Eucharist and Meat

[Verbum_Caro]

[continued from above]
Well, after I had read the above from Fr. Hardon and St. Thomas, I wondered: If the Sacrament had been performed at the exact moment of Christ’s death, wouldn’t that mean the Eucharistic species would have been an even more complete sign? Wouldn’t we receive Christ’s Body under the sign of the bread and Christ’s blood under the sign of the wine (and not both Body and Blood under the sign of either as we now do)? Wouldn’t this follow, because at the time of Christ’s death, His Body and Blood were separated by death?

I was surprised when I found that Aquinas had anticipated this question, and had answered it in the affirmative!

See here (Third Part, Q. 76, art 1, reply to Objection 1)

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.

But here is where Aquinas seems even more clear: (Thrid Part, Q. 76, art. 2)

it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. 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. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then

, the body of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as it was then, in fact.

Amazing.

What do you think Elzee (and JimG)?

Adoro te Devote,

VC

 

[JimG]

That’s very interesting. It’s the first time I have seen that analysis by Aquinas of the effects of the Eucharist at the Last Supper and the surmised effects had it been celebrated while he was in the tomb. I can certainly understand his point. And right now, I’m glad that it’s a moot point, here 2000 years in the future, so I don’t have to think about it too much.

I think I agree with him, but I’m a little unsure whether or not he makes too much of the temporal timeline of the last supper, passion, death, and resurrection. (I wonder if Christ might have broken through the space-time continuum in a singular way that might have made sequence irrelevant.) I sometimes think that had he lived long enough to study string theory, he might have modified this view, but maybe not. Certainly I’m not going to dispute him.

Nowadays we so glibly speak of the entire Christ being present under both or either species, but speaking from a Thomistic standpoint, it’s somewhat more complicated than that. The bread really does become his body–and the blood and all the rest of Him is present by real concomitance. The wine really does become his blood–and the body and all the rest of Him is present by real concomitance.

Thanks for the post, I pretty much agree with you (and Aquinas), but as I said I’m glad I only have to think about the Eucharist as it is now.