Question about the Eucharist

[Scott36]

Hi All,

I’m a fairly new Catholic (June 06) but I believe in the real presence of our Lord Jesus n the Eucharist. I accept that it is an extraordinary and wonderful mystery but the Church seems to have pronounced some specifics about it that I can’t reconcile in my mind and I hope someone can help me.

Two items in the Catechism are:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207

more specifically it says:
In 1376 it says “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood”

In 1377 it says “Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts”

Now 1377 more closely agrees with what I’ve understood that the Eucharist (regardless of which species one considers) is the complete body, blood, soul and divinity, that at no time during the mass does Christ’s blood exist separate from his body, that the separate consecration of the bread and wine are only to symbolize the separation of the body and blood (death on the cross at Calvary for us as a representation of the original sacrifice) but that no separation of body and blood actually takes place during the mass, that we receive Christ whole and living.

If this is true how do I reconcile the 1377 which is from the council of Trent which says “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood” implying that the body and blood are separated.

Thank you very much and God bless,
Scott

 

[PhilotheaZ]

The separate Consecration of the bread and wine remind us of the death of Jesus, when His Blood was sacrificially separated from His Body.

When the priest breaks off a small piece of the consecrated Host and places it in the chalice (saying quietly, “May this mingling of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it”), we are reminded of the Resurrection of Jesus, when His Body and Blood were no longer separated.

When we receive Holy Communion (under the appearance of bread alone, wine alone, or both), we receive the whole resurrected Christ — Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

 

[Della]

If this is true how do I reconcile the 1377 which is from the council of Trent which says “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood” implying that the body and blood are separated.

You have simply drawn the wrong conclusion here. It doesn’t imply what you think it does–that’s what you’ve got wrong.

All this statement is meant to convey is that the change is real in both instances. That’s it. Nothing more.

This statement says nothing about Christ whole and entire under both species here because it says that elsewhere. It is just making a point with regards to the changing of species–that’s all.

Do you see? :tiphat:

 

[Scott36]

You have simply drawn the wrong conclusion here. It doesn’t imply what you think it does–that’s what you’ve got wrong.

All this statement is meant to convey is that the change is real in both instances. That’s it. Nothing more.

This statement says nothing about Christ whole and entire under both species here because it says that elsewhere. It is just making a point with regards to the changing of species–that’s all.

Do you see? :tiphat:

I really do want to see.
The trouble is, on the face value of the statements made in the Catechism, I still see contradiction. One (1376) says that the bread becomes the body and the wine becomes the blood (which I don’t think is true). The other (1377) says (or implies…correctly I think) that the bread becomes the body, blood, soul and divintiy and the wine also becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity.

I do understand the idea that perhaps the statement in 1376 is specifically talking about the complete changing of the species, and is not addressing the issue of Christ whole and entire.

Nonetheless, whatever the main focus of a statement is, any other incidental aspects of the logic and meaning of the statement as it is expressed should also be true.

I really am trying to understand and for me it is vitally important to my faith that I can trust and reconcile what the Church teaches officially as truth. Like many of you, I strive to trust the Church’s teachings from sources like the catechism and majesterium etc. Am I continuing to misunderstand or do I need to cut the Church some slack to be imprecise at times.

Please help! Thanks!

 

[JimG]

I think there is a subtlety here that is not commonly addressed in teachings about the Eucharist. Both 1376 and 1377 mean what they say.

Christ said over the wine: “This is my blood.” He said over the bread: “This is my body.” And so, because he does what he said, the bread is changed into his body and the wine into his blood.

And yet we also and correctly say that Christ is present whole and entire under the smallest particle of either species.

St. Thomas Aquinas says of the consecrated host, that the blood is also present by concomitance. And of the precious blood, that the body is present by concomitance.

Concomitance here simply means that because we receive the living Jesus, where is body is, so also is his blood. And where is blood is, so also is his body.

So both 1376 and 1377 are both precisely true at the same time.

 

[Scott36]

I think there is a subtlety here that is not commonly addressed in teachings about the Eucharist. Both 1376 and 1377 mean what they say.

Christ said over the wine: “This is my blood.” He said over the bread: “This is my body.” And so, because he does what he said, the bread is changed into his body and the wine into his blood.

And yet we also and correctly say that Christ is present whole and entire under the smallest particle of either species.

St. Thomas Aquinas says of the consecrated host, that the blood is also present by concomitance. And of the precious blood, that the body is present by concomitance.

Concomitance here simply means that because we receive the living Jesus, where is body is, so also is his blood. And where is blood is, so also is his body.

So both 1376 and 1377 are both precisely true at the same time.

Thank you JimG! That helps a lot! I can accept now that 1376 and 1377 are not mutually exclusive. I’m surprised that I haven’t come across this question before in my reading. Can you tell me if there is a book containing St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings on the Eucharist?

Thanks and God Bless,
Scott

 

[JimG]

Thank you JimG! That helps a lot! I can accept now that 1376 and 1377 are not mutually exclusive. I’m surprised that I haven’t come across this question before in my reading. Can you tell me if there is a book containing St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings on the Eucharist?

Thanks and God Bless,
Scott

I’m not familiar with recent editions of Aquinas works, but I notice that Amazon.com has several versions for sale, both the unabridged Summa as well as some shorter works. You might also check with a local Catholic bookstore.

 

[peary]

It is the same with the Blood. The Blood itself contains the entire Eucharistic mystery - Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity. So, a communicant can receive either. Vatican II encouraged that both bread and wine be offered to bring the reception closer to its biblical and historical roots and to be more theologically fulfilled.

When the idea of transubstantiation arose, this was a time in europe where science was developing and explanations were being demanded. Aquinas became a proponent of transubstantiation as a way of theologically and philosophically handling the question as to how the bread and wine can be changed into the body and blood of Christ and still remain bread and wine.

The Eastern church never engaged in these types of mental gymnastics. For them, it was indeed the body and blood of Christ but it was a divine mystery, and they left it at that.

So, the answer is, yes, both species contain the body and blood of Christ; both species can be received together or separate.

By the way, the round disc (host) has an interesting history. Part of the reason as to why the western church adopted the use of unleavened bread (besides connecting the Sacrifice of the Mass to the Last Supper where unleavened bread was used), was due to missionary activity. It was easier to carry unleavened wheat wafers around into areas that did not have wheat as a staple grain. The wafer satisfied all the requirements of unleavened bread. Vatican II encouraged the use of unleavened bread once again. Oh, and by the way, one of the reasons California became such a great wine exporter was due to early Spanish priests and monks who brought with them vines from Italy and Spain so that there would be wine for Holy Communion.

 

[quiet52]

Can you tell me if there is a book containing St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings on the Eucharist?

Thanks and God Bless,
Scott

Here you go Scott – Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica”:

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.html

There is a “table of contents” link on the left side – scroll down to questions 74-78 re: Aquinas’ thoughts about the Eucharist.

 

[japhy]

In 1376 it says “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood”

In 1377 it says “Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts”

Because the Council of Trent, Session XIII (Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist), Chapter III (On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments) says:
The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author Himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are 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 the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

So Trent recognized the natural connection between the species of bread and the Flesh of the Lord, and the natural connection between the species of wine and the Blood of the Lord; but it also recognized the supernatural connection between the species of bread and the Blood, and the species of wine and the Flesh.