Thomistica

The Institution of the New Covenant

 

Perhaps it is necessary to begin with what is obvious, that which we take for granted, and which has been taken for granted by the church throughout history: that the Eucharist is truly, substantially, Jesus Christ. The very bread which we eat is identical to Christ’s body and that very blood that we drink is Christ’s blood, only not in its proper form but under the guise of that which is normally consumed by man. What is of utmost importance, infinitely of more weight than the heretical and demonic opinions of Ulrich Zwingli, is the very words of Jesus Christ himself:

 

While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:26,28)

 

Given the context, the word “is” must indicate identity. The indication must also be in reference to the bread which he blesses, breaks, and gives. Christ states that what they are eating is his body since what follows his command “Take, eat.” is him identifying his own body, which would be unnecessary if he was only referring to the proper form of his body. In Luke 22:19, the command “do this in remembrance of me” is added. This phrase indicates both the covenantal and modal aspects of the current passover. Firstly, in the ancient Jewish context, a covenant is a binding agreement between two parties in which the greater party dictates the term. The Old Covenant (pre-AD), or the Mosaic Covenant, contains a set of rites and rituals through which God woos Israel, and Israel submits to God. The Last Supper occurs on the night of Passover, fittingly so that the Old Covenant is replaced in its perfect form in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant is a meal of thanksgiving (eucharista) which preserves those who partake from death and prepares them for eventual freedom from slavery. Now, the new Covenant which is ushered in by Christ establishes the kingdom of God within the hearts of the faithful, collectively the church. While the rites of the Old Covenant were carnal, those of the new are spiritual (Luke 17:20-21, John 4:23-24). What was once carnal participation in the covenantal rite and freedom from carnal slavery is now spiritual participation in the covenantal rite and freedom from spiritual death and slavery, the process of which is deification. In the Mosaic Covenant, God gives Moses a time frame in which to exercise the rites assigned so that they may be renewed and maintained in the bond (religare, “religion” in Latin). Secondly, the mode of the New Covenant is similar to that of the First. The Greek word for “remembrance” or “memory” is anamnesin which most commonly references memorial sacrifice in Jewish context. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word zikkaron or azkarah are terms used for the definition “memorial sacrifice.” Anemnesin is commonly used as a translation of these Hebrew words into Greek. In the Septuagint, which translates the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, the word anemnesin is used for zikkaron or azkarah. Some examples of this are in Leviticus 24:7 and Numbers 10:10. This is a strong indicator that Christ used one of these Hebrew words when describing the manner in which the apostles were to replicate the New Covenant. Given the context, Christ here is instituting a memorial sacrifice, which he states is a participation (consumption) of his body, for the renewal and strengthening of God’s binding to His people, not carnally but spiritually, though through a carnal sign, Christ’s body in the form of bread. Israel, in the Old Covenant is a typological prefigurement of the Church, the Church being the new-Israel.

 

Following the feeding of the 5,000, Christ instructs his disciples to “not work for the food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which [he] will give them.” Contrasting this food which sustains eternal life with the loaves he fed the 5,000 indicates that Christ is referring to substantial food, not merely making a metaphor. Remembering Moses, they ask for a sign such as the manna given to them in the desert and for Christ to give them this bread to which Christ responds “I am the bread of life” and follows it by saying that those who come to him for this bread will never hunger or thirst. But here he is indicating spiritual satiation. Nothing in the context supposes that the spiritual implications of the consumption of this bread, who he had just identified as himself, change the meaning of the bread that he is referring to as symbolic rather than substantial. Rather, he uses analogy, not symbolism, to describe the spiritual effect that this bread has on those who consume it. His disciples' reaction is one of complaint, likely because Christ did not provide the sign they were asking for but introduced the sign that they would soon receive, the bread of Christ as the new manna, that which the manna of old prefigured. Having complained about it, Christ doubles down on this teaching:

 

Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. (John 6:49-51)

 

Not only does he call himself the bread of life again, but he makes a substantial claim, identifying the bread that he is to give with his very flesh. Not only does he make a stark substantial claim, but when his disciples understood that he was making a substantial claim, they question him one more time and Jesus responds by tripling down:

 

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” (John 6:52-55)

 

