The theology of the Last Supper/Crucifixion/Mass and its relation to the reception of the host under one species

  • Thread starter Thread starter Future_Prodigy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Future_Prodigy

Guest
I was reading a book called Life in Christ: a catechism for adult Catholics and came across this section:

In what ways are the Last Supper, Crucifixion, and the Mass the same?

At the Last Supper Jesus changed bread into his body and wine into his blood. He separated them as a sign of his death which was “for the forgiveness of sin” – Mt 26:28.
On the cross once again the body and blood of Jesus were separated and Jesus died for the forgiveness of the sins of us all.
In the Mass Jesus, through a priest, one again changes bread into his body and wine into his blood, separates them and offers them for the forgiveness of sins.
IN all three events the body and blood of Jesus are separated, indicating his death. In all three Jesus is the principal agent or priest. And all three are done for the explicit purpose of the forgiveness of sins

Now I started to think about how this relates to the reception/theology of the one species. It is believed that because the host we receive is the Living Christ, the body and blood can not be separated. But the problem is the mass was just offered by the separation of the species to indicate death, through the representation of the sacrifice on the cross, for the forgiveness of our sins. So, how can we then 2 minutes later receive only one species? The theology seems inconsistent and this line of reasoning seems to support the reception of both species, not one.
 
The catechism you refer to certainly seems flawed on this point.

I have always been taught by the Church that the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine each are BOTH the “whole Christ” and that the separate consecrations are SYMBOLIC of the death on the cross.

That particular catechism is, I believe, mistaken.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
The seperate consecrations of the bread and wine is, as Jaypeeto said, symbolic of the seperation of Christs’ body from His blood during the crucifixion. It is representative of this.

It is correct that both species contain the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

This is one of the reasons that the priest places a piece of the host into the chalice: it is meant to be indicative of the fact that the two species are in substance the same.
 
The separation of the sacred species is not symbolic, it is the actual sacrifice. Now, the comingling (when the priest places a piece of the Sacred Host into the chalice) is the reuniting of the Body and Blood of Christ (resurrection).

Now, the Church Fathers have taught that when we receive the Body of Christ (the Sacred Host), we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. This was reaffirmed by St. Thomas Aquainas and is something that the Church has held from the very beginning. Furthermore, even when we receive a fraction of the Sacred Host, we still receive the complete body of Christ. Look at the sequence that we pray during the Feast of Corpus Christi.

The one who best explains the theology of the Last Supper, Crucifixion and Mass is Pope Benedict XVI in his book, God is Near, the banner of which is touted on this website.
 
**The separation of the sacred species is not symbolic, it is the actual sacrifice. **

This thread should get lively.
This statement is contrary to what I have always been taught.
The Eucharist is an UNBLOODY sacrifice, no real shedding of Christ’s blood takes place in the Eucharist.

Can some Eucharistic apologists join this thread?
Karl Keating too, perhaps??

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
benedictgal said:
The separation of the sacred species is not symbolic, it is the actual sacrifice. Now, the comingling (when the priest places a piece of the Sacred Host into the chalice) is the reuniting of the Body and Blood of Christ (resurrection).
Click to expand...
This is what i always thought as well. So how then does this line of reasoning relate to the point above?
 
benedictgal said:
The separation of the sacred species is not symbolic, it is the actual sacrifice. Now, the comingling (when the priest places a piece of the Sacred Host into the chalice) is the reuniting of the Body and Blood of Christ (resurrection).

Now, the Church Fathers have taught that when we receive the Body of Christ (the Sacred Host), we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. This was reaffirmed by St. Thomas Aquainas and is something that the Church has held from the very beginning. Furthermore, even when we receive a fraction of the Sacred Host, we still receive the complete body of Christ. Look at the sequence that we pray during the Feast of Corpus Christi.
Click to expand...
Here’s my (long and boring 😉 😛 ) take:

And in the following post, I’m using Bread/Host and Wine to refer to the outward appearances, not the substance, so as to be more clear. Just saying for anyone who is disturbed.

You are right about the resurrection. When the priest drops a particle of the Host into the Chalice, the symbol is of the resurrection, the Body being “reunited” with the Blood. But it is only meant as a sign. It is not that in all the Hosts, for example, the Blood of Christ at that point becomes miraculously appended to the previously existing Body. When the priest refers to the “mingling”, he is referring to the action taking place- the Bread (Body) is being mixed with the Wine (Blood) as a symbol. Just as the two were shown apart to represent the death of Christ, or as the Host was broken to symbolize the death of Christ, the Lamb of God, so they are shown together to represent his Resurrection.

At the words “This is my Body” it is the Body of Christ that becomes present. It’s a theologically inaccurate term, but, to say it in another way to make myself clear, it becomes “primarily” the Body of Christ. And because it is the glorified Body which cannot be separated, “secondarily” come along with the Body, the Blood, Soul and Divinity. Likewise for “This is My Blood”- “primarily” the Blood, and along with the Blood, “secondarily” come the Body, Soul and Divinity.

The Soul and Divinity of Christ do not become present by the power of the Words of Consecration. They become present because they are inseparably united to the Body/Blood of the glorified Christ. To use an imagery, when the Body/Blood goes, the Soul and Divinity must follow.

Likewise, for the bread, the Blood of Christ does not become present by the power of the words “This is my Body”. Neither does the Body become present by the power of the words “This is my Blood”. The Blood becomes present in the consecration of the bread because it is inseparably united to the Body which is made present by the power of the words “This is My Body”. The Body becomes present in the consecration of the wine because it is inseparably united to the Blood which is made present by the power of the words “This is My Blood”.

For which reason, normally we apply the name to what is made present by the power of the Words not what is present by concomitance. Even though we are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, the priest says “The Body of Christ” at communion when giving the Bread.

Since therefore, bread=Body and wine=Blood , the separation of these two sacramentally (by external signs) shows Christ as a Victim in the state of death –the Blood is separated from the Body and shed. And this is the unbloody sacrifice.
 
AJV said:
Here’s my (long and boring 😉 😛 ) take:

And in the following post, I’m using Bread/Host and Wine to refer to the outward appearances, not the substance, so as to be more clear. Just saying for anyone who is disturbed.

You are right about the resurrection. When the priest drops a particle of the Host into the Chalice, the symbol is of the resurrection, the Body being “reunited” with the Blood. But it is only meant as a sign. It is not that in all the Hosts, for example, the Blood of Christ at that point becomes miraculously appended to the previously existing Body. When the priest refers to the “mingling”, he is referring to the action taking place- the Bread (Body) is being mixed with the Wine (Blood) as a symbol. Just as the two were shown apart to represent the death of Christ, or as the Host was broken to symbolize the death of Christ, the Lamb of God, so they are shown together to represent his Resurrection.

At the words “This is my Body” it is the Body of Christ that becomes present. It’s a theologically inaccurate term, but, to say it in another way to make myself clear, it becomes “primarily” the Body of Christ. And because it is the glorified Body which cannot be separated, “secondarily” come along with the Body, the Blood, Soul and Divinity. Likewise for “This is My Blood”- “primarily” the Blood, and along with the Blood, “secondarily” come the Body, Soul and Divinity.

The Soul and Divinity of Christ do not become present by the power of the Words of Consecration. They become present because they are inseparably united to the Body/Blood of the glorified Christ. To use an imagery, when the Body/Blood goes, the Soul and Divinity must follow.

Likewise, for the bread, the Blood of Christ does not become present by the power of the words “This is my Body”. Neither does the Body become present by the power of the words “This is my Blood”. The Blood becomes present in the consecration of the bread because it is inseparably united to the Body which is made present by the power of the words “This is My Body”. The Body becomes present in the consecration of the wine because it is inseparably united to the Blood which is made present by the power of the words “This is My Blood”.

For which reason, normally we apply the name to what is made present by the power of the Words not what is present by concomitance. Even though we are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, the priest says “The Body of Christ” at communion when giving the Bread.

Since therefore, bread=Body and wine=Blood , the separation of these two sacramentally (by external signs) shows Christ as a Victim in the state of death –the Blood is separated from the Body and shed. And this is the unbloody sacrifice.
Click to expand...
While I agree with most of what you said, I do not agree with your notion that the Body and Blood of Christ do not become present during the Consecration. The words of consecration are Jesus’ own words. The Church has taught for two millenia that at the words of consecration, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus. They are not symbols, they are His Body and Blood.

Now, I realize that I caused an uproar when I posted earlier about the time of sacrifice. Yes, I do know that it is an “unbloody” sacrifice; however, with so much emphasis lately on the “meal”, we have pretty much let the word “sacrifice” go by the wayside.

I spoke to a priest about this. He noted that the “sacrifice” comes when the Host is broken during the fraction rite. He said that we are too busy exchanging the sign of peace that we ignore this important ritual.

We don’t repeat the bloody aspect of the sacrifice, but during the Mass, we are made present at Calvary. We stand there with the Blessed Mother and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
**The separation of the sacred species is not symbolic, it is the actual sacrifice. **

This thread should get lively.
This statement is contrary to what I have always been taught.
The Eucharist is an UNBLOODY sacrifice, no real shedding of Christ’s blood takes place in the Eucharist.

Can some Eucharistic apologists join this thread?
Karl Keating too, perhaps??

