Body and Blood of Christ

Why is it that the Priest says “Body of Christ” when we receive the consecrated host, and the same for the “Blood of Christ” when the teaching of the Catholic Church is that Christ whole and entire is contained in each species. Confusion over this issue caused the Church to limit distribution to just the consecrated host in the past. It seems that this terminology used today perpetuates this confusion.

Both species are also the Soul and the Divinity of Christ, and this is left unsaid as well. I don’t think you were accusing the priests (or EMHCs) of lying, just wanted to say that calling it “Body of Christ” and “Blood of Christ” can not be meant to be complete because we don’t have two more species for the “Soul” and “Divinity” of Christ. Make sense?

I think it’s because Jesus called the bread His Body and the wine His Blood. It is more reflective of scripure when we hear the former bread called Body and the former wine called Blood. Plus, the processon goes faster with fewer words.:shrug:

Let me try to confuse you.

The Host IS the Body of Christ – and yet:
Every particle of the Host and the Wine contain the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Simple, eh?

You refer to the ‘terminology used today’.
In the EF, as the priest administers communion to each person he says “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto life everlasting. Amen.

I have no idea of the words used before those that are in my Marian Missal – maybe someone else knows.

Because the consecrated bread is a sign of the Body of Christ, and the consecrated wine is a sign of His Blood. By “sign”, I mean they are visual “clues” or “pointers” to the divine and spiritual reality contained under their outer appearance. In addition to this sign value, the Host is the whole Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity), and the Chalice contains the whole Christ as well.

Explain “SIGN” please. I have always know it BE the Body and Blood of Christ. Not a sign or a symbol?

Sign is they physical aspect of the Sacrament. Remember that a Sacrament is an outward sign signifying inward grace (I could be missing a few words, a bit rusty not having a class to teach this year). Like in Baptism the sign is water, for Confirmation its chrism oil, for Anointing of the Sick its oil of the infirm, and in the Eucharist it is the bread and wine.

It is both a sign and the reality. Note what I said:
Because the consecrated bread is a sign of the Body of Christ, and the consecrated wine is a sign of His Blood. By “sign”, I mean they are visual “clues” or “pointers” to the divine and spiritual reality contained under their outer appearance. In addition to this sign value, the Host is the whole Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity), and the Chalice contains the whole Christ as well.

To add to what japhy said: its the sign. It’s easier perhaps to see with the wine. The wine, made of the crushed grapes, is the sign of the blood poured out. The bread is not.

A scholastic refinement and elaboration on this idea would be: when the bread is consecrated, it becomes the Body of Christ. When the wine is consecrated it becomes the Blood of Christ. Why then do we say that the whole Christ is received under both species? It is because the Body of the resurrected Christ cannot be separated from his Blood, Soul or Divinity. The bread does NOT become ex vi verborum, by the words, the Blood of Christ. It becomes the Body and because the Body is inseparable from the Blood, Soul and Divinity, those things “follow” (to speak imprecisely) it - to be more precise, the Blood, Soul and Divinity are concomitant with the Body and are accordingly present.

The idea is clearer if one considers scholastic arguments as to whether the entire Christ would have been received had the Eucharist been celebrated while he was in the tomb. Their answer was no, he would not, because in that state the Blood was not inseparable from the Body.

S when the priest speaks, he speaks as to the sign which the sacrament represents, and to what has become present by means of the Words.

And, for the benefit of our other readers, that’s how Trent explained it:
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 “By the force of the words” means “because Jesus said ‘body’ over the bread and ‘blood’ over the wine.” ] 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 connection 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. (Session 13, Chapter 3)

Because the body of Christ is signified in the bread, and the blood of Christ in the wine.

Read the New Testament.

Yes, of course, the full and real presence of Christ is experienced regardless of which species one receives.

Does that help?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.