Contradiction in the Catechism?

[CutlerB]

I came across some website just now, accusing Jimmy Akin of heresy, which I however regard as wrong. The website had to do with Transubstantiation and how Christ is present in the Eucharist. As the whole thing looked rather suspicious, I got out the Catechism and looked up what Church teaching is.

I found paragraphs 1376 and 1377 that speak to this, but to me they seem to be in contradiction.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 1376

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.;1 Cor 11:24 ff.)

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 1377

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. (Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.)

To me that sounds as if Trent says “Bread = only Body, Wine = only blood” and the following paragraph says “Bread = whole Christ, Wine = whole Christ”.

Can anyone explain this?

 

[Warloff]

It’s not a contradiction. You just need to read them together.

Christ’s body and blood is present is both species after the consecration.

 

[CutlerB]

It’s not a contradiction. You just need to read them together.

Christ’s body and blood is present is both species after the consecration.

But that conclusion really sounds awkward to me in the face of the quote from Trent, which separates Body and Blood?

 

[Warloff]

But that conclusion really sounds awkward to me in the face of the quote from Trent, which separates Body and Blood?

Did you see that the second passage is also relying on Trent?

This is a most ancient belief although one that has frequently caused confusion over the years.

The reason they are united was because on the Cross, Christ’s body and blood were unified during His sacrifice, and likewise this happens at the sacrifice of the mass.

Here is the whole passage from Trent:

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.

 

[CutlerB]

Ah, now it makes sense. Thank you!

May I ask, how did you find the quote? The Catechism uses references like “DS 1642” but I have now idea what that means.

 

[Warloff]

Ah, now it makes sense. Thank you!

May I ask, how did you find the quote? The Catechism uses references like “DS 1642” but I have now idea what that means.

“DS” refers to Denzinger-Schonmetzer’s Handbook of Creeds and Definitions, which is a collection of important Church documents. You can access a pre-1950 version at: denzinger.patristica.net (As this is an old version, the numbers won’t match up with the current Catechism).

I found the appropriate canon by simply Googling the Council of Trent: history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

 

[CutlerB]

Great, thanks.

 

[DavidFilmer]

To me that sounds as if Trent says “Bread = only Body, Wine = only blood” and the following paragraph says “Bread = whole Christ, Wine = whole Christ”.

Can anyone explain this?

Your interpretation might include the word “only,” but that is not the interpretation that has been taught by the Catholic Church.

The Church teaches,

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. [CCC 1377]

The Council of Trent was willing to entertain protestant oppisition to this Doctrine. The Council said:

The same holy council, desiring to root up from the field of the Lord all errors which have like thorns sprung up relative to this most holy sacrament, and to provide for the salvation of all the faithful, having devoutly offered daily prayers to Almighty God, among other articles pertaining to this sacrament which have been considered with the most careful examination of the Catholic truth, after many and most thorough discussions according to the importance of the matters have been held and the views also of the most eminent theologians have been ascertained, has also considered the following: Whether it is necessary to salvation and prescribed by divine law that all the faithful of Christ receive that venerable sacrament under both species; then, whether he receives less who communicates under one than he who communicates under both; further, whether holy mother Church errs when she permits the laity and priests when not celebrating to communicate under the form of bread only. [Council of Trent, Session 13]

I have not found that the German protestants actually took advantage of the Church’s assurance of safe passage to present their case, and whether such a case was ruled upon one way or another. But, unless the protestants did present their case and it was judged favorably by the Council, it does not matter. The position of the Church is clear.

 

[Warloff]

I have not found that the German protestants actually took advantage of the Church’s assurance of safe passage to present their case, and whether such a case was ruled upon one way or another. But, unless the protestants did present their case and it was judged favorably by the Council, it does not matter. The position of the Church is clear.

A handful of Protestants did try to attend, but weren’t able to make it due to a multitude of disasters.

The Church’s handling of Jan Hus’ safe passage at the Council Constance unfortunately ensured that most Protestants would stay away.

 

[DavidFilmer]

A handful of Protestants did try to attend, but weren’t able to make it due to a multitude of disasters.

The Church’s handling of Jan Hus’ safe passage at the Council Constance unfortunately ensured that most Protestants would stay away.

All of which does not disclaim the Church’s teaching. Maybe there was (potential) opposition by non-Catholics There has ALWAYS been opposition to the Doctrine of the Church.

But the OP did not inquire about protestant opposition, but about the teaching of the Church. The Doctrine of the Church has always been that of concomantance - that the Body and Blood of Our Lord is fully present in every part of each Species (Body and Blood), and that nobody can receive “more Jesus” or “less Jesus” because s/he received under one or both Species (or consumed “more Jesus” by consuming any “surplus” Body or Blood, such as would a priest or Eucharistic Minister).

Note to Jo Benedict - Please understand that I am in no way implicating the Eucharistic Ministers in any offense. They share in the ministry of the priest. The priest is obligated to consume the “surplus” Body and Blood, but he may share (but not completely delegate) this ministry with the Eucharistic Ministers.