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Click to expand...
I might go out on a limb here, but my understanding about “unbloody” sacrifice is simply that while we truly assist to the sacrifice that transcends time and space we are also spared the complete physical perception of what is truly happening.
 
benedictgal said:
While I agree with most of what you said, I do not agree with your notion that the Body and Blood of Christ do not become present during the Consecration. The words of consecration are Jesus’ own words. The Church has taught for two millenia that at the words of consecration, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus. They are not symbols, they are His Body and Blood.

Now, I realize that I caused an uproar when I posted earlier about the time of sacrifice. Yes, I do know that it is an “unbloody” sacrifice; however, with so much emphasis lately on the “meal”, we have pretty much let the word “sacrifice” go by the wayside.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are are indeed his Body and Blood, not merely symbols. What did I say to indicate that they do not become present during the Words of Consecration?
I spoke to a priest about this. He noted that the “sacrifice” comes when the Host is broken during the fraction rite. He said that we are too busy exchanging the sign of peace that we ignore this important ritual.
Click to expand...
I agree that the fraction does represent as a visible symbol, Christ’s Body being broken for us and his death, nonetheless, the sacrifice does not occur at that point. A priest may omit the Fraction and yet the Mass will be valid.

The sacrifice occurs at the Words of Consecration. The bread is made the Body of Christ by the power of the words “This is my Body”. The wine is made the Blood by the power of the words “This is my Blood”. And the Body and Blood thus being shown apart constitute the sacrifice. As Pius XII put it in Mediator Dei:
On the cross He completely offered Himself and all His sufferings to God, and the immolation of the victim was brought about by the bloody death, which He underwent of His free will.
Click to expand...
But on the altar, by reason of the glorified state of His human nature, “death shall have no more dominion over Him,” and so the shedding of His blood is impossible; still, according to the plan of divine wisdom, the sacrifice of our Redeemer is shown forth in an admirable manner by external signs which are the symbols of His death.
Click to expand...
By the “transubstantiation” of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into His Blood, His Body and Blood are both really present: now the Eucharistic Species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His Body and Blood.
Click to expand...
Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood
Click to expand...
 
Hi Benidictgal,

I thought maybe two point could use clearing up:
benedictgal said:
While I agree with most of what you said, I do not agree with your notion that the Body and Blood of Christ do not become present during the Consecration.
Click to expand...
I don’t think AJV intended to convey that the Body and Blood are not made present during the consecration! He clearly stated that they do. He was pointing out that by the power of the sacrament the bread changes into the Body of Our Lord directly, and the Blood, Soul and Divinity follow with this change (concomitantly, meaning "along with). Likewise the wine is changed into the Blood of Our Lord directly, and the Body, Soul and Divinity are present by virtue of concomitance. This is the common teaching of the Church.
benedictgal said:
I spoke to a priest about this. He noted that the “sacrifice” comes when the Host is broken during the fraction rite. He said that we are too busy exchanging the sign of peace that we ignore this important ritual.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure what to think about that. Perhaps he misunderstood your question or perhaps you misunderstood his reply, or perhaps I am misunderstanding you. 👍 The fraction rite is not the sacrifice. One reason would be that the fraction rite comes after the canon of the Mass, after the Eucharistic prayer. We have already had the Great Amen and the offering of Christ to the Father. So given that the fraction rite take place after the Eucharistic Prayer, and that “the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration” (Redeptionis Sacramentum 54), it would seem that the fraction rite is NOT the sacrifice.

This is a good thread, full of good questions, and I hope that it continues.

God bless,
VC

(edit: I posted during AJV’s posting. Didn’t mean to duplicate)
 
At least the fraternal corrections and explanations in this thread are a lot easier than on the one concerning musical instruments. One of the posters made me feel like an idiot.

I do understand what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say. However, I thought the priest’s take was rather interesting because during the sacrificial rites of ancient Israel, the holocaust’s body was broken. I think he was also trying to get the faithful to pay attention to this rite instead of going all over creation to give the sign of peace.
 
Cristiano said:
I might go out on a limb here, but my understanding about “unbloody” sacrifice is simply that while we truly assist to the sacrifice that transcends time and space we are also spared the complete physical perception of what is truly happening.
Click to expand...
Hi Cristiano,

Although I am not certain that I understand all that you are saying here (and I hope you can forgive and correct any misunderstandings), I think you might be on the wrong track.

You seem to be indicating that were we able to bear it and see it, that what is “truly happening” is a bloody sacrifice. But this is not so. Christ died once, and He cannot die again, nor shed blood again, nor be physically wounded again. His body, in its glorified state (always in Heaven!) is impassible, incapable of suffering.

