Parallel between bread and flesh, wine and blood

[sasg]

I have a question about the Eucharist. After consecration, although both species, bread and wine, are each both the body and blood of Christ, it is clear that the Church draws a direct parallel between Christ’s flesh and the consecrated bread; and likewise between Christ’s blood and the consecrated wine. Christ himself did this during the Last Supper. My question is, why the parallel, if both species are both his body and blood? Would it not be equally correct, when receiving the Eucharist under the form of bread, for the Priest to say “The blood of Christ”? Why, then, is there a strong parallel between between body and bread, blood and wine?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I have a question about the Eucharist. After consecration, although both species, bread and wine, are each both the body and blood of Christ, it is clear that the Church draws a direct parallel between Christ’s flesh and the consecrated bread; and likewise between Christ’s blood and the consecrated wine. Christ himself did this during the Last Supper. My question is, why the parallel, if both species are both his body and blood? Would it not be equally correct, when receiving the Eucharist under the form of bread, for the Priest to say “The blood of Christ”? Why, then, is there a strong parallel between between body and bread, blood and wine?

As many things in life, things could be other way. Why not rice instaed of braed. And water (for puritans it would be best) or beer (for northeners). I could be millions of ways. But who rules the worls it is not us.

The answer is simple: because Jesus wanted that way.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I suppose because it would be kind of silly to hear the priest say “the Blood of Christ” when he holds up the host, even though it technically is.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Well, Jesus Christ set the precedent when at the last supper. He took the bread and said this is my body. He took the wine and said this is my blood. So that’s why. The theology behind it wasn’t fully understood until later.

 

[sasg]

I suppose because it would be kind of silly to hear the priest say “the Blood of Christ” when he holds up the host, even though it technically is.

That’s exactly my point–it seems “silly” or strange for some reason, but I do not know why it should be strange. I, and probably a lot of other lay Catholics, at least subconsciously associate the consecrated bread with flesh and wine with blood, even while knowing each species is both. And the Church reinforces this when presenting the Eucharist to us (“Body of Christ” under the form of bread; “Blood of Christ” under the form of wine; “Body and Blood of Christ” when intincted). Though both species are both Christ’s body and blood, this would seem to creates a strong parallel, and I’m wondering what is the reason for this.

I’m not so much asking why use bread, or why use wine. I’m wondering what the basis is for creating this parallel between bread and flesh, wine and blood. It seems arbitrary, since after consecration what was bread is both God’s flesh and his blood–why is the flesh part singled out for the bread, and the blood part singled out for what was wine? Is there anything more “flesh-like” about Christ under the form of bread than Christ under the form of wine?

 

[Garyjohn2]

I’m wondering what the basis is for creating this parallel between bread and flesh, wine and blood. It seems arbitrary, since after consecration what was bread is both God’s flesh and his blood–why is the flesh part singled out for the bread, and the blood part singled out for what was wine? Is there anything more “flesh-like” about Christ under the form of bread than Christ under the form of wine?

Jesus created this parallel. Christ singled these out at the last supper. That’s why.

If Jesus said "Take this bread, it’s my body…take this wine it’s my blood. Do this in memory of me, " why on earth would we say different? Even if it is true, Jesus didn’t say that, and he didn’t tell us to say that. That’s why we draw those parallels, even if they can be understood to be both the body and blood together.

Also, it’s just easier for us to comprehend something solid and white as flesh, and something liquid and red as blood. That part is self-explanatory.

So, in answer, Christ relayed it that way to us, it’s easier for us to understand, and He probably knew it would be easier for us to understand.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because they do look like flesh and blood. I mean, think of any non-meat food that would closely resemble flesh or blood. Nothing else comes close. The physical signs of each Sacrament should faithfully show what the inner spiritual reality is.

 

[sasg]

Because they do look like flesh and blood. I mean, think of any non-meat food that would closely resemble flesh or blood. Nothing else comes close.

How about tofurkey? Seriously though, this makes sense to me. Thank you.

