Christ’s death, resurrection, and the Passover celebrations appear to gift three conjugal sacrificial love relationships that were consecrated and consummated during His passionate death and resurrection on the Cross (See The Three Wedding Feasts of Christ). Therefore, since Christ is offering Love Mysteries that form one flesh from the two bodies involved, the relationship is a permanent conjugal love and perfectly resembles how God described the consummated relationship between the qualified man and woman forming a permanent one flesh. In the Passover sacrifice, as the prior Jewish tradition, the celebration is not a typical meal or a remembrance, but an actual sacrifice. In that love sacrifice, Christ uses two substances, bread and wine. Then after the consummation of the sacrifice on the Cross the Holy Spirit in His words and authority causes the bread and wine to be permanently altered to Christ’s flesh and blood. Although the bread and wine are separate substances, the bread is transformed into Christ’s Flesh and Blood – each of which is inseparable from the other. So, even though the Flesh and Blood are separate, they are permanently one and exist in one another. Notice that the substance of the bread and wine appears to remain unchanged after consecration, but becomes permanently the physical, soul, divine, and spiritual Christ. Therefore, I believe that the validly qualified and consummated relationship between a man and woman physically transforms them permanently into one flesh just as the consecrated bread and wine are transformed into Christ.
The question remains about the consequent relationships with other partners. Suppose that a priest decided to use the leftover consecrated Bread and Wine in another Mass celebration for any reason (such as a shortage of new bread and new wine at the parish). The priest would be attempting to consecrate Christ’s Flesh and Christ’s Blood for a second time as if they returned to their original state of virgin bread and virgin wine so that they can become reconsecrated again (reconsummated). Such a reconsecration is invalid, because the substances used are not what they appear to be. Christ did not commission His priests to take His flesh and His Blood and consecrate them into His Flesh and His Blood as if the second time would make Christ’s flesh and Blood more valid or better or holier. Therefore, the priest would have used two different substances than what Christ originally commissioned and all subsequent consecrations would be invalid. This is true even if a higher authority than a priest does the consecration, because it is ultimately Christ who does the miracle and the priest is simply standing for Christ. Likewise, in marriage, it is the couple consummating the relationship and God the Father is the true witness, while the priest is a witness standing in God the Father’s persona to witness the relationship.
Suppose that the priest used only the wine part of the already consecrated Host in a new Mass celebration and reconsecrated it. The bread that was not consecrated before cannot become consecrated in the new consecration, because the other part is not virgin wine, but the already consecrated Christ’s Blood. Although it may appear that the virgin bread should become Christ’s body, the consecration requires that the two parts are virgin and never before consecrated. The question is then, can the bread be reused in a fresh consecration since it was not validly consecrated? It appears to me from logic that yes, the bread remains virgin as if never consecrated or attempted to be consecrated. This means that the prior consecration is invalid and null. Therefore, the already consecrated wine always remains truly the Blood and Flesh of Christ (even it is only one part). The bread appears valid to be used in a new consecration as it remains virgin bread. This example resembles the situation of a virgin man who never had a consummated relationship with a virgin woman. The consummated relationship of such a man with a nonvirgin woman is invalid and that man can validly consummate with only a virgin woman.
Suppose that the priest used only a preconsecrated bread and a virgin wine in a new consecration. On the Cross, water came from the side of Christ (John 19:34 ). Water represents our humanity (Rom. 5:2 and 2 Pet. 1:4). In the Catholic consecration, the priest adds water to the wine just as blood and water came out of the pierced side of Christ’s body on the Cross. Water is mixed with the wine so that we are completely changed into a new form as stated in 2 Corinthians 3:18, “...are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another...” The passion was prefigured by Moses in the desert, when God commanded him to strike a rock with his rod so that water would flow forth. (Exodus 17:5-6) St Paul explains that the Rock was an allegory of Christ as stated in 1 Corinthians 10:4. Proverbs 9:5 and 2 Maccabees 15:39 where wine was mixed with water. Therefore, it is believed that Christ did mix the wine with water as was customary. The water changed into wine at the wedding feast of Cana and at what Christ used at the Passover feast indicated the event is a symbol of the conjugal love feast of binding together of bodies to form one flesh. The water is the element used in Baptism (Matthew 3: 13-17) where the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus and Christ told Nicodemus (John 3) that we must be born again. Therefore, the third element of breath of life is noted in a living person, but not noted in the bread and water and I find the water is also a symbol of the Holy Spirit making the matter a rebirth into an everlasting life. Thus, the consecrated matter becomes permanently alive and permanently reborn into an everlasting life.
In the previous scenario, at first it appears that the wine, although mixed with a small amount of water in the invalid consecration, probably can be used again in a new consecration. However, the Chalice that the celebrating priest uses would have a small particle of the consecrated Bread mixed in the wine. Therefore, after the previous second consecration was declared null and invalid, the wine is somewhat not wine alone anymore to be used in a new consecration. Because that wine has within it the body of Christ, thus the wine to be used is no longer just wine and water, but wine, water, and Christ. A consecrated Host cannot be reconsecrated. In the case when the bread is the virgin and the wine is the already consecrated Blood, that bread during the invalid consecration is broken. Therefore, although the bread is broken and on the surface should not be used in a fresh consecration after invalidating that second consecration, the bread can possibly be broken again further in the new consecration. Suppose the bread arrived to a fresh consecration feast broken during transportation; it appears that the bread possibly can be used and further broken. That is my logical argument.
