Body and Blood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rawb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rawb

Guest
I was just wondering why we believe that the bread is both the body and blood and the wine is both body and blood? Jesus said “This is my body” in reference to the bread and “this is my blood” in reference to the wine.

I think I might remember it has something to do with combating a heresy?

Thanks! (And forgive my paraphrasing please!)
 
Rawb said:
I was just wondering why we believe that the bread is both the body and blood and the wine is both body and blood? Jesus said “This is my body” in reference to the bread and “this is my blood” in reference to the wine.

I think I might remember it has something to do with combating a heresy?

Thanks! (And forgive my paraphrasing please!)
Click to expand...
I think that the notion is that we should not think of the bread as Christ’s body and the wine as His blood–that is misunderstanding the Eucharist, which is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the form of bread and wine. These aspects are all there, and divided up into different parts (Bread = Body + Divinity, or some such calculus).

Another way to put it is that the Body and Blood is another way of saying Christ’s Human nature, which of course cannot be divided.

In terms of scriptural evidence–you cite the last supper; In John 6 Christ also talks about bread/body and wine/blood. However, at other points Christ speaks only of his eating his body (bread) as necessary for salvation. Christ can’t contradict himself, so the totality of his humanity must be present in both species for these various passages to jibe.

At least that’s how I get it. I’m sure someone will have a more lucid explanation.
 
Hi Rawb,

That is a wonderful question, and it’s one that I am very interested in. Although Vox Borealis is sure that someone has a more lucid explanation, I’m not sure I am that person who will rise to the level of lucidity ;). But maybe between you, Vox, and I (and other contributers) we can begin to shed some light on this most interesting topic.
Rawb said:
I was just wondering why we believe that the bread is both the body and blood and the wine is both body and blood? Jesus said “This is my body” in reference to the bread and “this is my blood” in reference to the wine.
Click to expand...
The fact that each element or species of the Eucharist is both the Body and the Blood of Christ is a natural and inevitable conclusion drawn from the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist.

As Vox pointed out above, each species is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, in other words, the whole and entire Christ.

But the Body and Blood of Christ (as well as His Soul and Divnity) are made present in different ways in each of the consecrated elements.

By the divine power, the sacramental presence of Christ becomes present when the bread is converted into the Body of Christ, and the wine is converted into the Blood of Christ. But it is also an article of faith that we receive the living Christ, now risen and glorified. Since Christ is alive, His Body and Blood are joined, by reason of concomitance (i.e. a “natural connection”)

Furthermore, by reason of concomitance, Christ’s Soul is joined to His Body and Blood (since He is alive). And still further, by reason of the Hypostatic Union, Christ’s Divinity is united to His Body, Blood, and Soul.

So, to recap: Christ’s Body becomes present through the Sacramental action of the consecration of the bread, converted into His Body. His Blood, Soul and Divinity* are present through concomitance.

Likewise, with the conversion of the wine to His Blood. His Body, Soul and Divinity* are present through concomitance.

We can see the beauty and fittingness in this: the sacramental signs are fulfilled, bread becomes Body, and wine becomes Blood. In addition we can see how this doctrine preserves the reality of the Real Presence: since Christ is really present as He is now, and since Christ is alive (and can never die again), wherever His Body is so must be His Blood, Soul and Divinity. Wherever His Blood is, so must be His Body, Soul and Divinity.
Rawb said:
I think I might remember it has something to do with combating a heresy?
Click to expand...
You are probably thinking about the heresy of Utraquism, which posited the neccesity of receiving communion under both kinds in order to be saved. This heresy, as well as the erroneous belief of the Nestorians, does seem to deny the article of faith that Christ is whole and entire under each form.

So, Rawb and Vox, what do you think? I’m always happy when threads like this pop up because I usually learn quite a bit, and I hope that the more we can grow in the knowledge of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist the more we will learn to love Him. 👍

God Bless,
VC

*Strictly speaking, Christ’s Divinity is present by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, and not a natural concomitance.
 
We receive the Body and Blood of our risen Lord—Whose Body and Blood are not separated.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

SESSION THE THIRTEENTH,
Being the third under the Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III., celebrated on the eleventh day of October, MDLI.

DECREE CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

CHAPTER III.
On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments.

The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the [Page 78] Author Himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath 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]. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.
 
I get it! 😃 thanks everyone! It’s just common sense, isn’t it then? He’s alive, so his body and his blood must be connected, and his divinity is part of him…I think I get it. Thanks so much!
 
Actually you have hit upon another mis teaching of the Sacraments of the Catholic chuch. The bread and the blood repersent the word of God ( bread ) and the blood ( atonement of christ ) Where there is not blood no atonement exist for sin, were there is no word of God death enter in. So we are feed in the spirit by the word of God being mixed with faith bring forth a harvest of life in the spirit. So to take of the bread and blood means to dine on the word of God for the benefit of the spirit man and the blood for the redemption and healing of the soul. This does not require a earthly priest to preform it as we all are priest and we are called to repentance and study of the word of God. The addition of using actual wine and bread was added some 300 years ago just a new age thing.
Christians ahve been doing this for 2000 years at home.
 
Joseph_Smith said:
Actually you have hit upon another mis teaching of the Sacraments of the Catholic chuch. The bread and the blood repersent the word of God ( bread ) and the blood ( atonement of christ ) Where there is not blood no atonement exist for sin, were there is no word of God death enter in. So we are feed in the spirit by the word of God being mixed with faith bring forth a harvest of life in the spirit. So to take of the bread and blood means to dine on the word of God for the benefit of the spirit man and the blood for the redemption and healing of the soul. This does not require a earthly priest to preform it as we all are priest and we are called to repentance and study of the word of God. The addition of using actual wine and bread was added some 300 years ago just a new age thing.
Christians ahve been doing this for 2000 years at home.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we used to play “mass” when we were kids too. We used white necco wafers.
 
The doctrine of the Eucharist has been held from the very earliest days of the Church. For the first 800 years of Christianity, there was no doubt regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Here is a sample of writings from the fathers of the early Church illustrating this.

Paul, 55 A.D.
“I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:15-16)

Paul, 55 A.D.
“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Cor 11:23-30)

Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again… Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Epistle to the Smyreans)

“Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.” (Epistle to the Philadelphians)

Justin Martyr, 150 AD
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology of Justin)

Irenaeus of Lyons, 190 AD
“Christ has declared the cup… to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies Book V)

+++

And in case you missed it in your Bible study:

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29)

Bread? Wine? Yep, Jesus used them.

Using bread and wine is not exactly a late addition by the Church, is it?
 
Randy, I’m glad you’re on my team!
Rock on! (and God Bless!)
 
My husband, son and I were having a discussion tonight on why we receive the Eucharist under both species now, whereas when I was young we only received the consecrated host (Body of Christ). We thought that it made sense to receive under both species, since that is what Jesus stated in the Gospel and what the early Church practiced.

I searched the catholic.com website but didn’t come up with anything, and then I searched the Forums and found this thread. Thank you for the wonderful discussion - I think I get it, but I will have to mull it over some more.
 
The bread is consecrated into the Body of Christ, and the wine is consecrated into the Blood of Christ, consecrated separately because Jesus’ death was the separation of his blood from his body. Then at the Resurrection, his body and and his blood were reunited into the glorified Christ, which we receive in the Eucharist: body, blood, soul (the human nature) and divinity (the divine nature).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top