One minor (or maybe not) drawback of the Priest saying “Body of Christ” / “Blood of Christ” when administering the former bread and wine, respectively, is that I have noticed some people seem to thing the Eucharist under the form of bread is only the body of Christ, and under the form of wine is only the blood of Christ. Would it be licit for the Priest/EMHC to say “The Body and Blood of Christ” for each form? That would probably help people understand it better.

The physical signs of each Sacrament should faithfully show what the inner spiritual reality is.

So is this why it is a “more complete sign” to receive under both species, because in addition to the spiritual reality of receiving both Christ’s body and his blood, the physical signs are what looks like flesh and blood?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

sasg,

I think one important idea is that the consecrated host is Christ’s body and blood ONLY because Christ’s body and blood are together right now.

His precious blood isn’t part of the consecrated host by virtue of the sacrament. It is there by virtue of concomitance, by that real connection between His Body and Blood (in Heaven). (See the Council of Trent)

Aquinas points out that If a priest had consecrated a host while Christ was dead (and drained of blood) the Host would only have been His body (and there wouldn’t have been any soul either!).

VC

 

[ConstantineTG]

How about tofurkey? Seriously though, this makes sense to me. Thank you.

One minor (or maybe not) drawback of the Priest saying “Body of Christ” / “Blood of Christ” when administering the former bread and wine, respectively, is that I have noticed some people seem to thing the Eucharist under the form of bread is only the body of Christ, and under the form of wine is only the blood of Christ. Would it be licit for the Priest/EMHC to say “The Body and Blood of Christ” for each form? That would probably help people understand it better.

It will not be licit because the Christ said the bread is His body and the wine is His blood. And the rubric also called for the bread to be referred to as the Body of Christ, and the wine as the Blood of Christ.

So is this why it is a “more complete sign” to receive under both species, because in addition to the spiritual reality of receiving both Christ’s body and his blood, the physical signs are what looks like flesh and blood?

Because we can only perceive the physical sign. If you get a chance to go to a Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy, you will see how the sight of bread soaked in red wine does look like a blood-soaked piece of flesh.

 

[sasg]

sasg,

I think one important idea is that the consecrated host is Christ’s body and blood ONLY because Christ’s body and blood are together right now.

His precious blood isn’t part of the consecrated host by virtue of the sacrament. It is there by virtue of concomitance, by that real connection between His Body and Blood (in Heaven). (See the Council of Trent)

Aquinas points out that If a priest had consecrated a host while Christ was dead (and drained of blood) the Host would only have been His body (and there wouldn’t have been any soul either!).

VC

This is very interesting… So when the Priest consecrates the bread, it becomes the body of Christ; and by virtue of Christ’s body being united with his blood, soul, and divinity in Heaven, it is also his blood, soul and divinity? That is to say, when the Priest says “This is my body”, he is only consecrating the bread into Christ’s body; but because Christ’s body is now inseparable from his blood, soul, and divinity (as opposed to when he had an earthly body, where his body was separable from his blood as you point out), his blood (and soul, and divinity) is also present in the Eucharist. Is that a correct summation?

Does that mean that under the form of bread, Christ is “more present” as flesh than as blood, although both are present?

 

[sasg]

It will not be licit because the Christ said the bread is His body and the wine is His blood. And the rubric also called for the bread to be referred to as the Body of Christ, and the wine as the Blood of Christ.

Because we can only perceive the physical sign. If you get a chance to go to a Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy, you will see how the sight of bread soaked in red wine does look like a blood-soaked piece of flesh.

I have been to a Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy, where both forms were given together using a spoon. I have heard that some Eastern Catholics do not give both species together, though. Does the Eastern Church have a theology similar to concomitance? Is there an Eastern explanation/Tradition for both the Body and Blood being present under both species, albeit through different “mechanisms”?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

This is very interesting… So when the Priest consecrates the bread, it becomes the body of Christ; and by virtue of Christ’s body being united with his blood, soul, and divinity in Heaven, it is also his blood, soul and divinity? That is to say, when the Priest says “This is my body”, he is only consecrating the bread into Christ’s body; but because Christ’s body is now inseparable from his blood, soul, and divinity (as opposed to when he had an earthly body, where his body was separable from his blood as you point out), his blood (and soul, and divinity) is also present in the Eucharist. Is that a correct summation?