Not only does Jesus triple down on the teaching itself, and double down on the substantial claim that identifies the bread that he will give as his flesh, but he introduces the gravity of the teaching and clarifies what he means by making it graphically explicit. The Greek verb the author, likely one of John’s scribes, uses in v. 51, phago, means “to consume” generally, but the Greek verb that he uses in v. 53, trogo, means “to gnaw” or “to chew” and was commonly used in reference to animals feeding. Not only this, but he says that whoever does not gnaw on his flesh, has no life, that is, eternal life (v. 55). The ingesting of his flesh can only be associated with that which merits salvation, that being Christ’s sacrifice, re-presented in time as a cleaning offering. And if any ignoramus still denies the substantial claim, what exactly does he suppose this teaching is symbolic for? The consumption of blood is added into the equation. It was forbidden for Jews to consume any kind of blood via the Mosaic law. Why introduce this into a symbolic teaching? If the flesh is symbolic for something, what then is blood symbolic for? Why go beyond bread? Why equate bread with flesh? Would bread not suffice for a symbol? Immediately following the teaching, doubt and desert ensues:

 

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.” He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him. (John 6:60-71)

 

His disciples would not think it a difficult teaching, nor would they desert him, and nor would his own apostles question it if the teaching was merely symbolic. Similar to the disciples who desert him are the many Christians who fail to see the reality of the Eucharist. Christ himself, knowing the apparent insanity of the teaching doubles down a fourth time, upholding it despite its offense toward his disciples. Without withdrawing the teaching, he assists their unbelief and sympathizes with the difficulty of the teaching by comparing it to him ascending to heaven and affirming that faith is hope of things invisible, since they have not yet seen his flesh under the guise of bread (Hebrews 11:1). It is also important to note that the first sign of Judas’ betrayal is hinted at in this instance which could be evidence of the author connecting this event to the last supper, where Judas turns Jesus over to the chief priest. 

 

In support of the substantial claim that Jesus makes are the views that his disciples held toward the sacrificial commemoration of the Last Supper as well as the regulations placed around it. In response to the church in Corinth not acknowledging the truth of Christ’s presence in the memorial offering, Paul vindicates the Corinthians of going their separate ways to celebrate the instituted memorial, saying that they are to practice how they were instructed. Then Paul delivers the formula for the memorial offering verbatim from Luke’s gospel (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). Then he tells them the very words that every Catholic recites at mass during the Eucharistic offering: “'For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Here is indicated an association between the offering and the very sacrifice of Christ himself on the cross. When the Eucharist is presented, that same eternal sacrifice is revisited, made present in real time for the participation of the faithful. Paul informs them of the consequences of irreverence and failure to acknowledge Christ’s presence:

 

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body [the Lord’s body], eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

 

The bread and the cup are identified here as Christ’s body and blood and all who fail to identify them as Christ’s body and blood, which is what is meant by “discerning,” are subject to judgment by virtue of. The illness and death is not carnal but spiritual. For how can this bread and wine make anyone anymore physically sick than ordinary bread and wine would?

 

The Didache, an early document associated with the apostles themselves, calls the Thanksgiving (Eucharista) “spiritual food and drink” (Didache, Ch. 10) It also instructs the following: 

 

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. (Didache, Ch. 9)

 

However, such a rule would be nonsensical if Christ were to have no substantial presence in the offering.

 

Most explicit of all, is the words of someone who was likely one of John the Apostle’s disciples, and the second bishop of Antioch, Ignatius. In Eusebius’ Church History, he explicitly names Ignatius as the second bishop of Antioch which would mean that his time both prior to holding the office and while holding the office of bishop overlapped with John the Apostle’s time in Asia Minor. Eusebius holds that Ignatius was ordained in AD 67 succeeding Peter as bishop, meaning that he was likely ordained by Peter. We know certainly that Ignatius was in league with Polycarp, first bishop of Smyrna who was “instructed by apostles and had conversed with many who had seen Christ” according to Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 3, Sect. 4). Eusebius specifically states that he is a disciple of John. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Smyrneans in AD 107 says the following a chapter titled “Let us stand aloof (apart from) such heretics”:

 

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. (Letter to the Smyrneans, Ch. 7)

 

Notice very clearly another association between the Eucharist and spiritual health. Those who are considered heretics are so because they “confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior” and what they bring themselves is “death.” Ignatius is instructing the church in Smyrna to completely separate themselves from these people and goes as far to say not to speak of them at all!

