Addressing the body, blood, soul of Jesus

[fred_conty]

It seems to me that there is a real reluctence to say about the consecrated bread and consecrated wine that it is Jesus. Rather they say it is body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.

Is it to get around the accidents of bread and wine so that it is expressed as body, blood, soul?

As I see it, the accidents do not make the humanity of Jesus just as the accidents do not make any person human as such.

It is almost seems that there is a fear of saying it. Yet any where the blood is, there is the whole Jesus, and anywhere the body is, there is the whole Jesus, and I think that the same could be said of the soul although the nature of the soul is spirit and cannot be seen.

Why the hesitation to say it as simply Jesus?

 

[otjm]

Some people are still fighting a 500 year old heresy. “Back then”, there was insistence on the part of some who had separated from the Church, that one had to receive both the Host and the Cup to really and/or completely receive Jesus.

Trent, to combat that, in the Roman rite, by regulation stated that Communion was only to be received per the Host (with the exception of the priest).

Catechesis after Vatican 2 took a nose dive as the Baltimore Catechism was essentially tossed, and what was put in its place, to put it politely, was pablum. Except that pablum tastes better.

The result is that there is a major concern in some parts that people have heretical beliefs harking back to the time around Trent, because there is a feeling that the introduction of reception from the Cup has not been adequately catechized.

I don’t know of any polls taken that adequately research the matter, (polls are easy to take; they are very difficult to write without prejudicing the answers); so to what degree people understand the Eucharist is open to question.

And the net result is that there is a mixing of what may be a good concern - that people be adequately catechized - with a strong element among some who are rather adamant that they don’t need to receive both.

“Need” is correct; the Church does not dictate that we do; but something over 2,000 bishops of the world decided that it would be better that the Cup be made available and that we be encouraged to receive both. That gets totally lost in some conversations.

And so we see the “body, blood, soul and divinity” in conversations.

Hope that helps.

 

[exnihilo]

The sacramental presence of Jesus is different from other presences of Jesus. As with any mystery the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is hard to truly understand. When you press too hard in one direction you can end up going too far. While it is true that in a sense the Eucharist is Jesus it is also true that Jesus is in Heaven with a glorified body. Saying the Eucharist is Jesus wouldn’t capture the complete truth of the mystery. It is probably the case that no words could capture all the truth. This is why we have theologians and like attorneys their work may irritate us at times but that doesn’t mean there is no value in their endeavors.

Some people are still fighting a 500 year old heresy. “Back then”, there was insistence on the part of some who had separated from the Church, that one had to receive both the Host and the Cup to really and/or completely receive Jesus.

Trent, to combat that, in the Roman rite, by regulation stated that Communion was only to be received per the Host (with the exception of the priest).

To clarify this a bit, as I understand it the practice in the Church was to restrict the reception of the Precious Blood prior to Trent. That is why there were Ultraquists in the first place. Trent did address the issue but the practice of receiving in one species predates Trent. I also believe the Church did give concessions to some groups to receive under both species.

 

[fred_conty]

Thank you otjm, and exnihilo for your insight.

After mulling this over and thinking of what you said, I think it might be that what we see with our eyes is not the body and blood of Christ only. It also includes the accidents of the bread and wine as well. For the same accidents we see with our eyes before the change are also the very same accidents of bread and wine we see after the change, and they are not those of Christ. For what has been changed is only the substance. Tho the accidents of Jesus are present, according to St. Thomas, we do not see Jesus’ accidents with our eyes, but only the accidents of bread and wine.

So to insure that the accidents of bread and wine are not included, then the words “body, blood, soul, and divinity” are used.

 

[paperwight66]

. Tho the accidents of Jesus are present, according to St. Thomas, we do not see Jesus’ accidents with our eyes, but only the accidents of bread and wine.

.

Can you expand on this a bit more, please? Do you mean that St. Thomas says that the accidents of Jesus are present, OR we do not see them, because there are only the accidents of bread and wine present. Your sentence could be taken both ways, unfortunately.

I really don’t see how the accidents of Jesus could be present - wouldn’t that mean His appearance, height, skin colour etc? If you are saying that St Thomas taught that we see only the accidents of bread and wine, but its substance has been changed, that is true Catholic teaching. But if you are saying that he wrote that the accidents of Jesus are present, I would want to see a citation from his works, I think.

 

[fred_conty]

Can you expand on this a bit more, please? Do you mean that St. Thomas says that the accidents of Jesus are present, OR we do not see them, because there are only the accidents of bread and wine present. Your sentence could be taken both ways, unfortunately.

I really don’t see how the accidents of Jesus could be present - wouldn’t that mean His appearance, height, skin colour etc? If you are saying that St Thomas taught that we see only the accidents of bread and wine, but its substance has been changed, that is true Catholic teaching. But if you are saying that he wrote that the accidents of Jesus are present, I would want to see a citation from his works, I think.

Thank you for your question.

There are two sets of accidents, those of bread and wine, and those of Jesus.

Those accidents of bread and wine remain before, during and after the consecration of the bread and wine. These are what we see with our eyes … white and round … red liquid. That is all and everything we see. We actually do not see with our eyes anything else except the accidents of bread and wine.

Those accidents of Jesus, color, hair, and so on, come sometime during the consecration, that is, the words of the priest which changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
But you can’t see Christ’s accidents with the eyes because they are invisible, but nonetheless present according to St. Thomas. I would not begin to attempt to speak on how St. Thomas says this for fear of messing it up. But if you care to look into yourself, here is a site which has his teaching on the accidents of Christ being present.

Question 76. The way in which Christ is in this sacrament
newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm