Eucharist (Real Presence)

[lukpet]

There is a question which interests me: Is the eucharist the body of Jesus and the wine the blood of Jesus or are both the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus?

Thank you for your answers, God bless!

 

[e_c]

Both are all 4.

What is really interesting is that there is a sort of difference beyond the accidental, which we might call “causative” - that each species (bread, wine) becomes what it is through different words and therefore through different realities… This was explained at Lateran IV.

“This is my Body.” The host becomes the Body of Christ through the power of the word alone - but because it is the Body, it must also be united to both the Soul (natural union, based on natural identity) and Divinity (hypostatic union) directly. Because it is united with each of those (though one would suffice) it is also His Blood.

“This is the chalice of my Blood.” Reverse the sequence.

This is why, had there been some of each Species retained after the Last Supper, when the Lord died, the matter which had been bread would then become only His Body and Divinity, and what had been wine would become only His Blood and Divinity. Strange, but wonderful and true… and actually quite important.

Does this help?

 

[porthos11]

There is a question which interests me: Is the eucharist the body of Jesus and the wine the blood of Jesus or are both the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus?

Thank you for your answers, God bless!

Well, there is some distinction. While it must be held that under each species, Jesus is present whole and entire, body, blood, soul, divinity, the consecrated species are distinct.

The consecrated bread is Jesus’ Body; it is not his Blood. The consecrated wine is Jesus’ Blood; it is not his body. Neither are the consecrated bread or his blood his soul either. But, rather where his Body is, so must his Blood, Soul, and Divinity necessarily be. And where is Blood is, there must his Body, Soul and Divinity necessarily be. This is called concomitance.

 

[GEddie]

Remember, the Eucharistic Body is a living body, and a living body by definition has blood, and soul; and in HIS case, divinity.

ICXC NIKA

 

[e_c]

Well, there is some distinction. While it must be held that under each species, Jesus is present whole and entire, body, blood, soul, divinity, the consecrated species are distinct.

The consecrated bread is Jesus’ Body; it is not his Blood. The consecrated wine is Jesus’ Blood; it is not his body. Neither are the consecrated bread or his blood his soul either. But, rather where his Body is, so must his Blood, Soul, and Divinity necessarily be. And where is Blood is, there must his Body, Soul and Divinity necessarily be. This is called concomitance.

This is true but, as Aristotle says, “being is said in many ways.” It could be misleading to say “it is not His Blood” or “it is not His Body,” even though substantially they are not, but are only so through real concomitance… because they ARE so through real concomitance.

Just a thought.

 

[lukpet]

Thanks for your answers so as far I understand:

Host: Matter: Body of Jesus, Presence: whole Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity)

Wine: Matter: Blood of Jesus Presence: whole Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity)

Am I right?

 

[anon98328916]

Jesus is FULLY present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[jochoa]

Thanks for your answers so as far I understand:

Host: Matter: Body of Jesus, Presence: whole Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity)

Wine: Matter: Blood of Jesus Presence: whole Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity)

Am I right?

Yes, the priest places a piece of the body into the chalice to help reiterate this point. Consuming the Eucharist under both species provides opportunity for deeper reflection on the life of Christ.

 

[otjm]

Yes, the priest places a piece of the body into the chalice to help reiterate this point. Consuming the Eucharist under both species provides opportunity for deeper reflection on the life of Christ.

Well said.

 

[porthos11]

Thanks for your answers so as far I understand:

Host: Matter: Body of Jesus, Presence: whole Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity)

Wine: Matter: Blood of Jesus Presence: whole Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity)

Am I right?

Yes, although instead of the word “matter” I would say “substance.” In technical/philosophical terms, “substance” is the “what-ness” or “Is-ness” of a thing.

 

[PNEUMA]

I would advise to eat the bread and drink the wine, since that was what Jesus told us to do.

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by lukpet View Post
Thanks for your answers so as far I understand:

Host: Matter: Body of Jesus, Presence: whole Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity)

Wine: Matter: Blood of Jesus Presence: whole Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity)

Am I right?

Yes, although instead of the word “matter” I would say “substance.” In technical/philosophical terms, “substance” is the “what-ness” or “Is-ness” of a thing.

Well, the substance of material substances includes the matter. The other ‘element’ of the substance is the substantial form. The substantial form and the matter are what compose the substance of material substances. Accordingly, Lukpet is not incorrect in saying ‘Host: Matter: Body of Jesus’ or ‘Wine: Matter: Blood of Jesus’. The whole substances (substantial form and matter) of the bread and wine change into the whole substances of the body and blood of Christ. So, the matter of the bread and wine change into the matter of Christ’s body and blood. Thus, transubstantiation (a miracle) is a change of the whole substances of the bread and wine and not just a formal change which is the kind of substantial changes we observe in the natural order.

 

[thistle]

Remember, the Eucharistic Body is a living body, and a living body by definition has blood, and soul; and in HIS case, divinity.

ICXC NIKA

Of course the divinity of the Father and the Holy Spirit is also present.

 

[Vico]

Well, there is some distinction. While it must be held that under each species, Jesus is present whole and entire, body, blood, soul, divinity, the consecrated species are distinct.

The consecrated bread is Jesus’ Body; it is not his Blood. The consecrated wine is Jesus’ Blood; it is not his body. Neither are the consecrated bread or his blood his soul either. But, rather where his Body is, so must his Blood, Soul, and Divinity necessarily be. And where is Blood is, there must his Body, Soul and Divinity necessarily be. This is called concomitance.

I think you mean that the appearances are only of one thing, but the substance of each appearance is really the whole Christ.

