Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the two species?

[MarcoPG]

Hello

first, thank you for your prayers, my surgery went well. Thank you.

A funny question came to me, yesterday. Why do we say that in both species, there is the Body AND the Blood? When Jesus said THIS is my Body; THIS is my Blood, I thought he was somehow differentiating the two.

We had examples of bleeding hosts. As for the blood…
So, even if the Lord doesn’t say this is my body and not my blood, and vice-versa, I still don’t completely get how the Blood can “contain” the Body in it.

Thank you for you clarifications.

 

[Brendan]

Because the Eucharist is Christ.

More specifically, the Resurrected Christ.

The consecration of both species separately is a reminder of the Passion and Death of Christ. The separation of body and blood is a symbol of death.

But then we see them presented together, that is a symbol of the reunion of the body and blood, in other words, a symbol of the Resurrection.

But all that is simply the Mode of Conscecration, not it’s Effect.

The Effect is to bring about the change in substance from bread and wine into Christ Himself.

Christ Himself is Ressurected, we are not killing Him over again, separating the Blood from the Body,

We receive Christ as He is today, and the FULL Christ, not just pieces and parts, but the WHOLE Son of God.

So the speices are simply different forms of the Whole Christ, they are the same ‘thing’ or really the same person, Christ. It just appears different to our senses. That that is the ONLY difference, how it appears to our senses.

It is not that the Blood contains the Body, it is that the chalice contains the full, living, whole Christ. Likewise with the form of bread, it is the full, living, whole Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[John_Martin]

There is the “sacramental presence” and the “concomitant presence”.

Sacramentally, the wafer is the body of Christ, alone, drained of its blood.
Sacramentally, the chalice holds the blood of Christ alone, drained from the body and sitting apart from it on the altar.
This is how sacramentally it is a sacrifice - body and blood in separate positions on the altar, and offered to God, and then given to the people of the covenant to eat and drink as their part of the covenantal sacrifice.

Concomitantly, wherever the Body is, there is the whole Christ. Wherever the blood is, there is the whole Christ. He took his body back to union with his soul in the resurrection. So when he gives you his body and blood in the sacramental presence, he is including his fullness with them and giving his full self to your soul.

In the Mass we declare, “We proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again”.
How can we say that? We are eating a real body that died, and drinking real blood that spilled from that body. Our eyes see it, our tongue tastes it. Jesus died and is on the altar and in our mouths being swallowed. You can’t eat Jesus body or drink his blood unless he died - so in eating and drinking we proclaim he died, literally.
But then, out of our souls, and into our minds and our speech comes a word of faith - “you are risen”. Our souls know the presence of the living Christ, that he lives and comes with his Body and Blood into our souls as our own bodies consume his body and blood.

“Proclaim” is about something we see in front of us - body and blood, the death of Christ.
“Profess” is about something we believe and know, about what we are eating and drinking.

 

[eamonnroma]

However I believe we should always receive also from the chalice. Jesus asked us to eat and drink.

 

[MarcoPG]

I would also eat and drink, but I had the occasion to do so only once. This possibility doesn’t even exist anymore in our parishes . Technically it is always possible, but no one is there to hold the Chalice…

Could anyone develop the concept of concomitance of the Bod and the Blood, which is different from the fact that there are two species? I didn’t find anything about it really.

 

[Trekker47]

Hmm, if I recall correctly you’re meant to not take communion under the two species, you either eat or drink. The main exception to this is of course the priest.

 

[paperwight66]

Hmm, if I recall correctly you’re meant to not take communion under the two species, you either eat or drink. The main exception to this is of course the priest.

On the contrary, we are invited to receive both the Host and from the chalice as ‘a fuller sign’.

 

[Trekker47]

On the contrary, we are invited to receive both the Host and from the chalice as ‘a fuller sign’.

Oh ok, it would appear I was misinformed. Thanks for that.

 

[John_Martin]

I would also eat and drink, but I had the occasion to do so only once. This possibility doesn’t even exist anymore in our parishes . Technically it is always possible, but no one is there to hold the Chalice…

Could anyone develop the concept of concomitance of the Bod and the Blood, which is different from the fact that there are two species? I didn’t find anything about it really.