 

Substance and Accidents

 

Prior to seeking understanding, we must take for granted the reality of the matter at hand, agreeing with Justin Martyr in AD 150 that “... not as common bread and common drink do we receive these... we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word... is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh" (First Apology, 66), and unwaveringly professing with Cyril of Jerusalem in AD 350: "Since He Himself [Christ] has declared and said of the bread: 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any more?... Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures, 22:1, 6). For Christ to be truly present, he must be substantially present. For if he is not present in substance, then he cannot be present truly, as personally occupying the space which he is contained in under the form of bread and wine. Otherwise, it must be said that he is merely present by exercising influence or power. But this mere presence through power is futile because Christ, through his divinity exercising his power universally. Nor can we merely say that he is spiritually present in a way that negates substantial present. For “spiritual” does not mean “symbolic.” The word “spiritual” signifies something actual but unperceivable to the senses while the word “symbolic” indicates something not actual but something relating to some other distinct in actuality. Spirit signifies identity and symbol non-identity. “Spiritual” taken in its proper sense indicates substantial presence. However, sometimes “spiritual” is taken synonymously for symbolic in heretical sects who undermine the fact that what is invisible is more fundamental to reality and more essential to any concrete thing. Nor also can it be said that Christ assumes a new nature, the nature of bread. For then it would not make sense to call bread or wine Christ’s body or blood. It would even be erroneous to say that Christ is present with the bread and wine consubstantially, as if alongside them. If this were the case then calling the bread and wine Christ’s body and blood would be misleading. All of these methods, categorized as variations of symbolism or consubstantiation, nullify Christ’s words. They aim to make his words mean anything except what they truly mean, using any theory to suggest that Christ is present externally to the body and blood, when the reality is that Christ’s words claimed identity intrinsic to the bread and wine that are consecrated. Intrinsic identity which is truly spiritual presence, is substantial. It must then be admitted that by divine command, God can terminate the underlying reality of a thing and replace this underlying reality with a new one, while maintaining its form and therefore all sensible accidents. This miracle, the reverse of what occurs in nature, can be called transubstantiation, dubbed by Thomas Aquinas. In nature, accidents inhere in substance, substance being the subject which change belongs to and accidents being the change that occurs in a subject. Accidents cannot exist independent from substance and substance taken independently from the accidents which inhere in it is called a substratum. A substratum or substrate is a substance stripped of its accidents. Accidents unnecessarily belong to the substance which they inhere in. The accidents within a substance change while the substance itself does not. Simply stated, accidents are the qualities, characteristics, or attributes which are subject to change while substance is the independent, concrete reality which these belong to. Whenever someone observes any object, they first recognize that something is recognized prior to characterizing it by its specific features. What is first recognized, before anything about what is recognized is contemplated, is its substance. Despite his belief that Benedict Spinoza believed substances to be infinite modes of God in his pantheistic view, he articulates the concept of substance well:

​

...that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; that is, that the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it has to be form. (Ethics, Pt. 1, Def. 3)

 In the case of transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine remain throughout consecration, but never without a subsubstance which is converted into Christ’s very substance. At the same time that the substance underlying the bread is annihilated, it is replaced by the substrate of Christ, and thereby the accidents which produce form remain in appearance because they continue to have a subject to exist in. This is possible because God’s power transcends the natural order. Created things, when considered as causes of change, operate on the form of matter, capable of producing accidental changes, while God, unconfined, can operate on all aspects of being, capable of producing substantial changes:

 

For it is evident that every agent acts according as it is in act. But every created agent is limited in its act, as being of a determinate genus and species: and consequently the action of every created agent bears upon some determinate act. Now the determination of every thing in actual existence comes from its form. Consequently, no natural or created agent can act except by changing the form in something; and on this account every change made according to nature's laws is a formal change. But God is infinite act, as stated; hence His action extends to the whole nature of being. Therefore He can work not only formal conversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another. And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ's blood. (ST III, q. 75, a. 4, co.)

 

In the same way that Christ, by his divinity, sustains the very subsistence of all things in every moment, he can remove the existential sustenance that he provides and even replace it with some new substance. For if God in every moment upholds existence in all things, can he not subtract existence from the anything and something that he is supplying it to and replace it in that same moment with some new existence or some already existing thing?