We know from 1 Corinthians 11:27 that both the body and blood are profaned with unworthy reception of either of the appearances of bread or wine.

“Whoever, therefore, 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”

 

[porthos11]

I think you mean that the appearances are only of one thing, but the substance of each appearance is really the whole Christ.

We know from 1 Corinthians 11:27 that both the body and blood are profaned with unworthy reception of either of the appearances of bread or wine.

“Whoever, therefore, 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”

No, I mean the substances are not the same.

The consecreated bread is Christ’s Body (the substance, the is-ness), and his Blood, Soul and Divinity are present only by concomitance. It is not his Blood, but his Blood is there.

The consecrated wine Christ’s Blood, and his Body, Soul and Divinity are present only by concomitance. It is not his Body, but his Body is there.

 

[Vico]

No, I mean the substances are not the same.

The consecreated bread is Christ’s Body (the substance, the is-ness), and his Blood, Soul and Divinity are present only by concomitance. It is not his Blood, but his Blood is there.

The consecrated wine Christ’s Blood, and his Body, Soul and Divinity are present only by concomitance. It is not his Body, but his Body is there.

I see, you mean as in Chapter 3 from the Council of Trent:

Chap. 3. The Excellence of the Most Holy Eucharist

Over the Other Sacraments

Denzinger 876 This, indeed, the most Holy Eucharist has in common with the other sacraments, that it is a “symbol of a sacred thing and a visible * form of an invisible grace”; but this excellent and peculiar thing is found in it, that the other sacraments first have the power of sanctifying, when one uses them, but in the Eucharist there is the Author of sanctity Himself before it is used [can. 4]. For the apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22] when He Himself truly said that what He was offering was His body; and this belief has always been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and His true blood together with His soul and divinity exist 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 both by force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, “who hath now risen from the dead to die no more” Rom. 6:9], are mutually united, the divinity also because of that admirable hypostatic union [can. I and 3] with His body and soul. Therefore, it is very true that as much is contained under either species as under both. For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever of that species, likewise the whole (Christ) is present under the species of wine and under its parts [can. 3].

 

[porthos11]

I see, you mean as in Chapter 3 from the Council of Trent:

Chap. 3. The Excellence of the Most Holy Eucharist

Over the Other Sacraments

Denzinger 876 This, indeed, the most Holy Eucharist has in common with the other sacraments, that it is a “symbol of a sacred thing and a visible * form of an invisible grace”; but this excellent and peculiar thing is found in it, that the other sacraments first have the power of sanctifying, when one uses them, but in the Eucharist there is the Author of sanctity Himself before it is used [can. 4]. For the apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22] when He Himself truly said that what He was offering was His body; and this belief has always been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and His true blood together with His soul and divinity exist 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 both by force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, “who hath now risen from the dead to die no more” Rom. 6:9], are mutually united, the divinity also because of that admirable hypostatic union [can. I and 3] with His body and soul. Therefore, it is very true that as much is contained under either species as under both. For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever of that species, likewise the whole (Christ) is present under the species of wine and under its parts [can. 3].

Pretty much.

This distinction is important because it is necessary to have the Body and Blood separate on the altar, thereby making the Death mystically present on the altar. So although each Species does have the entire Jesus whole and alive, the two distinct substances of Body and Blood must be distinguished in order for the Sacrifice to be properly re-presented.

 

[Vico]

Pretty much.

This distinction is important because it is necessary to have the Body and Blood separate on the altar, thereby making the Death mystically present on the altar. So although each Species does have the entire Jesus whole and alive, the two distinct substances of Body and Blood must be distinguished in order for the Sacrifice to be properly re-presented.

Also the liturgy is more comprehensible with this understanding.

 

[Richca]

No, I mean the substances are not the same.

The consecreated bread is Christ’s Body (the substance, the is-ness), and his Blood, Soul and Divinity are present only by concomitance. It is not his Blood, but his Blood is there.

The consecrated wine Christ’s Blood, and his Body, Soul and Divinity are present only by concomitance. It is not his Body, but his Body is there.

A brief comment. I think you are partly right here Porthos but not completely. Neither the body of Christ under the consecrated bread nor the blood of Christ under the consecrated wine can exist without form. And the form of Christ’s body and blood is the soul. So by the power of the sacrament the soul of Christ is present under both species and not just concomitantly (cf. ST, Part III, Q. 75, art. 6; see reply to obj. 2 especially). On the other hand, the soul of Christ as it gives the whole order of perfect being (beyond being and corporeal being such as animated being and intellectual being, the whole soul with all its powers if you will [the whole Christ]) is present by concomitance (cf. ST. Part III, Q. 76, art. 1).

 

[porthos11]

A brief comment. I think you are partly right here Porthos but not completely. Neither the body of Christ under the consecrated bread nor the blood of Christ under the consecrated wine can exist without form. And the form of Christ’s body and blood is the soul. So by the power of the sacrament the soul of Christ is present under both species and not just concomitantly (cf. ST, Part III, Q. 75, art. 6; see reply to obj. 2 especially). On the other hand, the soul of Christ as it gives the whole order of perfect being (beyond being and corporeal being such as animated being and intellectual being, the whole soul with all its powers if you will [the whole Christ]) is present by concomitance (cf. ST. Part III, Q. 76, art. 1).

“…but not as it bestows animated being”

The Bread does not become Christ’s soul insofar as the soul is the animating principle and if it is understood as distinct from the Body (much as we say the soul separates from the body at death); it must be present only concomitantly.

But insofar as the soul is the form of the body, and insofar as the soul is the form of the body, as Aquinas said, then yes, essentially because it is pretty much the body.