Yes, that is a good and correct summation. We should add, though, that while His soul was separable from His Body (hence, he could and did die), His Divinity was never separated from His Body, Blood, or Soul, because they were united in His Person to His Divinity. . i.e. the Hypostatic Union.

Does that mean that under the form of bread, Christ is “more present” as flesh than as blood, although both are present?

I don’t think we can say that. Trent is clear that both are present sacramentally, really, substantially. But equally clear that the Body is present by the power of the words, at the consecration of the Host and the blood present by the real union. Likewise, the blood is made present by the power of the words at the consecration of the wine, and the Body made present by the real union. Both are equally present (they couldn’t not be) but made present differently, respectively.

Though Christ’s body and blood can never now be separated, the separate consecrations show forth a kind of separation, symbolically representing His death.

VC

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have been to a Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy, where both forms were given together using a spoon. I have heard that some Eastern Catholics do not give both species together, though. Does the Eastern Church have a theology similar to concomitance? Is there an Eastern explanation/Tradition for both the Body and Blood being present under both species, albeit through different “mechanisms”?

The simple explanation is Christ instituted the Eucharist this way, and we dare not change it.

 

[sasg]

Thank you, Verbum Caro & Constantine, for your very helpful answers! I think I understand now. At least, better than I did before.

 

[fall_fox]

As many things in life, things could be other way. Why not rice instead of bread. And water (for puritans it would be best) or beer (for northeners). I could be millions of ways. But who rules the worls it is not us.

The answer is simple: because Jesus wanted that way.

Good answer ! I think the thing about bread is that it is readily available to everyone regardless of a person’s financial status.

I have thought that instead of bread we could be using lamb,Seder supper, Jesus, the Lamb of God. That would be very difficult and messy. Jesus had a better idea.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Good answer ! I think the thing about bread is that it is readily available to everyone regardless of a person’s financial status.

I have thought that instead of bread we could be using lamb,Seder supper, Jesus, the Lamb of God. That would be very difficult and messy. Jesus had a better idea.

But what surprises me most is the wine.
I thought that Jesus would choose water, well, everybody drinks water, the body is made 80% by water, it is healthy.
But wine makes you happy, but if you drink too much, it may get you drunk. There were many times Prohibitions, laws against wine. Yet, Jesus chose it. If Jesus wants to accept me into His Company, onde day, that is one of the things I will ask first (maybe not, I think the priorities there are al turned upside down)

 

[fall_fox]

But what surprises me most is the wine.
I thought that Jesus would choose water, well, everybody drinks water, the body is made 80% by water, it is healthy.
But wine makes you happy, but if you drink too much, it may get you drunk. There were many times Prohibitions, laws against wine. Yet, Jesus chose it. If Jesus wants to accept me into His Company, onde day, that is one of the things I will ask first (maybe not, I think the priorities there are al turned upside down)

fall fox

Of course I don’t know for sure, but some times is history it was safer to drink a beverage that has been distilled rather than to drink the water. So maybe his choice was simply based on that.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

fall fox

Of course I don’t know for sure, but some times is history it was safer to drink a beverage that has been distilled rather than to drink the water. So maybe his choice was simply based on that.

Good one!

 

[fall_fox]

As many things in life, things could be other way. Why not rice instaed of braed. And water (for puritans it would be best) or beer (for northerners). I could be millions of ways. But who rules the worls it is not us.
The answer is simple: because Jesus wanted that way.

Beer for Northerners ? Is that an inside joke ? I assume your talking about northern Germany. Yes? Is Beer not a popular beverage in southern Germany ? Just curious.