Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity

[KOC82]

When did the Church start teaching that the Eucharist, is the body, blood, soul and divinity? It’s a specific question: in what century, to which council, and to which particular scripture is this belief based on. I am wondering because I know Jesus Himself makes a distinction, to institute a sacrifice, but when did the Church officially start teaching, and on what basis do they teach this. Thanks.

 

[Vico]

When did the Church start teaching that the Eucharist, is the body, blood, soul and divinity? It’s a specific question: in what century, to which council, and to which particular scripture is this belief based on. I am wondering because I know Jesus Himself makes a distinction, to institute a sacrifice, but when did the Church officially start teaching, and on what basis do they teach this. Thanks.

Newadvent states that the Real Presence as a fact, Proof from Scripture, “This may be adduced both from the words of promise (John 6:26 sqq.) and, especially, from the words of Institution as recorded in the Synoptics and St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23 sqq.).”

“…complete clearness on the subject had been attained by writers as early as Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria in the East, and by Ambrose and the later Latin writers in the West. Eventually the West became the classic home of scientific perfection in the difficult doctrine of Transubstantiation.”

Also there is mentioned that the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts was practiced in the fourth century.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote much on the Holy Mysteries. He lived 350-387 A.D. One example Mystagogical Catechesis 3:

“Just as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer just bread, but the body of Christ …”

 

[bearer]

The CCC states:

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” (201) In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” (202) “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” (203)

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered. (204)

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature. (205)

…

201 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,73,3c.
202 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651.
203 Paul VI, MF 39.
204 St. John Chrysostom, prod. Jud. 1:6G 49,380.
205 St. Ambrose, De myst. 9,50; 52L 16,405-407.

However, keep in mind that the earliest Church Fathers also taught that the Eucharist was substantially Christ. From Justin Martyr’s First Apology, c. AD 140-155:

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, was taught by Jesus to His Apostles and through them to His Church. You’ll find the words of institution in the Gospels. The first words in the NT that express this belief are in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 (written c. A.D. 56). A thorough treatment is in the sixth chapter of John (written A.D. 90-100). The belief is also found in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, written A.D. 107-110) and in subsequent writings of the Church Fathers.

 

[KOC82]

I think perhaps my question was misunderstood. Perhaps, I did not ask it as specifically as I thought. Nonetheless, thank you for the replies. I was not referring to the Eucharist itself, but the teaching that in the (wine) blood, therein contains the Body, Soul, and Divinity. and in the (Host) Body, therein contains the Blood, Soul and Divinity. When Jesus clearly made a distinction between his Body and his Blood.

Thanks

 

[Vico]

I think perhaps my question was misunderstood. Perhaps, I did not ask it as specifically as I thought. Nonetheless, thank you for the replies. I was not referring to the Eucharist itself, but the teaching that in the (wine) blood, therein contains the Body, Soul, and Divinity. and in the (Host) Body, therein contains the Blood, Soul and Divinity. When Jesus clearly made a distinction between his Body and his Blood.

Thanks

Since the Church began.

From Trent:The Church of God has always believed that immediately after the consecration the true Body and Blood of our Lord, together with His soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine. His Body exists under the species of bread and His Blood under the species of wine according to the import of the words. But His Body exists under the species of wine, His Blood under the species of bread, and His soul under both species in virtue of the natural connection and concomitance which unite the parts of Christ our Lord, who has risen from the dead and dies now no more.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think perhaps my question was misunderstood. Perhaps, I did not ask it as specifically as I thought. Nonetheless, thank you for the replies. I was not referring to the Eucharist itself, but the teaching that in the (wine) blood, therein contains the Body, Soul, and Divinity. and in the (Host) Body, therein contains the Blood, Soul and Divinity. When Jesus clearly made a distinction between his Body and his Blood.

Thanks

The distinction is not quite the one you think. I understood your question, although since I don’t know the answer off the top of my head and don’t care to do the historical research, I didn’t answer. But it is important not to view this as a situation in which, as you seem to be implying, Jesus said that the one was just his Body and the other was just his Blood, and later on some medievals came along and changed this, claiming inscrutably that both are both, flatly contradicting Jesus’ own words. As though nobody had ever thought very hard about what they were saying!

