Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist


You mean kinda like St Peter let an abuse occur?

There was abuses. I will be the last person to act as though clergy are some sort of “above it all” super Christian. They arent. And the moment we attempt to put them in some sort of “immune to abuse” class, we will quickly be let down!

They are Christians just like you and I, with even more potential to be deceived and targeted for temptation!

They need our support and patience, our prayers and responsibility. They need us to rely on them as little as possible!


Holy Communion is claiming, professing and participating in fidelity to Jesus.


Jesus subjected Himself by His Divine will to suffer in His humanity. Jesus demonstrates this when He takes the disciples with Him to Gethsemane and begins to suffer. His final kenosis begins in the garden. He opens Himself, He bares naked His soul bereft of Divine assistance to the assaults of evil for the consequence of sin. The sins of His Body of which we are members.

This suffering is human in every way because He denies Himself any consolation but allows the consequence of our sin assault His soul, emptied and in a state no different than our human soul deserves, suffering the assault of sin.

He begins shedding blood not from His flesh but from His soul. He recoils from the experience of this assault so much more than we ever would. We are familiar with the consequence of sin on our soul He wasn’t. The kind of death that comes with it was so much more foreign to Him as well. In His humanity, He experiences what is natural and He recoils from the experience of sin and death. He prays to the Father because He naturally recoils from the terrors of sin and a torturous death. His prayer is not answered. He is denied Divine help.

Isaiah 53:10
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.
When you make his life an offering for sin,

On the cross Jesus suffered in obedience to His father’s will. His Father’s pleasure was that He suffer what in His humanity He recoiled from and prayed not to have to do. When the moment approached, the moment that any human instinctively avoids as long as possible, His soul barren of any heavenly support from the assaults of Satan and the consequences of sin, His body having suffered the same at the hands of evil men, Jesus experiences the natural human horror of death and being abandoned to the consequences of sin by His Father.

Mark 15
33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land[h] until three in the afternoon. 34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[i] 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah.” 36 And someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 37 Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.

The experience of abandonment was entirely human and natural. It began in the garden and was confirmed by His unanswered prayer to the Father. The human suffering of Christ included the father’s will to abandon Him to the consequences of sin and death at the hands of evil men and the assaults of the fallen spirits to His soul.

The Love for His father is expressed in obedience to His Father’s will. The will that He obeyed but prayed that it could change. The Father was pleased to abandon His Son to the consequences of sin.
I can’t comprehend that kind of love.


I don’t see this as the result of complicating the consecration. This was the result of not understanding that the double edged sword of the Word of God was being consumed. All the sacraments are death birth realities but the Eucharist manifested that reality physically.


not sure i stated this.

not sure i said that either (that His divine nature became sin)

Correct, i stated it wrong. perhaps. it does not say the Father turned away explicitly , but it is implied by Jesus , that at least that is how Jesus felt…per His own words, “why have you forsaken me”…of course He was not forsaken, never the less His suffering was more that just physical, but down to the souls of His manhood…nothing to do with physical…twas an inner thing…due to the sin that was upon Him…temporarily.…but Jesus not only took on the consequences of sin, He took on sin Himself temporarily…and feeling forsaken temporarily.…not sure if that is what you mean the CC denies…in OT not only did the lamb die(consequence), but before the priest killed the animal on the altar , the repentant sinner would lay his hand on the animal as if to transfer his sin to the previously and otherwise unblemished, unsinful animal. The sin had to be transferred to the lamb.

agree if you mean the death that comes from sin “wages”, as separation from God.

Paul seems to intimate that being disembodied is a blissful thing , to be with the Lord (cleansed from sin)…This is not what Christ was, but was covered in sin, and still quite alive.


Yes, that is why we want to Remember.


I believe in His humanity He felt the death of the OT. His soul was a glorified soul and the consequences of sin I think were that much more repulsive and horrifying. I think at the moment it parted the suffering of sin was complete.


the consequence of sin , or the consequence of taking on sin, the sin that was laid upon Him?


