[Apologetics] If the whole Christ is present under both species of the Eucharist, why do we say "The Body of Christ" and "The Blood of Christ"?

[Dianne Dawson]

Art,
Thank you for the reference to the Council of Constance.  It was extremely informative.  However, it still doesn't answer the original question that was asked.  
 
Father did not say the Council of Trent was the first.  What he said was that the Council of Trent noted the importance of ex vi verborum and per concomitantiam.  Father continues the explanation with: 
 
"In other words, because the body and blood of Christ (together with his soul) are united in his proper mode of existence which is now in heaven, so too they are united in the Blessed Sacrament. By the power of the words of consecration, the bread is substantially changed to the body of Christ and the wine is substantially changed into the blood of Christ, but by virtue of the fact that (now in heaven) Christ’s body and blood in their proper species are united to one another and together are united also to his human soul, so too in their sacramental species they are likewise united.What this means is that the Eucharist is very much a heavenly reality, insofar as the presence of Christ in heaven is determinative for the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Precisely because he is now living and glorified in heaven, so too our Savior’s body and blood in the Holy Eucharist are united and are living and glorified.
Finally, by virtue of the hypostatic union there is a supernatural concomitance which causes the divinity of Christ also to be united to his body and blood in the Eucharistic species.
However, when the priest consecrates the elements and when he distributes communion, he does not speak of the Eucharist according to real concomitance, but rather according to the force of the words of consecration. Hence, since in the Host only the body of Christ is present ex vi verborum, the liturgy refers to the Host simply as “The body of Christ” and not as “The body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ” (though, of course, the whole Christ is present in the Sacred Host). Again, since in the Chalice only the blood of Christ is present ex vi verborum, the liturgy refers to the Chalice simply as “The blood of Christ” and not as “The body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ” (though, again, the whole Christ is present in the Precious Blood)."
 
 
Dianne

Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.
Ps 42:1
 
 

From: Art Kelly <arthurkelly at yahoo.com>
To: Apologetics Group <apologetics at gathman.org>; Dave Armstrong <apologistdave at gmail.com>; Jimmy Murphy <jmurf80 at gmail.com>; Francis Thomas <francis.thomas at CatholicFaithForum.com>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Apologetics] If the whole Christ is present under both species of the Eucharist, why do we say "The Body of Christ" and "The Blood of Christ"?
 
The very earliest records of the liturgy, circa about 150 A.D., indicate that when the priest distributed Communion to each person, he said, "The body of Christ."  The person then said, "Amen." 

The current rite of the Mass re-instated this liturgical practice. 

By the way, the Council of Trent was not the first ecumenical council to speak on the reception of BOTH the body AND blood under either species of bread OR wine. The Council of Constance, on June 15, 1415, declared in part: 

"...(A)lthough this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine."  

Art KellyTurris Fortis Mihi Deus
--- On Mon, 6/27/11, Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com> wrote:


>From: Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
>Subject: Re: [Apologetics] If the whole Christ is present under both species of the Eucharist, why do we say "The Body of Christ" and "The Blood of Christ"?
>To: "Dianne Dawson" <rcdianne at yahoo.com>
>Cc: "Apologetics Group" <apologetics at gathman.org>
>Date: Monday, June 27, 2011, 6:40 PM
>
>
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Dianne Dawson wrote:> http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-whole-christ-is-present-under-both.html> If the whole Christ is present under both species of the Eucharist, why do we> say "The Body of Christ" and "The Blood of Christ"?Simpleminded Protestant answer: because Jesus said "This is My Body"and "This is My Blood".--          Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song fora Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial._______________________________________________Apologetics mailing listApologetics at gathman.orghttp://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics _______________________________________________Apologetics mailing listApologetics at gathman.orghttp://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20110627/f731cc19/attachment.html>