The explanation of St. Thomas Aquinas, which I think makes sense and has been well accepted, is summed up in this sentence from the Summa (III.76.2):
For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (1, ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ’s blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death.
What is he saying here? That the Body and Blood are present for different reasons as regards each species. For instance, the consecration of the bread causes it to become the Body of Christ, “by the power of the sacrament.” However, Christ has risen to Heaven in glory, and now his Body and Blood can no longer be separated as they were on the Cross when he was pierced with the lance. Thus his Blood must be present too, but by concomitance rather than by the power of the sacrament: that is, it “tags along” when the bread becomes the Body. And the opposite applies with respect to the wine. Similarly, Thomas writes:
ince “Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more” (Romans 6:9), His soul is always really united with His body. And therefore in this sacrament the body indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but His soul from real concomitance.
The Soul and Divinity of Christ are present in the sacrament by concomitance as well because they, too, are never again to be dissevered from his body. Yet on the other hand, at one time indeed
His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated above (Question 50, Article 5). And therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He was dead, the soul of Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real concomitance.
I would say, by the same token, that when Christ celebrated the sacrament at the Last Supper, while he was still alive and his body was not yet glorified, it stands to reason that the bread may have become just his Body and the wine just his Blood, which would coincide nicely with what he said at the time. The situation now, with Christ in Heaven, is not the same; although the two species are still different and not interchangeable in that these different aspects of Christ are made present in them in different ways.

You can choose to believe these explanations or not (although you don’t have a choice on the whole BBS&D thing; that’s dogmatic), but I wanted to point out that it’s not as though this apparent tension had never occurred to anybody before. Incidentally, I ran across the following passage in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which you may want to look at as a jumping-off point for a bit of historical investigation (the scriptural reference is on point as well):
The Nestorians were condemned in the patristic period, and the heretics in the Council of Trent, because they denied that the Real Presence was whole and entire under each form (Denzinger-Bannwart, 930 sqq.; Mansi, XXX). The Nestorians had denied that the Real Presence was wholly and entirely under each form. The bread, they said, contained only the Body of Christ and the wine only His Blood. This is heretical. Because, as the Church quotes (and the text is the authentic Greek), “whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27). For, “Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more” (Romans 6:9). Separation of flesh and blood is death, and hence Christ’s presence whole and entire under each species is a dogma of Catholic belief.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Mark, well done!

Just a few points, though.

Aquinas doesnt say that that at the last supper just the Sacred Body would be present and just the Precious Blood under their respective species. It would still be the Whole Christ, body blood soul and divinity, through natural concomitance. The difference would be that the Body would be a nonglorified passible body.

You seemed to theorize that at the last supper the body and blood would be singly present, and I think you so theorized because Christ didn’t have a glorified body? However, That doesnt impinge on the Real Presence and concomitance. . . Natural concomitance means just that whatever Christ is, the real prsence is.

The other thing, and this is just an aside, I think some theologians speak of the body, blood, and soul present (respectively) by concomitance but sometimes speak of the Divinity of Christ present by virtue of the hypostatic union. I think this is done to distinguish natural concomitance from the singluar miracle of the hypostic union. Recall, that even after Christ died and his soul was seperated from his body, His Divinity was still joined to His Sacred Body. . . In the tomb. The hypostatic Union is forever.

Great job on laying this all out. I love seeing Aquinas quoted in threads

VC

 

[Brendan]

I think perhaps my question was misunderstood. Perhaps, I did not ask it as specifically as I thought. Nonetheless, thank you for the replies. I was not referring to the Eucharist itself, but the teaching that in the (wine) blood, therein contains the Body, Soul, and Divinity. and in the (Host) Body, therein contains the Blood, Soul and Divinity. When Jesus clearly made a distinction between his Body and his Blood.

Thanks

Most of that comes from Logic.

Christ Himself was present took on human form. He was living, he had a body, he had blood.

Therefore, according to Platonic philosophy ( which was the predomination philosophy of the time, and the metaphysical aspects of that have been adopted by the Church. Aquinas based most of his work on Plato.

The union of body and blood in a living person was a Substance in Platonic metaphysical philosophy. It was an individual person, therefore a unique mode of existance.
Christ living is one substance.

In addition, the animating principle of the body is the soul. The presence of a soul is what distinguishes living matter for dead matter.

Thus is follows in the philosophy of the day, and of the current philosophy of the Church, that the Eucharist, if it truely is the Substance of Christ, the Second Person of God, must contain

Body and Blood must be present together, as Christ is living. His Soul must be present, as gain, he is living, the soul of Christ is the animating principal of His Body.

His Divinity is present, as He is God.

Since Christ is living, His Body and Blood are not, nor can they be, seperate. They are united in the Substance of Christ.

All of this was well known in the time of Christ, as it is common Platonic metaphysics. St. Paul and St. Luke, as educated men, would have understood this and included this explaination when discussing theology with other educated men, especially Greeks.

Christ instituded the Eucharist as seperate species, not seperate substances, to indicate that he would die. And that is how we know that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a representation of the Sacrifice of Cavalry. It why the species are consecrated seperately, to show His Death. But in their reception we receive the single substance of Christ Himself, alive and resurrected, Body and Blood together, Living, so the Soul is present, and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, so His Divintiy is there.

All this would have been know to any educated person at the time of Christ who believed that the Eucharist is the reception of the Living Christ.

