Monday, August 15, 2011


Even the smallest particle of the Eucharist contains the entire body and blood of Christ. The familiar characteristics of space and matter don’t apply: consuming a larger Host does not mean you get more of Christ’s body and blood, nor does consuming a small Host mean you get less. Even receiving from the Precious Cup is unnecessary: by “concomitance,” when a communicant receives the Host, he also receives the Precious Blood...not just flesh but glorified flesh, a resurrected and transfigured “super body”

And that’s only the beginning. Mary has a supercalifragilistic body. She has supercalifragilistic hearing to hear thousands of prayers per second. She can enunciate with supercalifragilistic rapidity to share their concerns with Jesus.

Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound–her supercalifragilistic body can appear in clouds, bagels, walnuts, and fortune cookies. 


  1. Even receiving the precious cup is unnecessary? Did I miss something in the words of Jesus when He said take eat this is my body and drink of this all of you?

    So the words of Jesus just are not that important it seems.

  2. There are a number of issues that I have with respect to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist:

    1) How does Jn 16:7 comport with the True Presence given that Catholics believe that Jesus is present in any number of earthly locations simultaneous to being in Heaven at the right hand of the Father? If Jesus is REALLY present here on earth, what is the role of the Holy Spirit?

    2) How do Eucharistic Miracles such as that at Lanciano support Catholic Dogma? If Christ is present in body, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist, how does an allegedly transubstantiated sliver of heart muscle prove the dogma? Where's the rest of the body?

    3) It is claimed that all Eucharistic Miracles that have been tested all have the same blood type. However, Catholics deny that tests performed on confected Hosts prove anything (assuming that the test does not affirm the Dogma). Scientific tests either prove the dogma or disprove the dogma, which is it?

  3. I believe that that "true presence" of God's spirit in the Old Testament temple or tabernacle provides a useful comparison in ths issue.

    Like God was not fully or materially, but yet quite genuinely present in the OT "cloud of glory" (that notably could depart from the temple in the case of apostasy, as Ezekiel saw in a vision) so Christ could be truly but not carnally present iin the Eucharist.

    And btw, by what authority can Rome teach that the Eucharist is the WHOLE Christ? They could more plausibly claim that it is a PART of Christ, a "hem of His garment" like the OT cloud of glory.

  4. Viisaus said...
    I believe that that "true presence" of God's spirit in the Old Testament temple or tabernacle provides a useful comparison in ths issue.

    Excellent point of comparison I think. Many thanks! I must go and consider that and with your permission I might incorporate it into future teaching on Communion that I do.