 

Now a question remains about Christ in his proper form. If the accidents of bread and wine are seen, what are we to say about Christ’s proper form, that is his human form, which is also present? It must indeed be present because form includes both accidents and substance. Form changes according to the change in accidents which are inherent in it. But there always remains a substantial form which accrues accidents, and all things essential to the substance of what it means to be man remain in the essential substance. Things like intellect, will, blood, skin, four limbs (naturally), and other things pertain to the essence of man as distinguished from other essences. Personhood is also essential to man, by virtue of which Christ is divine. So, a distinction can be made: there is substantial form and accidental form. If the substance of Christ, even stripped of all accidents, be present, there still must exist a proper form conflicting with the form which now inheres in the substance, the form of bread and wine which is a non-substantial form. For understanding, let us distinguish two sets of accidents (two accidental forms), one proper to Christ during his crucifixion and the other proper to Christ on the altar. These accidental forms are what the onlooker sees depending on his relation to these sets of accidents. One onlooker at mass perceives one accidental form while Mary perceives another during the crucifixion. The substance, or the invisible reality of the subject, is what we will call substantial form which does not differ under different accidental forms. In any specific moment, the complete form consists of both. The question now remains how we can admit multiple sets of accidents. 

 

The following paragraph is speculative but fits within Catholic and Thomistic regulation. We will call it "Platonic Transubstantiation." Since we know that both accidental forms cannot subsist together since they are mutually exclusive, we must suppose that, since they can only exist in a substance, that the substance in which they both exist enables the possibility of two accidental forms. In the book of Revelation, we hear of a “lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered” which signifies Christ as the eternal Paschal victim (Revelation 5:6). Revelation is filled with the saints, those ransomed by Christ who have been granted the eternal reward, incense, elders (presbyters), and more. Very clearly, Revelation is a depiction of what occurs in heaven during every mass. John Chrysostom makes evident that the eternal offering of the lamb is simultaneous with mass:

 

The angels surround the priest, the whole sanctuary and the space before the altar is filled with the heavenly Powers come to honor Him who is present upon the altar. (On the Priesthood, Bk. 6, Ch. 4)

 

Think now of what kind of choir you are going to enter. Although vested with a body, you have been judged worthy to join the Powers of heaven in singing the praises of Him who is Lord of all. Behold the royal table. The angels serve at it. The Lord Himself is present. (Homilies on the Statues, Homily 15)

 

 If heaven is present at mass, hidden under the veil of what the senses are limited to until death, then it is obvious that the substance which the accidental form of bread and wine veil is not the offering on the cross but the offering in heaven. Consequently, Christ’s offering on the cross is indeed an accidental form inheriting in the heavenly substantial form. This is not possible for other created substances because there is no other reality, no heavenly reality, that offers an alternate substance for replacement. Now, in the case of the crucifixion, we can rightly call this bloody accidental form Christ’s proper accidental form because no transition of substance occurs for the accidents. Rather, Christ is always substantially Christ, from birth. At Calvary was the true Christ from heaven himself while at mass is presented the Christ that is in heaven. Christ’s form is never increased but only presented under a different occidental form for our consumption and intimacy with him. 

 

Proof of the above theory is evident in results from lab experiments on Eucharistic miracles. That very substance which in rare cases has manifested itself on the altar, is interwoven with same substance of Christ’s flesh on the cross. Opposed to some views that suggest that we receive Christ’s resurrected body, we must agree with Ambrose of Milan, his student Augustine of Hippo, and Mother Church respectively:

 

Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is He Himself who is offered in sacrifice here on earth when the body of Christ is offered; indeed, to offer Himself He is made visible in us. (Explanation of the Psalms, 38:25)

 

Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side. (Sermon 3, 2)

 

"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." (CCC 1366)

 

This is no doubt linked to the “memorial” aspect of anemnesis. The eternal memorial made present but hidden for the strengthening of our faith seems to override its accidental form as if heaven is dripping or glitching into mass. Evidence of which is the presence of cardiac tissue inexplicably interwoven into communion hosts, severely inflamed and undergoing degeneration, with white blood cells penetrating myocardial tissue, and nuclear pyknosis as well as the loss of striation occurring. All of these signs indicate an individual not only suffering, but proceeding to die. The presence of hemoglobin and immunoglobulin indicate that the individual was indeed still alive. Such insight supports the theory of the melding of heaven and Earth following transubstantiation. On the altar, that very moment in which death is defied in heaven when it is faced with the incorruptibility of the divine is the same moment into which we peer when Christ is sacrificed on the altar.

