Eucharist question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dstep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dstep

Guest
Hello,

Why does the Catholic Church teach that the body and blood of Jesus is in both the bread and the wine instead of the body being the bread and the blood the wine?
 
Does one live without the other? The blood supplies the body. And the body produces blood. How can we seperate the two?
 
Two reasons. One, since Christ is risen and “death no longer has dominion over him.” His body and blood, and therefore His soul and divinity, cannot be separated from each other any more. At death those parts are separated.

Also, in I Corinthians 11:27, Paul says,
Whoever therefore eats the bread, OR drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body AND blood of The Lord.
Click to expand...
So according to St. Paul, if you consume either the host or the cup, you profane both the body and blood of Christ. 👍

Great question by the way!
 
Robyn p’s quotation (1 Cor. 11: 27) makes an interesting point that I had never noticed before. “Whoever … eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” Partaking of the bread or the cup “in an unworthy manner” profanes both “the body and blood of the Lord.” Interesting, interesting. Thank you.

Still, please do not stop reading at verse 27, keep reading the next verse (28) which says: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”

Treating one element unworthily profanes them both, yet a Christian is to partake of both. I wasn’t really seeking to start something about whether the cup should be offered occasionally, optionally, or simply always offered, nevertheless there that bit of teaching is right in the middle of a both/and comment regarding the body and blood of Christ.

Of course Christ’s body has blood in it, still, we are instructed to partake of both. My naming or description of my religion notes the influence of the Protestant Reformation on me and this is one area where I experience it acutely. Wafer-only partaking of the Eucharist seems disobedient to 1 Cor. 11:28 but also to every other place where the Eucharist is taught, commented on, or alluded to in any way. Even Melchizedek brought out both elements.

I’m pretty sure I’m right about this but if there is something I have missed I do want to hear it. Thank you.
 
Whenever you consume the smallest crumb of the consecrated bread or a single drop of the consecrated wine you receive the Lord’s body, blood, soul and divinity. At one point there was a controversy in the Church. People were saying by receiving the consecrated bread you received only our Lord’s body and by consuming the consecrated wine you received the Lord’s blood. To reinforce that the body, blood, soul and divinity are received in only one species the Church restricted access to the chalice. It wasn’t done in disobedience to Scripture but as a way of catechising the people.
 
Dstep said:
Hello,

Why does the Catholic Church teach that the body and blood of Jesus is in both the bread and the wine instead of the body being the bread and the blood the wine?
Click to expand...
It’s a theological doctrine called “concomitance.”

Bear with me here, because I have to start from the beginning.

When Christ died on the cross, He died from (technically and biologically) exsanguination literally a loss of blood. That means that, upon His death on the cross, the literal flesh of Christ and the literal blood of Christ were separated. A human body without blood cannot be alive, and neither can blood truly be alive outside the body.

Upon the resurrection, His body once again was alive—truly and completely. In order for His flesh to be alive, there would have to be blood in His system. Without the blood, He would not be genuinely resurrected. Not to be silly about it, but without blood in the resurrected body, He would be an animated (ie moving, speaking) body, but not actually human; since there’s no such thing as a living human body without blood flowing through it. If His flesh were alive without blood flowing through the system, then there was no true resurrection, only a trick or an illusion.

A living human being is always both flesh and blood together.

Since the Eucharist is Christ’s body; since it is His living and resurrected Body, that Body must necessarily be both flesh and blood together.

That gets us back to concomitance.
Since we say (and rightly believe) that under the Eucharistic species, both the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ are truly the living Christ, that living Christ is “composed” (so to speak) of both His Flesh and His Blood together, regardless of whether we are speaking of the (species of the) bread or the (species of the) wine or both together, such as when they are mingled in the chalice, or by intinction.

If the consecrated host is “only” the flesh of Christ, to the exclusion of the blood, then it would not be the living flesh of Christ (because flesh without blood is not living)–it would instead be the dead flesh of Christ. Naturally, this is not the case. The same is said about the Blood.

In fact, when you think about it, we say that the consecrated Host is the “Body of Christ” (in Greek, soma) and not the “flesh of Christ” (in Greek Sarx) so we are already saying that the Host is “flesh and blood” because a living body is always “flesh-and-blood.”
 
Thank you Father David, for your clear explanation for us to learn. It makes lot of sense!
Thank you!🙂
 
FrDavid96 said:
It’s a theological doctrine called “concomitance.”

Bear with me here, because I have to start from the beginning.

When Christ died on the cross, He died from (technically and biologically) exsanguination literally a loss of blood. That means that, upon His death on the cross, the literal flesh of Christ and the literal blood of Christ were separated. A human body without blood cannot be alive, and neither can blood truly be alive outside the body.

Upon the resurrection, His body once again was alive—truly and completely. In order for His flesh to be alive, there would have to be blood in His system. Without the blood, He would not be genuinely resurrected. Not to be silly about it, but without blood in the resurrected body, He would be an animated (ie moving, speaking) body, but not actually human; since there’s no such thing as a living human body without blood flowing through it. If His flesh were alive without blood flowing through the system, then there was no true resurrection, only a trick or an illusion.

A living human being is always both flesh and blood together.

Since the Eucharist is Christ’s body; since it is His living and resurrected Body, that Body must necessarily be both flesh and blood together.

That gets us back to concomitance.
Since we say (and rightly believe) that under the Eucharistic species, both the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ are truly the living Christ, that living Christ is “composed” (so to speak) of both His Flesh and His Blood together, regardless of whether we are speaking of the (species of the) bread or the (species of the) wine or both together, such as when they are mingled in the chalice, or by intinction.

If the consecrated host is “only” the flesh of Christ, to the exclusion of the blood, then it would not be the living flesh of Christ (because flesh without blood is not living)–it would instead be the dead flesh of Christ. Naturally, this is not the case. The same is said about the Blood.

In fact, when you think about it, we say that the consecrated Host is the “Body of Christ” (in Greek, soma) and not the “flesh of Christ” (in Greek Sarx) so we are already saying that the Host is “flesh and blood” because a living body is always “flesh-and-blood.”
Click to expand...
Thank you so much Father this was a very clear explanation. God bless you:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top