Furthermore, in the Eastern Churches, after the consecration, the consecrated bread was traditionally mixed together in the consecrated wine. Therefore, it is clear that when the consecrated bread and wine are mixed together in the same Chalice, using any consecrated part to be reconsecrated with a new bread or wine would be permanently invalid for a new consecration, since the matter is no longer pure wine or pure bread. In conclusion, Western Catholicism uses a different chalice and somewhat different bread (a bread that requires breaking) for the celebrating priest in comparison to the partaker laity. In these cases, the laity consecrated bread and wine are separate and thus in case of invalid consecration, these elements remain pure and can be reused in a new consecration. Therefore, if the last argument is considered the most reasonable parallel to marriage, then if a virgin woman or a virgin man had a relationship with a person that had a valid consummated relationship, the new relationship is null and void and the unconsecrated person can freely enter a new relationship. That creates more certain challenges for the woman than the man. In the consecration of the relationship the woman’s body becomes pierced and the virginity membrane is broken in the invalid consummation. Although, that would make it more challenging for the now not virgin woman, but her body can still somehow consummate a new relationship to create a one flesh with the man. I found that some Saints wrote about a second virginity which may explain such a situation.
This discussion about the consecration of the bread and wine to become the one Flesh and Blood of Christ is called by Christ the New Covenant (Mark 14:24, and 1 Corinthians 11:25) just as marriage is called a new covenant and forms one flesh from the two. A covenant is a relationship with God and the people involved form a permanent bond as stated in Exodus 19: 5. This is exactly what I argue in what I called Sacred Genetic Code Theory – that the alteration is not only spiritual, but physical and genetic even though it appears on the outside to be unchanged. Then, my argument that any subsequent relationship cannot invalidate the already permanently altered a virgin Genetic segment of the spousal genetic flesh, is similar to a subsequent consecration of one or both already consecrated particles in the celebration of the Eucharist feast. Additionally, as I concluded in the Sacred Genetic Theory, a valid relationship is only designed between a qualified man and a qualified woman, and that resembles the valid celebration of the Eucharist – the Eucharist cannot use only two Chalices of wine or only two breads. The celebration must use a valid and never consecrated bread and a valid and never consecrated wine. Furthermore, it would become clear that even prior to Christ, Moses prohibited divorce of a relationship that took place between a man and a virgin woman, as long as the man shall live.
St. Paul told us that the new covenant Christ gave us is a parallel to the covenant of marriage and just as the bond between Christ the groom and His Church the Bride (Ephesians chapter 5) is unbreakable, likewise the bond between a qualified husband and wife is unbreakable. Furthermore, marriage is the only Sacrament that the Catholic priest does not administer. Instead the priest serves as a witness since it is the two qualified people who administer the covenant to one another in front of God their witness. The priest is the visible symbol of the invisible God the Father. Therefore, all relationships in any religion or belief system are administered by the people involved and not any other human. One must be careful before getting into any relationship, even a transient relationship, because if the people involved are virgin, they may form a permanent bond and not a simple game of oscillation from one relationship to the next. Furthermore, getting lured into giving your sacred virginity that the Creator entrusted you to anyone can be a gross mistake because it may get you into an invalid consecration even though you are not aware of it.
The Catholic Mass celebration involves three distinctive elevations of the Host. The first represents the mystery of the death of Christ, the second represents the risen Christ, and the last represents the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. The prayer of the priest on the last elevation of the Corporal when taken from the Latin translation is Revelation 19: 9 (except the wording of the “wedding” in the English Mass prayer is emitted),
And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are true words of God.
Indeed, the Passover celebration is a “Marriage Supper of the Lamb.” Thus, the mystery of the death and Resurrection of Christ is the image of the Lamb’s Marriage Feast. It is not enough to confess that you believe in Christ by words or intellect to be saved. You must believe that you abide in Christ and He abides in you and that means a new rebirth so the two of you become one just as a sacrificial marital love union creates one flesh.
Therefore, I believe Christ lives in me; because of my Baptismal anointment I became a partaker in Christ’s anointment as King, Prophet, and Priest. In other words, for Christ to save me into His Kingdom to eat in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, I must allow Christ to take total control of my life here and now so my life becomes fulfilled. The Christian belief is a mystery indeed and must be researched deeper than what appears on the surface. Those were Christ’s words to Simon Peter when Christ asked Peter to put out his net in “deep water,” implying understanding the mystery requires a deeper search, as stated in Luke 5: 4, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.”
My point is that the logical discussion alone or a logical discussion using some scientific clues, or a discussion enhanced by the Scriptural evidence can clearly lead to the conclusion that there is one truth – that the Creator designed the sexual relationship universally for all generations, for all culture and belief systems, to be permanent and to be between a qualified man and a qualified woman. The sexual relationship forms a permanent physical one flesh even though the external appearance of the people remains unchanged. Additionally, that conclusion about the Creator’s Design is an integral factor when the Creator judges people after death – whether they physically abided by the Creator’s design or not before their living ceased. Additionally, since logic indicates that everyone is heading to an eventual death, another goal for every person during life is to abide by the salvation design the Creator established in overcoming the permanent death. And as in this discussion, even the Creator’s salvation design of overcoming permanent death appears to mirror the design of the conjugal sacrificial love. Conjugal sacrificial love is the greatest of God’s designs because it reflects the Creator’s Holy Trinity Persona.