Question about the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jmd96
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jmd96

Guest
Some of the most compelling scriptural evidence in favor of Catholicism comes during the last supper when Christ declares the bread his body and the wine his blood. Catholics take Jesus at his word and say that Christ’s statements ought to be taken literally.

However, Catholics believe that Christ is present (body, blood, soul, and divinity) in both the bread and the wine. If Catholics truly take this passage literally, wouldn’t that mean that only Christ’s body is present in the form of bread, and that only Christ’s blood is present in the form of wine?
 
Our belief is due to a principle called “concomitance.” The basic idea is this. Christ says, “this is my body,” and we take him at his word. However, Christ’s body is not a dead mass of flesh, but a living, glorified body: Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him. So even though only his body is present in the sacrament by the power of the sacrament itself, his blood, soul and divinity are present together with his body in the sacrament because they are inseparably united to his body.

It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: “This is My body,” or, “This is My blood.” But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind.
newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#1
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
Our belief is due to a principle called “concomitance.” The basic idea is this. Christ says, “this is my body,” and we take him at his word. However, Christ’s body is not a dead mass of flesh, but a living, glorified body: Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him. So even though only his body is present in the sacrament by the power of the sacrament itself, his blood, soul and divinity are present together with his body in the sacrament because they are inseparably united to his body.

It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: “This is My body,” or, “This is My blood.” But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind.
newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#1
Click to expand...
This is why I have no second thought about receiving the bread only because I know it contains Our Lord’s soul, and divinity entirely.
 
Jmd96 said:
Some of the most compelling scriptural evidence in favor of Catholicism comes during the last supper when Christ declares the bread his body and the wine his blood. Catholics take Jesus at his word and say that Christ’s statements ought to be taken literally.

However, Catholics believe that Christ is present (body, blood, soul, and divinity) in both the bread and the wine. If Catholics truly take this passage literally, wouldn’t that mean that only Christ’s body is present in the form of bread, and that only Christ’s blood is present in the form of wine?
Click to expand...
The whole Chirst is present under the form of both the bread and the wine. See paragraphs 1373-1381, part II, article 3, chapter 5 of the Catechism ( linked at the bottom of this page). But remember it is the glorified body of Christ that is present. And his glorified body is not limited by matter, it can assume any form needed under the demands of the sacramental species of the bread and wine. The bread and the wine act as a veil for Christ’s presence which allows him to be located behind the material form of the bread and wine and to accompany, completely, each host ( or broken crumb ) and each drop of the wine. So we take Christ at his word, " This is my body…"

Linus2nd
 
Thank you all for taking the time to respond.

I feel like I grasp the doctrine of concomitance, and it seems like that’s what you guys are trying to explain to me. However, my question is more along the lines of why Christ would say “This is my body” in reference to the bread and “This is my blood” in reference to the wine. This would suggest that only his body is present in the bread and only his blood is present in the wine. Why not say something like, “This is Me” in reference to both of the elements of the Eucharist?
 
Jmd96 said:
Thank you all for taking the time to respond.

I feel like I grasp the doctrine of concomitance, and it seems like that’s what you guys are trying to explain to me. However, my question is more along the lines of why Christ would say “This is my body” in reference to the bread and “This is my blood” in reference to the wine. This would suggest that only his body is present in the bread and only his blood is present in the wine. Why not say something like, “This is Me” in reference to both of the elements of the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
If you read St. Thomas’s explanation, you will see that Christ’s body alone (i.e. his flesh) is present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament. The rest is only present as a consequence of his body being made present. Thus, he says that is the Mass were celebrated between Christ’s death and his Resurrection, concomitance would not follow, since his blood was shed an his soul was separated from his body, and the bread would be his body alone. That is perhaps a disputable opinion, but at least it demonstrates his line of thinking about the Eucharist under normal circumstances.

Also, it is fitting that one species be called Christ’s body and the other his blood, even though the whole Christ is present in both, because the species themselves are an image of Christ’s passion.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
If you read St. Thomas’s explanation, you will see that Christ’s body alone (i.e. his flesh) is present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament. The rest is only present as a consequence of his body being made present. Thus, he says that is the Mass were celebrated between Christ’s death and his Resurrection, concomitance would not follow, since his blood was shed an his soul was separated from his body, and the bread would be his body alone. That is perhaps a disputable opinion, but at least it demonstrates his line of thinking about the Eucharist under normal circumstances.

Also, it is fitting that one species be called Christ’s body and the other his blood, even though the whole Christ is present in both, because the species themselves are an image of Christ’s passion.
Click to expand...
So, following this line of thinking, would that mean that Christ’s blood alone is present under the species of wine by the power of the sacrament and that the rest is only present as a consequence of his blood being made present?
 
Jmd96 said:
So, following this line of thinking, would that mean that Christ’s blood alone is present under the species of wine by the power of the sacrament and that the rest is only present as a consequence of his blood being made present?
Click to expand...
Christ is fully present - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in both species. Receiving both is a fuller sacramental sign.
 
Jmd96 said:
So, following this line of thinking, would that mean that Christ’s blood alone is present under the species of wine by the power of the sacrament and that the rest is only present as a consequence of his blood being made present?
Click to expand...
Yes. The blood alone is present by the power of the sacrament itself. The rest is present by the principle of concomitance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top