Body and blood in our host

[billcu1]

I have always heard of the body and blood of Christ being the substance of the host. After transubstantiation and the accidents of the host remains the same. Would the substance body and blood here be a primary substance? Of our Lord. I would think. Could it also be a secondary substance and even tertiary? Was this ever discussed?

 

[porthos11]

I have always heard of the body and blood of Christ being the substance of the host. After transubstantiation and the accidents of the host remains the same. Would the substance body and blood here be a primary substance? Of our Lord. I would think. Could it also be a secondary substance and even tertiary? Was this ever discussed?

It is not a correct expression.

The Eucharist under the species of bread is the substance of the Body of Christ ONLY. It is not his Blood, Soul, or Divinity.

Under the appearance of wine is the substance of the Blood of Christ ONLY. It is not his Body, Soul, or Divinity.

Remember, “substance” here is not the chemical term, but the philosphical term: the “what-ness” or “is-ness” of a thing.

Therefore, there is no question about secondary or tertiary substances. Under each consecrated species there is only ONE substance, that of the Body or that of the Blood. But because where his Body is, there must necessarily be his Blood, Soul and Divinity, these other three are truly PRESENT, but by concomitance. Similarly, in the Chalice, where is Blood is, there must necessarily be the Body, Soul and Divinity, and these three are PRESENT too, by concomitance. This is necessary because the living Christ cannot be separated and this is how Christ is whole and complete under either species of the Eucharist.

Now it is correct to say that the Body, Blood, Sou

 

[billcu1]

It is not a correct expression.

The Eucharist under the species of bread is the substance of the Body of Christ ONLY. It is not his Blood, Soul, or Divinity.

Under the appearance of wine is the substance of the Blood of Christ ONLY. It is not his Body, Soul, or Divinity.

Remember, “substance” here is not the chemical term, but the philosphical term: the “what-ness” or “is-ness” of a thing.

Therefore, there is no question about secondary or tertiary substances. Under each consecrated species there is only ONE substance, that of the Body or that of the Blood. But because where his Body is, there must necessarily be his Blood, Soul and Divinity, these other three are truly PRESENT, but by concomitance. Similarly, in the Chalice, where is Blood is, there must necessarily be the Body, Soul and Divinity, and these three are PRESENT too, by concomitance. This is necessary because the living Christ cannot be separated and this is how Christ is whole and complete under either species of the Eucharist.

Now it is correct to say that the Body, Blood, Sou

Ok I see. I know they say that you need only one. The wine or the wafer. I always get the wafer because I don’t want to drink after anyone But I understand in my Parrish there is a girl who is gluten intolerant and can just take the wine.

But the body, blood, soul and divinity that is one is not an expression of another substance. For example, Socrates is a substance from which humans are. So humans are a secondary substance of Socrates. That’s what I mean.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Eucharist in both species ( hope thats the correct term). Sometimes only one species is distributed in Mass, sometimes both here. Here, It depends on how isolated the Church is and presence of EMCs available.

Socrates? You mean this guy? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

 

[Gorgias]

But I understand in my Parrish there is a girl who is gluten intolerant and can just take the wine.

They serve wine at your parish?

At my parish, they only distribute the Precious Blood…

 

[adamhovey1988]

It is not a correct expression.

The Eucharist under the species of bread is the substance of the Body of Christ ONLY. It is not his Blood, Soul, or Divinity.

Under the appearance of wine is the substance of the Blood of Christ ONLY. It is not his Body, Soul, or Divinity.

Remember, “substance” here is not the chemical term, but the philosphical term: the “what-ness” or “is-ness” of a thing.

Therefore, there is no question about secondary or tertiary substances. Under each consecrated species there is only ONE substance, that of the Body or that of the Blood. But because where his Body is, there must necessarily be his Blood, Soul and Divinity, these other three are truly PRESENT, but by concomitance. Similarly, in the Chalice, where is Blood is, there must necessarily be the Body, Soul and Divinity, and these three are PRESENT too, by concomitance. This is necessary because the living Christ cannot be separated and this is how Christ is whole and complete under either species of the Eucharist.

Now it is correct to say that the Body, Blood, Sou

That is actually not accurate nor is that Church teaching under both the appearance of bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ this is why we only have to receive one. I think you should read what Catholic Answers has to say about this in addition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the many statements that have been made on this very topic. I think you may have an honest mistake but it is a mistake. I don’t mean to sound harsh but I don’t think people should go around saying things about Church teaching that are not true

 

[Dcn_Terry]

It is not a correct expression.

The Eucharist under the species of bread is the substance of the Body of Christ ONLY. It is not his Blood, Soul, or Divinity.

Under the appearance of wine is the substance of the Blood of Christ ONLY. It is not his Body, Soul, or Divinity.

Remember, “substance” here is not the chemical term, but the philosphical term: the “what-ness” or “is-ness” of a thing.

Therefore, there is no question about secondary or tertiary substances. Under each consecrated species there is only ONE substance, that of the Body or that of the Blood. But because where his Body is, there must necessarily be his Blood, Soul and Divinity, these other three are truly PRESENT, but by concomitance. Similarly, in the Chalice, where is Blood is, there must necessarily be the Body, Soul and Divinity, and these three are PRESENT too, by concomitance. This is necessary because the living Christ cannot be separated and this is how Christ is whole and complete under either species of the Eucharist.

Now it is correct to say that the Body, Blood, Sou

This is not correct, nor is it Church teaching. The body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is present totally and completely under either species. Please see the quote below from the USCCB website: usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

12• Does one receive the whole Christ if one receives Holy Communion under a single form?

Yes. Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior, is wholly present under the appearance either of bread or of wine in the Eucharist. Furthermore, Christ is wholly present in any fragment of the consecrated Host or in any drop of the Precious Blood. Nevertheless, it is especially fitting to receive Christ in both forms during the celebration of the Eucharist. This allows the Eucharist to appear more perfectly as a banquet, a banquet that is a foretaste of the banquet that will be celebrated with Christ at the end of time when the Kingdom of God is established in its fullness (cf. Eucharisticum Mysterium, no. 32).

However, you are correct in that this is a philosophical term and that there is no question about secondary or tertiary substances.

 

[ffg]

It is not a correct expression.

The Eucharist under the species of bread is the substance of the Body of Christ ONLY. It is not his Blood, Soul, or Divinity.

Under the appearance of wine is the substance of the Blood of Christ ONLY. It is not his Body, Soul, or Divinity.

Remember, “substance” here is not the chemical term, but the philosphical term: the “what-ness” or “is-ness” of a thing.

Therefore, there is no question about secondary or tertiary substances. Under each consecrated species there is only ONE substance, that of the Body or that of the Blood. But because where his Body is, there must necessarily be his Blood, Soul and Divinity, these other three are truly PRESENT, but by concomitance. Similarly, in the Chalice, where is Blood is, there must necessarily be the Body, Soul and Divinity, and these three are PRESENT too, by concomitance. This is necessary because the living Christ cannot be separated and this is how Christ is whole and complete under either species of the Eucharist.

Now it is correct to say that the Body, Blood, Sou

Re-reading the post again, I’m going to say folks will be confused, I don’t think you mean how it appears. I’ll just leave the info from the CCC…

The CCC - ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html#364

Starting at 1373 for presence of Christ information.

Paragraph 1374 defines the ‘whole Christ’ as BBSD, 1377 defines Christ’s ‘wholeness’ (BBSD) is present in each species and never divided.