So, although the Calvary sacrifice considered as sacrifice does transcend time and space, the manner of the sacrifice of Calvary happened only once, in that time and in that space.

What do you think?
VC
 
benedictgal said:
At least the fraternal corrections and explanations in this thread are a lot easier than on the one concerning musical instruments. One of the posters made me feel like an idiot.

I do understand what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say. However, I thought the priest’s take was rather interesting because during the sacrificial rites of ancient Israel, the holocaust’s body was broken. I think he was also trying to get the faithful to pay attention to this rite instead of going all over creation to give the sign of peace.
Click to expand...
Hi benedictgal,

Yes, that was probably it.👍

I’m happy to hear you say that about fraternal correction. There is no need for anyone to feel like an idiot or be made to feel like an idiot. We are all in this together, and all of us are (or should be) after the Truth.

I admire your questions and your thirst for knowledge.

VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Hi Cristiano,

Although I am not certain that I understand all that you are saying here (and I hope you can forgive and correct any misunderstandings), I think you might be on the wrong track.

You seem to be indicating that were we able to bear it and see it, that what is “truly happening” is a bloody sacrifice. But this is not so. Christ died once, and He cannot die again, nor shed blood again, nor be physically wounded again. His body, in its glorified state (always in Heaven!) is impassible, incapable of suffering.

So, although the Calvary sacrifice considered as sacrifice does transcend time and space, the manner of the sacrifice of Calvary happened only once, in that time and in that space.

What do you think?
VC
Click to expand...
Sorry for waiting so long to get back to you. I think that probably we look at the Mass in two different ways.
I think that you are looking at the Mass in terms of chronos only while I tend to look at it in term of kairos only. When I talk about transcending time I mean to depart from the human boundaries of chronos and look at God’s time kairos.

I will quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to give a better idea of what I meant :"…the Church, as the mystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them."

If you look at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass only in human time (chronos) then it becomes an independent addition or intrinsic complement and that is wrong. However, if we are looking at the Mass in terms of kairos then we are truly present at the Calvary and crucifixion, but we are present only through the unbloody offerings.

Think of the Mass as a statue in the center of cloister. The statue is the crucifixion with all the blood etc. and you can see that from one window (Passion Friday) of the cloister. Now you move in one direction along the hallway of the cloister until you find a window (a Sunday) and you can look outside and still see the statue in the center of the garden. Now you keep walking in the same direction until you reach another window (another Sunday) and if you look out you can see the same statue but now you do not see the front (bloody offering) anymore but you see the back (unbloody offering). Our chronos is the walking along the hallway in our time and space but Mass is in kairos (looking out of the window) and that transcends time and space.

I hope that I have not confused you even more with my mumbling. However, as a physicist it is easier for me to understand the chronos and kairos as looking at a one-dimensional world from a two-dimensional world.
 
to be added to the previous post.

From Wikipedia:

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, before the Divine Liturgy begins, the Deacon exclaims to the Priest, “Kairos tou poiesai to Kyrio” (“It is time [kairos] for the Lord to act”); indicating that the time of the Liturgy is an intersection with Eternity.
 
Future_Prodigy said:
I was reading a book called Life in Christ: a catechism for adult Catholics and came across this section:

In what ways are the Last Supper, Crucifixion, and the Mass the same?

At the Last Supper Jesus changed bread into his body and wine into his blood. He separated them as a sign of his death which was “for the forgiveness of sin” – Mt 26:28.
On the cross once again the body and blood of Jesus were separated and Jesus died for the forgiveness of the sins of us all.
In the Mass Jesus, through a priest, one again changes bread into his body and wine into his blood, separates them and offers them for the forgiveness of sins.
IN all three events the body and blood of Jesus are separated, indicating his death. In all three Jesus is the principal agent or priest. And all three are done for the explicit purpose of the forgiveness of sins

Now I started to think about how this relates to the reception/theology of the one species. It is believed that because the host we receive is the Living Christ, the body and blood can not be separated. But the problem is the mass was just offered by the separation of the species to indicate death, through the representation of the sacrifice on the cross, for the forgiveness of our sins. So, how can we then 2 minutes later receive only one species? The theology seems inconsistent and this line of reasoning seems to support the reception of both species, not one.
Click to expand...
I note that you conveniently left out the point at which the Priest places a piece of the Host into the Precious Blood prior to his communion.
 
AJV said:
:confused: How does the mingling fit in to the OP’s post?
Click to expand...
It appears that he is saying that since the two are separate they must be consumed separately in order to be effective. Since the Priest co mingles them prior to his communion, it would seem that even though they were separated they are now one whole. I know that is a very simplified way of putting it and it may very well be done just for us to see that the two are not separate but whole and complete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top