 

[KOC82]

First, may I say that your posts are well received, and I am thankful for the knowledge that has been passed to me. The question originated from a theological debate with a friend of mine who is a reformed protestant, and ex-Catholic. As I thought more about the question, I realized that within scripture I am unable to locate a verse where this doctrine is either implicit or explicit. Although, I have been edified, I am still saddened by not being able to reply to his question in it’s totality. While the question was about, the doctrine and when it came to be so. I think the origin of the question is rooted in scripture, or rather the lack of scripture to affirm the doctrine. Thanks everybody!

May the Peace, and Blessings of the risen Lord be with you, and may the Host of Heaven always surround you.

Nickoli

 

[Chatter163]

First, may I say that your posts are well received, and I am thankful for the knowledge that has been passed to me. The question originated from a theological debate with a friend of mine who is a reformed protestant, and ex-Catholic. As I thought more about the question, I realized that within scripture I am unable to locate a verse where this doctrine is either implicit or explicit. Although, I have been edified, I am still saddened by not being able to reply to his question in it’s totality. While the question was about, the doctrine and when it came to be so. I think the origin of the question is rooted in scripture, or rather the lack of scripture to affirm the doctrine. Thanks everybody!

May the Peace, and Blessings of the risen Lord be with you, and may the Host of Heaven always surround you.

Nickoli

Yes, but why are you lettng your friend set the terms of the debate? Why must every doctrine be clearly and unambiuously expressed in scripture? That is a modern Protestant novelty. The Church was teaching before the new testament was even settled in the fourth century. What did the Church do before that time? Ask you friend. The word trinity is no where to be found in scripture, either…

 

[KOC82]

Yes, but why are you lettng your friend set the terms of the debate? Why must every doctrine be clearly and unambiuously expressed in scripture? That is a modern Protestant novelty. The Church was teaching before the new testament was even settled in the fourth century. What did the Church do before that time? Ask you friend. The word trinity is no where to be found in scripture, either…

As far as his protestant reformist belief’s go. He will not just plainly accept anything that is not based in scripture. As far as the word Trinity goes. They believe that the teaching can be pulled from scripture, if only implicitly. Their response is that the scripture speaks volumes about the Trinity. As far as letting him set the debate, I struggle as a layman with the way they have set up their argument that the Church Fathers taught SS. So, do they not only accept the Church fathers, they use them against us.

Stuff like this:

“I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word.” -Against Hermogenes 22

“Then, in the first place, we prove from the authoritative Scriptures that all the things which have been mentioned, visible and invisible, have been made by one God. For these men are not more to be depended on than the Scriptures; (Ibid., Against Heresies II.30.6)”

“Silence! Silence on such blasphemy. Let us be content with saying that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and let this suffice, because the Scriptures have told us so much. For even the apostle, to his declaration—which he makes not without feeling the weight of it—that ‘Christ died,’ immediately adds, ‘according to the Scriptures,’ in order that he may alleviate the harshness of the statement by the authority of the Scriptures, and so remove offense from the reader” (Ibid., Against Praexes 29).

The list goes on and on, but these are off topic. I was just trying to give you an idea, why I must adhere to scripture in this debate.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, but why are you lettng your friend set the terms of the debate? Why must every doctrine be clearly and unambiuously expressed in scripture? That is a modern Protestant novelty. The Church was teaching before the new testament was even settled in the fourth century. What did the Church do before that time? Ask you friend. The word trinity is no where to be found in scripture, either…

Precisely.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

As far as his protestant reformist belief’s go. He will not just plainly accept anything that is not based in scripture. As far as the word Trinity goes. They believe that the teaching can be pulled from scripture, if only implicitly. Their response is that the scripture speaks volumes about the Trinity. As far as letting him set the debate, I struggle as a layman with the way they have set up their argument that the Church Fathers taught SS. So, do they not only accept the Church fathers, they use them against us.

Stuff like this:

“I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word.” -Against Hermogenes 22

“Then, in the first place, we prove from the authoritative Scriptures that all the things which have been mentioned, visible and invisible, have been made by one God. For these men are not more to be depended on than the Scriptures; (Ibid., Against Heresies II.30.6)”

“Silence! Silence on such blasphemy. Let us be content with saying that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and let this suffice, because the Scriptures have told us so much. For even the apostle, to his declaration—which he makes not without feeling the weight of it—that ‘Christ died,’ immediately adds, ‘according to the Scriptures,’ in order that he may alleviate the harshness of the statement by the authority of the Scriptures, and so remove offense from the reader” (Ibid., Against Praexes 29).

The list goes on and on, but these are off topic. I was just trying to give you an idea, why I must adhere to scripture in this debate.

Just find quotes that show the ECF’s believed in Tradition as well.

 

[Vico]

Just find quotes that show the ECF’s believed in Tradition as well.

There is another subtlety here from the Jewish tradition, which reading Leviticus, requires some application to the Lamb of God:

Leviticus 17:11

Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul.