Bread becomes his Body only? Along with Wine becoming his blood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Average_Joe17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Average_Joe17

Guest
Phew its been a good ol’ minute since i posted 😳. My Question for tonight is this.

Why did Jesus make the clear distinction saying “this is my body” to the bread and “this is my blood” to the wine?

I have been taught that either [bread and wine] is truly Jesus after consecration and will always be.

But I’ve been alone with my thoughts and said to myself “mmm wait if Jesus said, ‘this is my body’ to the bread , that would mean it would only be his body, soul and divinity. And that would have to go along with his blood as well, only containing his blood, soul, and divinity”
 
Truly we cannot separate our “flesh” from the blood that nourishes it.
The proof of this? Go to the supermarket and purchase a tray of T-Bone steak. Let me know what do you find at the bottom of it.
Hint, Blood. And the carcass of the animal was drained after it was slaughtered to remove the blood. But it is still there.
So yes Jesus did create this 2 part sacrifice, His flesh and His blood signifying the separation that occurred when HE was sacrificed on the Cross and the Centurion, piecing HIS side let the blood out that came forth as it was spoken.
Peace!
 
So either species of the Eucharist, we’ll still receive Jesus. When is it during mass does this happen that the Host becomes the body blood soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus?
 
Yes you are correct either species are the full Jesus. One drop of HIS blood or 1 crumb of HIS body are the totality of HIM.
The transformation, or rather the “Transubstantiation” occurs at the “Epiclesis”
Peace!
 
During Mass, there are multiple moments to be aware of (and before detailing those, I’ll point out that our Eastern brothers and sisters don’t try to define a particular moment when transubstantiation occurs, and I see some value in that).

When the priest says the words of institution and elevates each of the species, (“This is my body…”), we believe the change in substance has occurred; the bread and wine have been confected into the Real Presence of Christ.

During the Agnus Dei, while the people are praying, “Lamb of God…”, the priest silently prays other prayers, too, and if you notice, he breaks off a tiny piece of bread (the Body) and places it in the chalice (with the Blood), reuniting them. It’s a bit symbolic of the resurrection. The concomitance is why we say (as St. Paul also says in I Corinthians 11) that BOTH the Body and Blood are present in either form of bread or wine.
 
It has been taught to me at least, that also the particle that the priest drops in the chalice also signifies his and our unity with the Bishop and by extension to the whole Church, (One Body).

Peace!
 
Hmmm are you Eastern or Orthodox?

Catholic theology holds the Transubstantiation takes place with the Words of Institution.

Eastern/Orthodoxy hold that the change is completed with the second epiclesis…
 
Average_Joe17 said:
Phew its been a good ol’ minute since i posted 😳. My Question for tonight is this.

Why did Jesus make the clear distinction saying “this is my body” to the bread and “this is my blood” to the wine?

I have been taught that either [bread and wine] is truly Jesus after consecration and will always be.

But I’ve been alone with my thoughts and said to myself “mmm wait if Jesus said, ‘this is my body’ to the bread , that would mean it would only be his body, soul and divinity. And that would have to go along with his blood as well, only containing his blood, soul, and divinity”
Click to expand...
Yes, the bread becomes [the substance of] his body only.

Yes, the wine becomes [the substance of] his blood only.

However, because Jesus is alive and glorified, it is impossible to separate the two. So while the bread becomes his body, that is, the substance is that of his body, his blood must be present by concomitance.

So it is with the wine. The substance changes from that of wine to that of the blood of Christ, and so his body must also be present by concomitance.

And since Jesus is both God and man, and fully alive, his soul and divinity must necessarily be present under both species as well.

This is also why when one receives under only one species he indeed receives both the Body and Blood of Christ, and indeed, the whole Christ although unless it is under both species, such as by a separate chalice or by intinction, one element is received only through concomitance, the other, substantially.
 
Last edited:
johnnykins said:
Catholic theology holds the Transubstantiation takes place with the Words of Institution.
Click to expand...
No.

Roman Catholic theology says that.

Eastern Catholic theology is generally the same as the Easter Orthodox.
 
dochawk said:
Eastern Catholic theology is generally the same as the Easter Orthodox.
Click to expand...
In the Roman rite, the priest holds up the Eucharist & says, “this is my body” before the Epiclesis

Is there a moment in the Eastern rite a similar thing is said when you don’t believe you are looking at His body?
 
you’ve just westernized away the entire issue!

😱

There are a couple of points where the Eucharist is presented, before and after reception.

It’s the issue of nailing down a specific time that we just don’t do.

Oh, and now I note that you wrote:
johnnykins said:
Eastern/Orthodoxy hold that the change is completed with the second epiclesis…
Click to expand...
No. that’s not EO and EC theology.

We just plain don’t specifically nail down a point in time.

Give us a list of options expecting us to choose, and we’ll answer, “Yes!”

While I’m at it,
JerryZ said:
The transformation, or rather the “Transubstantiation” occurs at the “Epiclesis”
Click to expand...
Which raises the detail that in the Roman Canon, the Epiclesis is implicit rather than explicit . . . . this bothers some of the EO (and not others), and they add one to it for what they call, “The Divine Liturgy of St. Peter” . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top