"Blood of Christ"?

[Gem]

I realize that both the consecrated bread and wine are fully the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, but can the priest say “Blood of Christ” when he offers you the consecrated bread??

I don’t think he’s technically incorrect, but this sounds like it is contrary to the GIRM.

Thanks.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Hmmm…the English teacher in me comes out with your question. The answer is yes, he can say it. It’s not what he’s supposed to say, however. But, I’ve done it myself. It usually means that the minister is on autopilot rather than thinking about what it going on. I usually (99% of the time) minister the Sacred Body to people and so it’s rare that I have the Precious Blood – and I’ve been known to slip which is probably what happened to the priest you mention.

Deacon Ed

 

[steve99]

As I understand it the substance in the consecrated host is only the body of Christ. The blood, soul and divinity are there by concommitence. So I would say its incorrect to say “the blood of Christ” when offering the consecrated host. And of course the other way round for the sacred blood in the chalice.

 

[Gem]

Thanks Deacon Ed.

A charitable supposition on your part, but both the pastor and the concelebrating priest were saying “Blood of Christ” to each person.

It was quite strange.

Thanks again.

 

[Brendan]

steve99:

As I understand it the substance in the consecrated host is only the body of Christ. The blood, soul and divinity are there by concommitence. .

No, both are the exact same Substance, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The only difference is in the Accidents, how they appear to our senses.

What you are describing is the Ultraquist heresy, which held that there is a difference in Substance between the Host and the Precious Blood. The Ultraquists additionally held that a reception of Communion was not complete unless both species were partaken of. Both postions were condemned in 1414 by the Council of Constance.

It is definitely theologically correct to say “Blood of Christ” with the Host, but to do so violates the GIRM (#161,286), and, if willfully done, incurs the sin of disobedience.

 

[steve99]

Brendan:

No, both are the exact same Substance, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The only difference is in the Accidents, how they appear to our senses.

What you are describing is the Ultraquist heresy, which held that there is a difference in Substance between the Host and the Precious Blood. The Ultraquists additionally held that a reception of Communion was not complete unless both species were partaken of. Both postions were condemned in 1414 by the Council of Constance.

It is definitely theologically correct to say “Blood of Christ” with the Host, but to do so violates the GIRM (#161,286), and, if willfully done, incurs the sin of disobedience.

I think you are wrong here. I quote from an article on catholic.net
"The Church teaches that the bread is changed into Christ’s body and the wine into his blood, and that his soul and divinity become present through concomitance. He is one indivisible being, so when the bread is changed into his body, the whole Christ necessarily becomes present. But the actual transubstantiation—the changing of one substance into another—is only of his body and blood. It is the change of a material substance into another material substance.

As the Council of Trent says, the body is “. . . under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with his body and soul.”
For the full article on this see catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html