Flushing Jesus Down the Toilet

This was a new challenge for me:

If Catholics believe that Christ is truly in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is treated with such reverence and care before consumption, then how can they eat Christ and turn him into digestive waste?

A quick Google search revealed that this isn't a new question, and, in fact, is often used by Baptists in more crude terms.

A bit of a tangent:  I homeschool. A running joke among homeschoolers that is based on fact is that homeschoolers are often quizzed by those who oppose homeschooling in order to try to catch them off guard and prove in some small, nasty way that they are not receiving an education, thus "proving" their anti-homeschooling ideas.  This is done by Protestants towards Catholics.  I find it strange that I have to somehow answer to or prove every tiny small belief in great detail with tremendous proof, references, and resources.  However, if I ask the same of a Protestant, they get defensive and give me the, "It's in the Bible."  or "I believe the Bible."  or "The Holy Spirit revealed it to me."

Back to the original question:

To fully answer the question, though, I would have to go into an entire exegesis and explanation of the Eucharist and the Catholic beliefs on the matter.  For the sake of time, let's just all assume that Christ truly is in the Eucharist.  Suspend your disbelief for a moment and just accept it to get through this answer.

So, there is Christ.  All we see is the host bread, but Catholics believe there is Christ. What we see, taste, and touch are the "accidents," that is the physicality of the host on earth.  Spiritually, it is Christ body, blood, soul, and divinity.  Therefore, when we eat His flesh, as He says over and over again in the Gospel of John, we, in fact, do eat.  The host goes into our digestive tract.  So, it follows that, like any other food we eat, it eventually ends up as waste.  That is simplistic and ignores the spirituality of the matter.

The accidents of the host are what we digest.  Just as food contains nutrients to feed our bodies, and just because we taste a delicious steak or carrot doesn't mean we aren't experiencing the nourishing protein and vitamin A, the Eucharist contains Christ to feed our spirits.

The Catholic idea based on the science of digestion is that it takes about 15 minutes for the host accidents to break down in digestion and begin to nourish our bodies.  At that time, any accidents cease and the separation process of nutrients and waste has begun.  Then, Christ is no longer "in the Eucharist" because there is no longer a Eucharist.

At this point, many Protestants still scoff, but this is what Catholics call a mystery.  Even Protestants have to admit that not everything is explained out clearly in Scripture.  After all, how EXACTLY did the Holy Spirit impregnate Mary?  We can only speculate as to how much was nature and how much was Spiritual.  How EXACTLY the Eucharist "works" post-consumption isn't known to us.  How EXACTLY we pass from earth to eternity upon death, and when death actually happens, are still mysteries to us.  So, to expect Catholics to not only scientifically, but Biblically prove what happens to the Eucharist after consumption in order to prove the dogma is hypocritical.

Let's think of it this way.  God became man through Christ Jesus.  He was fully God and fully man at the same time.  His body was a living Eucharist.  He had the accidents of human being, but He was, He IS God.  The fact that He bled and died doesn't prove that He was just merely a human.  That was His accidents, His earthly molecular structure.  His Godship was still fully there.  Whatever earthly destruction happens does not take away from the spiritual nature.

Even we human beings, upon death and rot in the ground, our spirits are not part of that.  Our bodies rot and nourish the ground.  Our spirits rise and contribute to the Heavens (or not, depending on the judgement of Christ per individual).  If we can accept this phenomenon, that it's ok to "dispose of the body" without disrupting the spiritual nature of the human, then why is it so hard to accept that we can consume Christ in accordance with the Gospel of John where Christ repeatedly emphasizes "this is my body" and the "eat of it" and not "turn Jesus into poop."

Why are the Catholic 10 Commandments Different?

If you place a Douay Bible alongside and KJV Bible, the passages for the 10 Commandments is practically identical.  So, when we memorize the 10 Commandments as children, why do Catholic children learn a different set of 10 than Protestant children?

First and foremost:  Neither Catholics nor Protestants actually recite the actual full Commandments.  Both utilize a tradition of summarization or outline rather than quoting either Exodus 10 or Deuteronomy 5.  So, to accuse one of "taking away from" the 10 Commandments, but not the other is hypocritical.

Secondly, this isn't exactly a Catholic vs Protestant split.  According to Encyclopedia Britannica and Bethany Lutheran College, Catholics and Lutherans share the same numbering and wording of the 10 Commandments.  The Orthodox and many other Protestant denominations have their wording and numbering.

The most common accusation towards the Catholic 10 Commandments is that they deliberately take out the "graven images" portion to allow for all the statues and iconography.  This doesn't make much sense for two reasons:

1.  Lutherans also don't include the "graven images" text.
2.  The Orthodox Church includes the "graven images" text, yet often have just as much, if not more iconography in their churches.

The explanation of the "missing text" in Catholic 10 Commandments, as given by former Southern Baptist turned Catholic Apologist, Tim Staples, is that the First Commandment extends to include all of the command against idolatry.  As such, the Catholic Church condenses it to cover the basics of establishing God as our #1 and not having other gods before Him (which includes idols of graven images).  If a Catholic were to read the entirety of the Commandment, it would include the graven images text, as this is indeed Biblical.

The other difference is shifting the numbering around to accommodate where a point is expanded, and where a point is condensed.  This brings us to coveting.

The Catholics separate Coveting thy neighbor's wife and coveting thy neighbor's property.  They do this because:

1.  Two different Hebrew words are used for coveting (apparently, not in Exodus, but does differ in Deuteronomy).
2.  Women are not property.  Even in the sense of any historical idea that "women are property," they are not "goods," and they do not "belong to the husband" in the same way an ox does.  Women "belong" to husbands in a different, deeper, and more profound way.  You'd be mad if you oxen were stolen, but you'd be more than mad if you wife was kidnapped and raped.

Further study has revealed that it seems the Catholic Church's 10 Commandments follows more the Jewish Talmud through Augustine, same as Lutherans.  Reformed Christians, of which many evangelical branches can trace back to, follow, like the Orthodox, the Septuagint. (Wikipedia)

I do not see how these differences prove or disprove the validity of any Christian denomination who utilizes one or the other.  Again, neither version is actually the FULL version.  They are both condensed for ease of memorization.  Ultimately, the Scriptures match, which is the most important.