I could probably have been more precise in my sacramental theology. Though I believe that the statement "The Body of Christ is holy and sinful” is true. The difficulty is that "Body of Christ" refers to both the Church and to the Eucharist and that, somehow, mysteriously, the Church and the Eucharist are not separate things.
I could probably have been more precise in my sacramental theology. Though I believe that the statement "The Body of Christ is holy and sinful” is true. The difficulty is that "Body of Christ" refers to both the Church and to the Eucharist and that, somehow, mysteriously, the Church and the Eucharist are not separate things.
There is a difference though. The church being the mystical body of Christ is different than Christ being fully present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. Then it follows the church, ie the mystical body of Christ contains both the most holy and the sinful but that doesn’t follow that the Eucharist does as well. In addition to that if we took the statement to the logical extreme the body of Christ is in heaven to which sin cannot be. I know you know this, I’m just pointing out the trouble with such a statement.
I’m willing to be shown differently though if you have resources to the contrary on how this kind of statement makes sense theologically.
But I didn’t say that the Eucharist is sinful. I said that the bread that will become Eucharist can come from injustice and violence. And I said the Body of Christ is both holy and sinful. I think it’s difficult to talk about this because the Church and the Eucharist are both the Body of Christ.
While they are both referred to as the body of Christ. The way in which they are the body of Christ is very different. I think properly identifying them is key. For example if I said “I’m going to go adore the body of Christ”. One wouldn't assume I’m going to adore the church. Similarly here when you say “The very bread that becomes the Eucharistic is tainted with violence and injustice. Somehow, mysteriously, the Body of Christ is both holy and sinful.” As the subject of this paragraph is the Eucharist because there isn’t to me a clear distinction that we have switched subjects to be the Church. So I suppose at the end of the day it’s more a matter of clarification than anything.
I could probably have been more precise in my sacramental theology. Though I believe that the statement "The Body of Christ is holy and sinful” is true. The difficulty is that "Body of Christ" refers to both the Church and to the Eucharist and that, somehow, mysteriously, the Church and the Eucharist are not separate things.
There is a difference though. The church being the mystical body of Christ is different than Christ being fully present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. Then it follows the church, ie the mystical body of Christ contains both the most holy and the sinful but that doesn’t follow that the Eucharist does as well. In addition to that if we took the statement to the logical extreme the body of Christ is in heaven to which sin cannot be. I know you know this, I’m just pointing out the trouble with such a statement.
I’m willing to be shown differently though if you have resources to the contrary on how this kind of statement makes sense theologically.
But I didn’t say that the Eucharist is sinful. I said that the bread that will become Eucharist can come from injustice and violence. And I said the Body of Christ is both holy and sinful. I think it’s difficult to talk about this because the Church and the Eucharist are both the Body of Christ.
While they are both referred to as the body of Christ. The way in which they are the body of Christ is very different. I think properly identifying them is key. For example if I said “I’m going to go adore the body of Christ”. One wouldn't assume I’m going to adore the church. Similarly here when you say “The very bread that becomes the Eucharistic is tainted with violence and injustice. Somehow, mysteriously, the Body of Christ is both holy and sinful.” As the subject of this paragraph is the Eucharist because there isn’t to me a clear distinction that we have switched subjects to be the Church. So I suppose at the end of the day it’s more a matter of clarification than anything.
That’s definitely a fair criticism.
I’m really enjoying the new site though. It’s really nice to get the emails and read your work.