A question about the Sacred Host and Precious Blood

[PraiseChrist]

Why is the Sacred Host called the Body of Christ if This is also the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus? And same with the Precious Blood, since it also is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus?

Thanks for the clarifications

 

[JimG]

The consecrated host IS the body of Christ. The consecrated wine IS the blood of Christ. But Christ is one person, a unitary being. Where his body is, there must also be his blood; where is blood is, there must also be his body. Because the Eucharist is the living Jesus, body and blood, soul and divinity are united in one living person. (This is known theologically as the doctrine of concomitance.)

 

[porthos11]

Because the sacred Host IS his Body; it is not his Blood, Soul, or Divinity. But since where his Body is, there necessarily must be his Blood, Soul and Divinity, they are necessarily present by concomitance. Otherwise, a Body without Blood or Soul is a dead body, and we confess Jesus as alive as he is now. The substance (the what-ness) is that of his Body, the rest are present by concomitance.

The wine is changed into the Blood only. It is not his Body, Soul, or Divinity. The substance is that of his Blood. But because Jesus is alive, his Body must necessarily be where is Blood is, as should his Soul and Divinity, again, by concomitance.

 

[PraiseChrist]

Thank you, that helps

 

[PraiseChrist]

Is the Father and Holy Spirit present where is Son is present and the Son and Holy Spirit where the Father is present, and the Father and Son where the Holy Spirit is present?

And does that mean when we behold the Host, we see the Trinity itself?

 

[Reuben_J]

Because the sacred Host IS his Body; it is not his Blood, Soul, or Divinity. But since where his Body is, there necessarily must be his Blood, Soul and Divinity, they are necessarily present by concomitance. Otherwise, a Body without Blood or Soul is a dead body, and we confess Jesus as alive as he is now. The substance (the what-ness) is that of his Body, the rest are present by concomitance.

The wine is changed into the Blood only. It is not his Body, Soul, or Divinity. The substance is that of his Blood. But because Jesus is alive, his Body must necessarily be where is Blood is, as should his Soul and Divinity, again, by concomitance.

Granted that Jesus is divine.

Has it been argued that the Blood can be just the Blood, like when we donated blood and it was collected in a plastic bag, no body parts there?

 

[JimG]

Granted that Jesus is divine.

Has it been argued that the Blood can be just the Blood, like when we donated blood and it was collected in a plastic bag, no body parts there?

Nope. While the elements of bread and wine are consecrated separately, it has always been believed that we cannot help but receive the living Jesus in his entirety.

 

[tawny]

At the consecration the bread (host) & wine are both transsubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord.

 

[porthos11]

At the consecration the bread (host) & wine are both transsubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord.

Only loosely speaking.

Strictly speaking, the bread is changed into his body ONLY. That is, the substance is that of his body only.

The wine is changed into his blood ONLY. The substance is only that of his blood.

But because where his body is, his blood, soul and divinity necessarily must be (otherwise we have nothing but a dead human body). They are therefore present by concomitance.

Likewise, where is Blood is, there must necessarily be his body, soul and divinity, otherwise, we just have disembodied blood, and again, Jesus would be dead. Therefore, his body, soul and divinity are present by concomitance.

 

[tawny]

When you receive Communion under either species; you are receiveing both the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord.

 

[Aaron_I]

There is a fascinating book on the topic of concomitance entitled “A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist” by Abbot Vonier. He leans heavily on Thomas Aquinas’ thought and gives a very thorough yet understandable take on Aquinas’ eucharistic theology.

 

[Reuben_J]

When you receive Communion under either species; you are receiveing both the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord.

If this is true, then receiving one species is all it takes for the Sacrament to be efficacious. Would receiving two specie redundant and repitious? Or one gets extra grace?

 

[drforjc]

When you receive Communion under either species; you are receiveing both the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord.

True, but Porthos is correct as to the manner in which this happens.

 

[porthos11]

If this is true, then receiving one species is all it takes for the Sacrament to be efficacious. Would receiving two specie redundant and repitious? Or one gets extra grace?

No, and no.

It is a fuller sign, which is why it’s ideal, but is by no means necessary and better. It is perfectly legit to offer under one species only, even for no reason than arbitrary preference on the part of the priest.

This is one reason that the chalice was withheld from the laity; outside of the practical reasons, there was this heresy going around saying that the laity HAD to receive the chalice or Communion was somehow incomplete. The Church stopped offering the chalice to reinforce the orthodox Eucharistic doctrine.

I’m seeing feelers of that same misconception even from some posters here on CAF, which is why I’m inclined to believe it’s probably time for the Church to withhold the chalice from the laity again.

 

[e_c]

Has it been argued that the Blood can be just the Blood, like when we donated blood and it was collected in a plastic bag, no body parts there?

If the elements from Holy Thursday (the original one) were saved somehow, on Good Friday, when Our Lord was in the tomb, what was bread would have only been His Body and Divinity, and what was wine would have only been His Blood and Divinity.

 

[porthos11]

If the elements from Holy Thursday (the original one) were saved somehow, on Good Friday, when Our Lord was in the tomb, what was bread would have only been His Body and Divinity, and what was wine would have only been His Blood and Divinity.

This is the accepted opinion, yes.

 

[Reuben_J]

No, and no.

It is a fuller sign, which is why it’s ideal, but is by no means necessary and better. It is perfectly legit to offer under one species only, even for no reason than arbitrary preference on the part of the priest.

This is one reason that the chalice was withheld from the laity; outside of the practical reasons, there was this heresy going around saying that the laity HAD to receive the chalice or Communion was somehow incomplete. The Church stopped offering the chalice to reinforce the orthodox Eucharistic doctrine.

I’m seeing feelers of that same misconception even from some posters here on CAF, which is why I’m inclined to believe it’s probably time for the Church to withhold the chalice from the laity again.

Thanks for saying that. It is much appreciated.

 

[Reuben_J]

If the elements from Holy Thursday (the original one) were saved somehow, on Good Friday, when Our Lord was in the tomb, what was bread would have only been His Body and Divinity, and what was wine would have only been His Blood and Divinity.

Thanks ec. It’s a witty answer.

 

[Generic_Name]

No, and no.

It is a fuller sign, which is why it’s ideal, but is by no means necessary and better. It is perfectly legit to offer under one species only, even for no reason than arbitrary preference on the part of the priest.

This is one reason that the chalice was withheld from the laity; outside of the practical reasons, there was this heresy going around saying that the laity HAD to receive the chalice or Communion was somehow incomplete. The Church stopped offering the chalice to reinforce the orthodox Eucharistic doctrine.

I’m seeing feelers of that same misconception even from some posters here on CAF, which is why I’m inclined to believe it’s probably time for the Church to withhold the chalice from the laity again.