How about from Thomas Aquinas? Here is a quote, and then I will give the link so you can read more of what he says about it:

It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: “This is My body,” or, “This is My blood.” But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind.

This was the first Article from question 76 of the Third Part of the Summa Theologica ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q76_A1.html
Question 76 is titled: “OF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT”

 

[Brendan]

I would also eat and drink, but I had the occasion to do so only once. This possibility doesn’t even exist anymore in our parishes . Technically it is always possible, but no one is there to hold the Chalice…

Could anyone develop the concept of concomitance of the Bod and the Blood, which is different from the fact that there are two species? I didn’t find anything about it really.

Chris said, “Take and eat, this is my Body” and “Take and drink, This is my Blood”

But that is accomplished in a single species. Each species is the exact same Substance, that of Christ Himself. The only difference (and I repeat, the ONLY difference) is how they appear to our senses.

The elements of wine and bread no longer exists, BOTH are replaced by the person of Christ.

Thus the species of bread is, in reality, living flesh and flowing blood. Our senses do not detect that, in the same way as they do not detect the consumption of the full, person, fully human and fully Divine.

When we consume the smallest particle of the species of bread, we eat flesh and drink blood, though we do not detect that with our senses.

Christ’s command is completely fulfilled when a person consumes the smallest crumb of the species of bread, or the tiniest sip of the species of wine. Flesh is eaten and blood is consumed, even of our senses only detect a single mode of consumption.

Just because our senses do not detect the nature of what we are consuming, does not mean that we are not consuming both flesh and blood.

We DO eat and we DO drink and every parish. Christ’s command if fulfilled in every reception of Holy Communion, even if it is via in a single form alone.

 

[MarcoPG]

So the reality is that the Lord could have said : this (the bread) is my being, fully. And this (the wine) is also my full being.

But since he took bread and wine as symbols for body and blood, there was the need to

1. make them visible signs of what it is meant, body and blood, although the two are the same in substance.
2. consacrate twice, once for each element, since the species were two during the supper.

Would it be right?

 

[John_Martin]

Chris said, “Take and eat, this is my Body” and “Take and drink, This is my Blood”

But that is accomplished in a single species. Each species is the exact same Substance, that of Christ Himself. The only difference (and I repeat, the ONLY difference) is how they appear to our senses.

The elements of wine and bread no longer exists, BOTH are replaced by the person of Christ.

Thus the species of bread is, in reality, living flesh and flowing blood. Our senses do not detect that, in the same way as they do not detect the consumption of the full, person, fully human and fully Divine.

When we consume the smallest particle of the species of bread, we eat flesh and drink blood, though we do not detect that with our senses.

Christ’s command is completely fulfilled when a person consumes the smallest crumb of the species of bread, or the tiniest sip of the species of wine. Flesh is eaten and blood is consumed, even of our senses only detect a single mode of consumption.

Just because our senses do not detect the nature of what we are consuming, does not mean that we are not consuming both flesh and blood.

We DO eat and we DO drink and every parish. Christ’s command if fulfilled in every reception of Holy Communion, even if it is via in a single form alone.

As I wrote, “sacramentally” (meaning per the formula and action of the Sacrament), the bread becomes the Body of Christ. It does not become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. He did not say, “This is my Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity given for you” when he took the bread. A physical thing can only be one physical thing. The “substance” is ONLY the Body of Christ where once the “substance” was bread.

Physically you have only the body with no blood in it. And in the Chalice only the blood, with no body in it.

It is only in your understanding of Jesus himself where you come to realize that when you have consumed Jesus’ Body, you have partaken of ALL of Him, for he is where is Body is, and he is where his Blood is. That is the Concomitant presence of all of Christ with his Body or with his Blood.

In the wafer, only the Body is the substance and substantially present. But the whole Christ, living body with blood in His veins, soul united, and Divinity, is present “Concomitantly”.

The body and blood are for your senses - your eyes, your mouth, your taste - so that you will know that you actually ate and drank the body and blood and fulfilled in your own body John Chapter 6 and fulfilled the command to “do this in remembrance of me” (remember me doing this so you do it also in the exact same way so that all may participate in the covenant together).

 

[MarcoPG]

Physically you have only the body with no blood in it. And in the Chalice only the blood, with no body in it.