The assault of of Satan upon His soul the consequences of sin at the hands of men on His Body. We are His Body and our sin He suffered for. As His members. The assault of evil spirits on His soul available to them since His final kenosis began and was bereft of all protection.


well, i would have to study it further, again. But words have meaning and Christ did ask why He was forsaken. It is form Christs perspective , and as answered in previous post twas a temporary sentiment, but not to be dismissed , so as to appreciate the agony, that was more than physical (which started this post, that His suffering was only physical) that our sin did cost Him.

Of course Christ knew the future and trusted the Father, yet the words do give window to the temporary but real situation of taking on sin, and its pain of some kind of separation


So did “He who knew no sin, become sin” ? Was it laid upon Him ?


No. I see His body and soul suffered the consequences of sin. The evil spirits hated Him. His Soul was laid bare to their hateful assault. His Body given over to hateful assault of evil men. That’s how I see He bore our sin.


No. I don’t think Augustine was referring to certain Christian churches where they had valid apostolic succession and the real Eucharist as opposed to other Christian churches that did not have valid apostolic succession and a Eucharist that was “fake.” My post was in response to guanophore’s analysis to Augustine’s writing. This is what I understood her to be saying about it, but I was trying to get clarification.

I think that Augustine was contrasting “press[ing] the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visible with his teeth” as opposed to ‘dwelling in Christ and having Christ dwell in him.’ The latter is what Augustine believed was meant by John 6:53. Consuming the sacrament of the body and blood could be done by those who do not eat His flesh. Augustine believed that these verses in John 6 were to be taken spiritually and not literally. Remember his writing on Christian doctrine where he explained that John 6:53 was figurative and not literal? All of his writings are consistent. I think the best explanation he gives is in this short and beautiful sermon. Sermon 272


What does this mean? How is He manifested? What is different after the consecration?

Do you believe that when Jesus entered the room that He was there in substance, but not physically present or perceptible to the senses? Were they only aware that He was there because they had faith that he was there in philosophical substance?
I believe that His flesh, blood, body and soul were outside of the room, and then His flesh, blood, body and soul were inside the room where they were visible and perceptible. I don’t think that this miracle is similar to transubstantiation in any way. Of course I still am confused about what transubstantiation really is.


Isaiah 53:6 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He carried our sins on the cross. Honestly, it is a Divine Mystery. He did not act as a substitute because he was not punished eternally as a reprobate, but in some way we may not fully understand, He was sacrificed like the scape goat.


It means the Holy Spirit decends on the bread and wine, and making them mysteriously united to the same flesh of Christ, which died at Calvary. The difference, is they are no longer regarded as bread and wine, but the flesh and blood of our Lord.

The similarity, is that Jesus (flesh and blood) moves with the Spirit, and is able to defy the laws of physics. Transubstantiation is beyond physics, yet still related to the actual flesh of the Lord. It is like entering the mind of God. It has everything to do with faith, and nothing with carnal senses.


to that would be the unity of the Body of Christ and the Church. It is the sins of those who are members of His Body that He takes on Himself. It is said One Body I think it is a transfer that happens through love.

yeah, He seemed to suffer torments of the soul that one would think happens to the rest of us after death. For example the suffering in His soul that He described as ’ “I am deeply grieved, even to death;. Suffering so intense He sweat blood. We know that Jesus was the strongest man ever so this inner suffering must have been unimaginable powerful.


Isn’t this a Calvinist view that Christ descends spiritually and unites people with Him?

If the difference is in how they are regarded, then that sounds like a symbol. In a symbol the meaning is changed, but not the item itself.

I have always had a hard time understanding what people believe actually happens in transubstantiation. What is it that actually and literally changes with the bread and wine?


I think it has to do with the body enjoying the freedom of the soul. The body, obeys the will and the will is not bound by any law including the laws of physics,


“10. The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine
maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not
our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one
with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though
it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect
of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit
surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our
feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive—viz.
that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space.”
Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion IV 17 10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit