… I was wondering when that simultaneity happened.
I thought at the respective words of institution, the bread became wholly Jesus’s Body, Soul, and Divinity, and the wine became wholly Jesus’s Blood, Soul, and Divinity (while both retaining their accidents), and at some time past that, each and both species became wholly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. So my question was *when *did that wholeness happen, now *how *or *if *it happened.
…
Arthur
I left a long post, so I had to shorten the quote of your post to make it fit
Please pardon both my redundancy and my repetitions.]
OK. I think I get it.
Allow me to try to explain concomitance, because that’s the key to this whole thing.
To do that, I’ll have to start with what I am sure you already know, so
bear with me to the end, please.
Before the crucifixion, Jesus Christ was a living, whole person—body and soul. His body was whole.
At the crucifixion, the blood was separated from his body. Not only was that a historical fact (it didn’t always happen that way at crucifixions, because the victim usually suffocated) but it has important theological significance. He died because the flesh and the blood of his body were separated from each other (I know you know this, bear with me). Neither flesh nor blood can be living on its own–not truly. A body needs both, and when the blood is gone, the body is dead.
At the Resurrection, Christ’s body (his literal body, I don’t mean the Eucharist just yet) was restored and made completely whole again. Think about what that means. We know that his body became a living whole, not just an illusion, not a re-animation, but a true resurrection. That means that his body must be both flesh and blood----because if his body were only flesh without blood, then the resurrection would be a farce.
Also remember that the literal body of Christ must always be comprised of both flesh and blood; because if they were to be separated again, then He would die again. That cannot and will not happen. When He ascended into Heaven, His living body ascended----His flesh and blood together once again whole.
When the bread is consecrated by the priest it becomes the Body of Christ. Since it is the Body of Christ, then we know that it must be both the flesh and blood together. If the bread becomes only the flesh and/or the wine becomes only the blood then we would have before us two dead Christs; since flesh cannot be living unless it is united to blood, and vice versa. But we know better. We know that He can never again be dead. We know that what was once bread is now the
Body of Christ. Since it is the Body, it cannot be flesh-alone because the Blood must also be there (again, otherwise it would be dead).
The question of “when does the consecration happen?” was settled by the Church more than 1,000 years ago. We know that it happens when the priest pronounces the words “this is My Body.” (Again, the caveat that I’ll leave the equally valid Eastern theology to the proper forum). Since we say that, at those words, the bread becomes the Body, it necessarily follows that it must be the living Body, and must therefore contain also the living Blood.
That’s why the Blood of Christ is present within the Body of Christ. This is still true even though the consecration over the chalice happens a few seconds later. At that particular moment, even though the wine is still wine, the Blood of Christ is present together with the flesh in the Body, under the accidents of bread.
A moment later, when the priest pronounces the words “this is the chalice of My Blood” the exact same thing happens to the wine. It becomes the living Blood of the living Christ. Since It is living, It cannot be blood-without-flesh (such would be dead), but is instead the whole of Christ, under the accidents of wine.
So, the question of “when are the Flesh and Blood of Christ re-united?” is really answered by saying “that already happened at the Resurrection, and they can never be separated again.” While the question of “when does the bread become the flesh and blood of Christ together and re-united?” is answered by saying “at the very moment when the bread becomes the living Body.” The same for the wine.
Further ramblings:
For liturgical purposes, the priest adds a small piece of the Consecrated Host into the chalice during the Lamb of God; but even before this, the Flesh and Blood are present under both species equally.
I think what causes the confusion here is the vocabulary we use. We (quite rightly) call the ‘bread’ the Body of Christ, and call the ‘wine’ the Blood of Christ—but those are only human words which, all by themselves, don’t convey the entire reality. Of course, we need vocabulary to distinguish between what’s in the ciborium and what’s in the chalice; but a consequence of that is that we sometimes forget that even though the accidents are different, the substance in both is absolutely identical.
It’s an interesting coincidence of language that we say “the Body of Christ.” We’re speaking more truth than we sometimes realize. Yes, it is the Body of Christ, and that means that it is both Flesh and Blood. When I distribute Communion, I don’t say “the Flesh of Christ” but “the Body” because the living Christ is there. Unfortunately, the language doesn’t work for what’s in the chalice. We still say “the Blood of Christ” but what we mean is “the living Blood” so the flesh is there as well.