In the wafer, only the Body is the substance and substantially present. But the whole Christ, living body with blood in His veins, soul united, and Divinity, is present “Concomitantly”.

That is the paradox I would like to clarify, for myself and others.

 

[Brendan]

As I wrote, “sacramentally” (meaning per the formula and action of the Sacrament), the bread becomes the Body of Christ. It does not become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. He did not say, “This is my Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity given for you” when he took the bread. A physical thing can only be one physical thing. The “substance” is ONLY the Body of Christ where once the “substance” was bread.

Physically you have only the body with no blood in it. And in the Chalice only the blood, with no body in it.

It is only in your understanding of Jesus himself where you come to realize that when you have consumed Jesus’ Body, you have partaken of ALL of Him, for he is where is Body is, and he is where his Blood is. That is the Concomitant presence of all of Christ with his Body or with his Blood.

In the wafer, only the Body is the substance and substantially present. But the whole Christ, living body with blood in His veins, soul united, and Divinity, is present “Concomitantly”.

The body and blood are for your senses - your eyes, your mouth, your taste - so that you will know that you actually ate and drank the body and blood and fulfilled in your own body John Chapter 6 and fulfilled the command to “do this in remembrance of me” (remember me doing this so you do it also in the exact same way so that all may participate in the covenant together).

First of all, ‘physically’ referrers strictly to the accidental properties. Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist. If He was the Host would weight that of a fully grown male human, with all the physical properties there of ( temperature, texture etc…)

The physics of the Eucharist pertain specifically to accidental properties. And yes, the Eucharist keeps the same physics as the species.

Secondly, could you clarify your distinction between being Sacramentally Present and being “Concomitantly” present?

If you look at Aquinas’ Summa, same question, article 2, it deals specifically with this issue
Aquinas is confirming my point. The species of bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity specifically BECAUSE of concomitance. Where the Body is, so much so must be the Blood. This is given as a reason FOR the Sacramental presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in each species, in that when the priest calls forth the Body of Christ.

Aquinas’ point is that is of necessity that the whole Christ becomes present in the Sacrament. Thus the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are equally and substantially present in the species.

 

[MarcoPG]

Where the Body is, so much so must be the Blood. This is given as a reason FOR the Sacramental presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in each species, in that when the priest calls forth the Body of Christ.

Aquinas’ point is that is of necessity that the whole Christ becomes present in the Sacrament. Thus the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are equally and substantially present in the species.

I am sure I am thinking about it the wrong way, but I seriously ask myself : the Body without the Blood can’t be, ok, but why couldn’t the Blood be without the Body? A body needs life, which is, biblically and phisically, the blood.
Again, I am not doubting, I am just trying to understand how the sign of the accidents interact with our understanding, what it says. And since we had the Host bleeding (perfect sign in the accidents of the concomitance), we cannot say the same for the Blood, if not for a cloth or so, but it never was united “accidentally” to the Host the way this latter was with the Blood.

After thiese thoughts I guess m point and question is: Jesus chose to use those elements of bread and wine, but he could have taken the bread only, since it becomes Christ fully, or even the wine only for that matter. Surely for the sacramental, it is clearer to have a solid element like bread, but the Blood in the Chalice becomes the Body too…

 

[Vico]

Oh ok, it would appear I was misinformed. Thanks for that.

I think you are not misinformed, since both kinds reception is conditional. The GIRM has: 23. … the General Instruction states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted as follows:

a. for Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate
b. for the Deacon and others who perform some duty at Mass
c. members of communities at the Conventual Mass or the “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all those engaged in a retreat or taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering 35​

24. … Norms established by the Diocesan Bishop must be observed wherever the Eucharist is celebrated in the diocese, "which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups."37
Catechesis for Receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord
25. When Communion under both kinds is first introduced by the Diocesan Bishop and also whenever the opportunity for instruction is present, the faithful should be properly catechized on the following matters in the light of the teaching and directives of the General Instruction:

a. the ecclesial nature of the Eucharist as the common possession of the whole Church;
b. the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, his death and resurrection, and as the sacred banquet;
c. the real presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements, whole and entire—in each element of consecrated bread and wine (the doctrine of concomitance);
d. the kinds of reverence due at all times to the sacrament, whether within the eucharistic Liturgy or outside the celebration;38 and
e. the role that ordinary and, if necessary, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are assigned in the eucharistic assembly.​

