine? If he was literal when he said wine was his blood then he has wine inside of him. Same with was his flesh bread.

>>673975

>https://8ch.net/christian/res/670892.html

And nothing about faith alone here.

>bread

Since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, some of expressions may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that "bread is the body of Christ," or, "bread will be the body of Christ," or "the body of Christ is made of bread"; provided that by the word "bread" is not understood the substance of bread, but in general "that which is contained under the species of bread," under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.

>So is what was inside Jesus wine? If he was literal when he said wine was his blood then he has wine inside of him. Same with was his flesh bread.

Non sequiturs. If he was literal that there is his blood in his cup then it was his blood since he is God. It does not follow that blood in his veins was wine. It does follow that wine was transubstantiated into his blood since species remided.

Per St. Augustine, Psalm 88 has the promise and the prophecy that the sacraments and presence of the Lord within the authentic Catholic Church of Jesus Christ will remain inviolate despite the reprobates:

" He shall cry out to me: Thou art my father: my God, and the support of my salvation.

28 And I will make him my firstborn, high above the kings of the earth.

29 I will keep my mercy for him for ever: and my covenant faithful to him.

30 And I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven.

31 And if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments:

32 If they profane my justices: and keep not my commandments:

33 I will visit their iniquities with a rod: and their sins with stripes.

34 But my mercy I will not take away from him: nor will I suffer my truth to fail."

emphasis on lines 32-34

>>673955

>no you've rejected it the moment you decided that the Church was not authoritative and you could believe contrary to it's teachings.

The Hebrew and Greek translations of the word Church in the bible means an assembly of people, Why do you believe in an official church?

>>673968

>How?

Specifically speaking about the Eucharist Adoration. Because that's doing more than eating bread and remembering him, you're worshiping it, - for better or worse - it's doing something beyond what the passage says.

>>673929

That's a pretty compelling evedence for the Eucharist, thank you and saved.

>>673994

>And nothing about faith alone here.

>whosoever believeth

>Since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, some of expressions may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that "bread is the body of Christ," or, "bread will be the body of Christ," or "the body of Christ is made of bread"; provided that by the word "bread" is not understood the substance of bread, but in general "that which is contained under the species of bread," under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.

Nibba wat

>Non sequiturs. If he was literal that there is his blood in his cup then it was his blood since he is God. It does not follow that blood in his veins was wine. It does follow that wine was transubstantiated into his blood since species remided.

When the priest give you the blood of Christ to drink is what's in the cup actual human blood or wine? If it's wine then if you take that as literally being Christ's blood then you believe that the stuff in his veins was wine

>>674044

Nobody believes Christ's body is bread or His blood is wine; we believe that the appearance and accidentals of both bread and wine are leftover, but it is the true Presence of Jesus Christ, as He told His disciples at the last supper, and literally prophesied dozens of times in the OT and NT.

It all comes to this: Do you have faith in Jesus Christ? The Apostles believed and taught in the divine Eucharist, and perpetuated the belief that those who know and do not partake, shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

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.

The Church acknowledges that in inculpable ignorance, there are those who will enter Heaven having never taken communion on Earth, but they shall take communion in Heaven.

>>674047

>Nobody believes Christ's body is bread or His blood is wine; we believe that the appearance and accidentals of both bread and wine are leftover, but it is the true Presence of Jesus Christ, as He told His disciples at the last supper, and literally prophesied dozens of times in the OT and NT

Well when you get the wine to drink is it Jesus' literal blood?

>It all comes to this: Do you have faith in Jesus Christ? The Apostles believed and taught in the divine Eucharist,

The only apostle thatvtalked about it was Paul.

>and perpetuated the belief that those who know and do not partake, shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven: 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.

Good job not posting the next verse

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

If you take that as taking communion then you only would have to do it once and you're saved forever.

Whatvhe probably means by itbis like in verse 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

>>674054

>Well when you get the wine to drink is it Jesus' literal blood?

After consecration, yes.

>The only apostle thatvtalked about it was Paul.

Yes, because those are the epistles we have left to us, do you need more Apostle's words to believe? Every ancient (authentic) church practiced the Eucharist.

>If you take that as taking communion then you only would have to do it once and you're saved forever.

And where does Christ say this? Where is OSAS ever taught, even in regards to sacraments? The fight against sin will not end until we are dead, then we are judged.

>Whatvhe probably means by itbis like in verse

Then why did Christ allow the disciples to leave? Why did St. Paul say that condemnation is in whomever eats and drinks and does not believe? All for a parable? You believe this, truly?

>>673895

This is a common misunderstanding. The matter of the bread and wine does not change, the substance does.

>>673443

>Protestants, explain to me (using Biblical sources) what your denomination teaches about the LORD's supper.

