So I asked him: “So really all of the bread must be transformed into the person of Christ, body blood soul and divinity and similarly with the wine, for us to receive him whole right”. And he sort of brushed me off by saying no, the Council of Trent (after he looked it up) says that all of the substance of the bread becomes his body only and similarly the wine becomes the blood only. He left it at that which didn’t help at all.
The priest incorrectly (or incompletely) read Trent. From Trent, Session 13, Chapter III (On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments):
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 then, the bread, once consecrated, is a
sign of the Precious Body, and the wine, once consecrated, is a
sign of the Precious Blood, but they are both, in fact, the complete, whole Christ.
A member of the forum here told me about the explanation of concomitance, given to us by St. Thomas Aquinas…that Jesus is living…and for either his body or blood to exist on its own is impossible for Him to be our living Lord Jesus Christ. His body without his blood would be a dead body and Christ died once and does not die again during the mass or at any other time.
That sounds familiar to me, although I am not well-versed in Aquinas; but it certainly sounds right.
As I understand it, natural concomitance means that when the bread is trasformed into the body of Christ, the blood soul and divinity become naturally present as well since it is impossible for His body to exist alone without blood and soul and divinity.
That is what Trent taught: “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”
I couldn’t find this explanation in any of the books I’ve read about the mass, even ones that attempt to expaling the consecration in some detail. I continue to find this very disappointing, that this is not taught, seemingly at all to anyone and that priests and learned authors would not know this and include some explanation of this otherwise seeming contradiction.
You and me both. I make it a point, in RCIA, when I am leading the lesson on the Eucharist, to make this point of concomitance. It might seem to be a bit much (it’s a heady subject!) but it must be known, if not understood.
My understanding now is that the separate consecration of the blood and wine only symoblizes Christ’s death on the cross and when the priest takes a small piece of the host and puts into the wine, that this only symbolizes Christ’s resurrection and so in effect Jesus’ death and resurrection are re-presented to us at mass.
Since Christ is not re-crucified at Mass, you are correct that the separate consecration is a symbol (although I would use the term “sign” or the phrase “sacramental presentation” to avoid misunderstands that arise from using the word “symbol” in close proximity to the Eucharist) of the physical reality of Christ’s death – that his body and blood were indeed separated, that he truly humanly died. Likewise, the mingling of the Host with the Chalice is a sign of the Resurrection; which then, I would suppose, makes it a profession of concomitance: the
physical mingling of the Host and Chalice as an expression of our belief that the Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity) of Jesus Christ are eternally united.
Glad to help support you in your faith.
Benedicite!
)… I would rather not take the Blood, than take it and think “Man, this is gross”.
I’m working on an instructional and catechetical guide to the Mass and Scripture, and when I get to the Eucharist, there will be plenty of didactic instruction of this sort. I’ll make sure to alert CAF to its whereabouts when I have it completed.