Author Topic: Communion  (Read 1165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanMc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Communion
« on: May 13, 2006, 12:07:50 AM »
The Catholic Church holds that both the body and the blood are present in the bread and the wine (so, bread = body + blood, etc.).

Does anyone know what the Fathers said on this teaching (if anything at all since this doctrine came straight out of the Middle Ages)? To me, it would seem redundant for Christ to have instituted the Eucharist with an unnecessary element.

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Communion
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2006, 11:50:13 PM »
The Catholic Church holds that both the body and the blood are present in the bread and the wine (so, bread = body + blood, etc.).

Does anyone know what the Fathers said on this teaching (if anything at all since this doctrine came straight out of the Middle Ages)? To me, it would seem redundant for Christ to have instituted the Eucharist with an unnecessary element.

This is an interesting question. I've never found an entirely satisfactory account of when, why and how the Roman Catholic Church stopped using both species. Some suggest the practice came about in the Middle Ages, since noblemen did not want to share a "common cup" with commoners.

What's even more perplexing is that many, many Roman Catholic sources call for both bread and wine. (This only makes sense, since, according to the Council of Trent -- indeed, according to any proper scholastic-influenced account of Transubstantiation! -- one MUST have both species to serve as the accident whose essence is transubstantiated).

As for the ancient Fathers, they all speak of both elements, in much the same way that most more recent Catholic sources do. It's just assumed one would consecrate and administer both bread and wine. Consider this bit from the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote
In the Eucharist the Body and Blood of the God-man are truly, really, and substantially present for the nourishment of our souls, by reason of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that in this change of substances the unbloody Sacrifice of the New Testament is also contained.

(See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm )
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: Communion
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2006, 01:44:51 AM »
What I was always taught (although that doesn't make it correct is that it doesn't treat that the properties of the body and blood that we see are in each one, but rather either the body or blood contains the full spirit, soul and body of Christ.  . . . work that out as you will. :)

Now, how it came across only serving the body?  Two reasons as I understand it:
1.) It was in response to the Protestant Reformation to rempasize that each species was fully conscrated and Christ
2.) It was to avoid spilling the blood and more practical.
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.