I'm not a protestant and I don't affiliate with modern denominations because of 1 corinthians 1:12-13 and 1 corinthians 3:3-7. But here's the truth out of the Bible so that you can take the part in john 6 literally. Jesus is supposed to be at the right hand of God until His enemies are made His footstool i.e hebrews 1:3. Which means his literal physical flesh and blood can't be upon earth or it would make Him not sitting at the right hand of God. So that's why john 6:55,63

>For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

>It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 corinthians 10:1-4

>MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

>And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

>And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

>And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

and hebrews 5:13-14

>For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

>But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Jesus's flesh being meat indeed and us being told to eat it while His words are spirit and are life has everything to do with hebrews 5:14's strong meat compared to the word of righteousness in hebrews 5:12-13. Especially so if you compare these posts >>674092 >>674190 against this

>>674231

>Which means his literal physical flesh and blood can't be upon earth or it would make Him not sitting at the right hand of God

Uh, you know Jesus is God right? You think it's impossible for God to be in two places at once?

>>674232

>do you think it is impossible for God to be in two places at once?

No, I didn't say that. I said that Jesus, the flesh and Spirit image of God, is sitting at the right hand of God the father until His enemies are made His footstool as said in hebrews 1:3

>Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

If Jesus isn't sitting at the right hand of God then revelation has started as for Jesus to return for His day, the day of the Lord. To suggest otherwise is to deny hebrews 1:3 or that revelation isn't going to happen, both of which would make you a liar.

>>674235

To clarify me going on about sitting at the right hand of God see psalms 110:1

>THE LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Jesus, the Lord, sat at the right hand of God, the LORD, after ascending to heaven in the end of the books of matthew, mark, luke, and john, as recorded by hebrews 1:3.

>>674235

>I said that Jesus, the flesh and Spirit image of God, is sitting at the right hand of God

True. He also exists in the Eucharist, as he made very clear in John 6.

>>674242

Jesus' words are spirit they are life, the flesh profiteth nothing. Which means no amount of eating physical food is going to do your spirit any good. That's why you eat spiritual food, the Word of God that speaks the word of righteousness/word of God.

>>674258

Yackety yak, you can talk all you want, the Lord has shown us many times the real presence is a thing. It's completely ridiculous to even argue about it.

>Legnica, Poland - On December 25, 2013, during the distribution of the Holy Communion, a consecrated host fell to the floor and then was picked up and placed in a water-filled container (vasculum). Soon after, stains of red color appeared.

>In the histopathological image, the fragments of tissue have been found containing the fragmented parts of the cross striated muscle. (…) The whole (…) is most similar to the heart muscle with alterations that often appear during the agony. The genetic researches indicate the human origin of the tissue.

>inb4 'it was teh devil'

>>674263

You seem to imply that revelation is happening for Jesus to have come back to earth as not sitting at the right hand of God. But very very clearly revelation 6:11 has not happened as a pre-requisite for revelation. So i'm going to believe the word of God over your witness as stated in 1 john 5:9

>If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

Thou art a liar, or the people providing said witness are liars, and what God says in His word the Bible is true.

>>674266

Depriving yourself of the True Presence of Jesus Christ is bad, using Sacred Scripture to justify it is worse. Repent before it's too late.

>>674033

> Because that's doing more than eating bread and remembering him

Eucharist is eating bread in only two senses. First is that spices of bread remained in sacrament. But objectively speaking there is no bread here since substance of bread is no longer here - only Christ. Second is that Christ is Living Bread. That's the only two senses in which Eucharist is bread.

And I ask again - if Eucharist is Christ under what pretext he is not worthy of adoration? Is Latria not to be ofered to God only and always?

>>674044

>whosoever believeth

And nothing about faith alone here.

>Nibba wat

<Since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread

In Eucharist substance, i.e. what thing really is, of bread is gone. But accidents of Bread, i.e. things that are not necessary to bread to be bread like shape, taste, look - everything that you an emprically test - remain.

Rest does not need further explanation I think.

>When the priest give you the blood of Christ to drink is what's in the cup actual human blood or wine?

<Being hussite

It's actual human blood (and body, and soul and divinity) under spices of wine.

> If it's wine then if you take that as literally being Christ's blood then you believe that the stuff in his veins was wine

Good thing it's not wine but actual blood under species of wine.

>>674231

>Which means his literal physical flesh and blood can't be upon earth or it would make Him not sitting at the right hand of God

Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.

>>674258

>Jesus' words are spirit they are life, the flesh profiteth nothing.

By flesh here Jesus meant fleshy understanding which you now express. If you had a grain of faith you would see that "my words" which are "spirit and truth" are those: "This is my Body, this is my blood: However eat my body and drink my blood have life everlasting"