 

The Sanctity that comes from Lofty Faith

 

Having proved certain the arduous task of the lofty assent of faith we are required to make in such a teaching and understanding its possibility, it is necessary to understand the fruit that is born from such. From the Eucharist is required perfect faith from the recipient since Christ’s proper form cannot appeal to the senses, it being lost in time. This way it is not gruesome or inhumane to consume Christ’s flesh and faith is preserved maximally. It is also the pinnacle of grace in the Christian life since Christ not only operates in the individual but enters him personally through the substance of his humanity. The greatest assent of faith correspondingly merits the most magnifying grace that exists. The two correspond, faith and grace, simultaneously in the Eucharist. The Eucharist being both spiritual and carnal food, effects our very substance, immortalizing us:

 

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (Against Heresies, Book 4, Ch. 18)

 

Writing against Gnosticism, the rejection of the goodness of carnal things, Irenaeus supposes that the Eucharist makes known the fact that the flesh is indeed good by being united to the spirit, specifically, heaven to Earth. What is in heaven is deity, and what is on Earth is the flesh of Christ suffering on the cross, united to it. Two substances united under one person who binds carnal things to everlasting things through grace, especially through the Eucharist, the greatest sign of the unity between flesh and spirit. When our we receive Christ’s flesh and blood, his human substance, our body assimilates what it consumes into itself. Spiritually, however, our spirits are assimilated into Christ’s spirit which is united to the divine person and therefore sustained in the fullness of being, beatitude, for everlasting. For what is one with Christ carnally through the spirit, is thereby united to God, not in essence, but in agreement in the object of that which we are alike to him, the mind, including intellect and will. Having been made similar, the substantial change that occurs in us, that is, increased unity in relation to God, drives the invisible to manifest visibly. The spirit invigorates the flesh, for “it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” Consequently, we are deified, being made alike to God in all ways possible according to the limitations of our lowly nature. Saint Maximos the Confessor treats the Eucharist as the engine for salvation:

 

The distribution of the mystery [the Eucharist] transforms into itself those who worthily partake of it, making them similar to that good which is their source... they also are and can be called gods by adoption through grace, because all of God entirely fills them and leaves no part of them empty of His presence. (Mystagogia, 21)

 

And Saint Gregory of Nyssa agrees:

 

He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh... blending Himself with the bodies of believers... so that by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements (metastoicheiosis) the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing. (Great Catechism, 37)

 

The Eucharist is the ultimate gift which is why it is called just that: eucharista (thanksgiving), because those who are receptive of grace approach the altar in thanks that through the incarnation, man’s nature is evolved through grace beyond the natural world. God became man so that man might live as Him and therefore transcend the natural world. There is no superior reality than to be created to share in the life of God. And there is no greater love than humility. And there is no greater humility than to make yourself so lowly as to be the food of those whom you love when you yourself are unrestricted in being. To deny the Eucharist is not only to deny Christ but also to misunderstand love itself. A different Eucharist than the apostle’s is a different Christ. He who does not receive cannot possibly be in Christ except by rare extra-ordinary circumstances. Rejection of this gift is a rejection of love and rejection of love is rejection of God since God is love.

 

But let us first and foremost receive this concept from the words of our Savior himself when he says “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them” (John 6:56). For who can doubt that Christ here is speaking both through His humanity and His Godhood, for He who unifies is not man but the God who gives being to all things. The mutual abidance of Christ in us and us in Him is twofold, further likeness to the one who gives being which is indicated by “Him abiding in us” and identity in the same spirit as Christ, his mystical body, which is indicated by “us abiding in him.” For since Christ binds humanity to the divine through personal identity in both, those who imitate his spirit are made Christ himself, becoming of the same spiritual portion of human substance. And this is because the humanity united to the person of the Son was incorruptible and therefore exhausted all being according to its nature. In other words, he had the fullness of life. And even when the person’s humanity was destroyed by death on the cross, it could not be corrupted because death encountered something incorruptible, that being the very nature that was convertibly the person of identity for the human nature put to death. All who are assimilated into that same spirit gain incorruptibility and being itself which is life. And this is affirmed by Christ’s words, “you have no life in you” (v. 53).

​​

​

​

Written by Matthew Shuler