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

 

[Brendan]

I am sure I am thinking about it the wrong way, but I seriously ask myself : the Body without the Blood can’t be, ok, but why couldn’t the Blood be without the Body? A body needs life, which is, biblically and phisically, the blood.
Again, I am not doubting, I am just trying to understand how the sign of the accidents interact with our understanding, what it says. And since we had the Host bleeding (perfect sign in the accidents of the concomitance), we cannot say the same for the Blood, if not for a cloth or so, but it never was united “accidentally” to the Host the way this latter was with the Blood.

If you are looking for a sign of this union in the accidental properties, the priest will put a small piece of the species of bread into the chalice, this is the sign pointing towards their union.

After thiese thoughts I guess m point and question is: Jesus chose to use those elements of bread and wine, but he could have taken the bread only, since it becomes Christ fully, or even the wine only for that matter. Surely for the sacramental, it is clearer to have a solid element like bread, but the Blood in the Chalice becomes the Body too…

This are signs certainly. That is why the Church states that it is a fuller sign to receive in both species. But ntote that the Church does NOT claim that it is a fuller reality.

A sign is something that points towards something other than itself.

A road sign, for example, points towards, or identifies, a road.

A stop sign signifies an ordinance that requires the drive to stop at that point.

A sign, then points towards, or identifies something other than itself.

This is true of the reception of both species. Each species, by itself, is sign, symbol and reality of the True Presence of Christ. So each species, by itself, fully IS and fully points towards Christ. This is all a Catholic really needs, in fact, there can be nothing more that CAN be received if one has received Christ Himself.

The reception of both species, then, points towards, but does not offer, something else.

This, as stated above, are signs towards the Last Supper, or more specifically, the Resurrection itself. It points towards these, but does not offer them. One does not receive the Resurrection by the reception of both species, for example. It merely points towards it, and reminds us of it.

But, no, you do not receive anything addition by partaking of both species ( you cannot).

The best analogy is back to the street sign. If you are on the Street, you might see an additional street sign saying “This way to ResurrectionVille”

But it the sign itself is not the road, and should not be confused with being the road.

The signs are helpful to help us understand, and to help us make sure we are on the road to RessurectionVille.

But one thing to keep in mind is that the sign should NEVER be our focus, the reality should ALWAYS be the focus.

If one accepts with certainty that one is on the road to RessurectionVille, you really don’t need to rely on signs.

Likewise, if the Catholic is certain of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, of what they are receiving (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) then the sign (rightly) loses it’s value.

 

[MarcoPG]

If you are looking for a sign of this union in the accidental properties, the priest will put a small piece of the species of bread into the chalice, this is the sign pointing towards their union.

I am not particularly looking for a sacramental sign, but the connection between the sacramental and sacrament. It doesn’t have to be visible. It must certainly be theological and/or philosophical.

If we take the Host, we take the Lord fully. The same with the blood. So, why the two species? As a sign of reunion of body and soul, not anything else?
Because as I said, the Lord could have chosen to consacrate the bread or the wine only.

 

[John_Martin]

I am not particularly looking for a sacramental sign, but the connection between the sacramental and sacrament. It doesn’t have to be visible. It must certainly be theological and/or philosophical.

If we take the Host, we take the Lord fully. The same with the blood. So, why the two species? As a sign of reunion of body and soul, not anything else?
Because as I said, the Lord could have chosen to consacrate the bread or the wine only.

You do not have a sacrifice with blood in the body. But on the altar, take a close look with your eyes and listen with your ears. What do you see? The Priest taking bread, and hear, “This is my body”, and then sets it on the altar. Then what do you see and hear? The Priest takes the Chalice, and you hear, “This is the chalice of my blood of the new covenant”. And then you see him setting it in a separate spot on the altar, next to the body. That is a sacrifice, a body without blood and blood apart from its body.

That is the Sacrament - the body and the blood placed side by side on the altar of sacrifice.

Your eyes see the body and the blood separated. The Sacrament is for your Senses. The truth of the full Christ present is for your Spirit to know, but not for your senses to know.