Dear Father Angelo,
I always have many doubts about the entire Catholic doctrine; today I would like to bring up a few regarding the Eucharistic consecration. I read in your responses to other letters that at the moment of consecration, the same sacrifice of Jesus is repeated — that is, the very same one, not a re-enactment of it. Therefore, Jesus’ sacrifice was one single event for all of history and it is made present each time identically in the Holy Mass. But then why is it commonly said that in the Mass we witness the unbloody sacrifice of Jesus? The one and only sacrifice was bloody, and even if our eyes cannot see it, the blood is poured out each time; otherwise, it would be a fake sacrifice. In fact, all the blood of Jesus is gathered in the chalice, in which the wine has become blood.
When the unleavened bread is broken by Jesus, is that the moment when He dies on the cross? Therefore, can it be said that Jesus anticipates His own death to nourish His disciples with Himself? That is, at that instant, both the living Jesus and His dead Body are simultaneously present at the Last Supper table, and separately, His blood poured out — is that correct?
If I am not mistaken, for the Jews, blood would represent the vital spirit of the person, the nefesh, so is it correct to say that when the Body of Jesus dies, His vital spirit is fully manifested as blood in the chalice?
In which Church document is it stated as a truth of faith that by receiving only the Host without the consecrated Wine, as happens for us lay faithful, the Eucharistic precept is fully fulfilled? It seems strange to me that an order from Jesus could be modified or rather restricted for reasons of convenience.
I do not understand how Thomistic theology can claim that Jesus, as He was seen and known by His contemporaries, was not a human person, but “only” God.
I don’t want to abuse your kindness further, and I apologize for the length of my letter, but it will be a hard journey for me to arrive at Faith if I cannot understand these basic concepts — while of course recognizing the role of Mystery.
Respectfully,
A.B.
Dear A.B.,
There are some theological inaccuracies in your email.
- The Eucharistic sacrifice is not only not a new edition of the one accomplished on the cross, but it is also not repeated.
It is instead the same.
The Risen Jesus, by the power of His Holy Spirit, makes it present on the altar for the benefit of those present, as well as for those for whom prayers are offered and for the entire world.
It is the same sacrifice that Jesus accomplished at the moment He instituted it as a sacrament — that is, at the Last Supper, when He said: “This is my Body… This is the chalice of my Blood… Do this in memory of me.”
At the Last Supper, He offered the sacrifice of Himself in an unbloody manner.
Precisely because Christ offered it in an unbloody way, no one can say that this mode alters the substance of the sacrifice. - The fractio panis — the breaking of the bread performed by Jesus — does not carry out the sacrifice but manifests it through an external sign.
The sacrifice is accomplished through the act of His will, expressed in the words: “This is my Body, given for you; this is the chalice of my Blood, poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
The sacrifice would still have taken place even if Christ had not broken the bread.
For this reason, in the Mass, the consecration happens before the breaking of the bread, which takes place at the moment of the Agnus Dei (“Lamb of God”). - It is correct to say that Jesus anticipated His sacrifice.
He anticipated it in the form of a Sacrament — that is, a sacred sign — so that the faithful could offer and consume it.
At that moment, Jesus was present with all His life, which had been a continual sacrifice offered to the Father.
But in a special way, He was present with His Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension into Heaven.
It is the Passover of the Lord. - It is incorrect to say that at the table of the Last Supper, on one side there was the Body of the Lord and on the other His Blood.
Wherever the Body is, by real concomitance, the Blood is also present.
And wherever the Blood is, the Body is also present. - It is true that for the Jews, the blood contained the vital spirit (nefesh), but it is incorrect to say that in the Eucharist the vital spirit “appears,” because the spirit is also present in the Body due to the real concomitance of the Body and Blood.
Furthermore, to appear means to become visible, as Jesus after His Resurrection became visible.
In the Eucharist, however, the vital spirit of Jesus does not “appear” — it does not become visible — even though it is truly present. - The Council of Trent declared:
“There has always been in the Church of God this faith: that immediately after consecration, under the appearance of bread and wine, there is truly present the true Body of Our Lord and His true Blood, together with His soul and divinity.
The Church also professes that, by the power of the words, the Body is under the species of the bread and the Blood under the species of the wine; but by that natural union and concomitance, whereby the parts of Christ the Lord, now risen from the dead and never to die again, are united, the Body is also under the species of the wine, and the Blood under the species of the bread, and the soul under each of the species.
Furthermore, the divinity is present by that wondrous hypostatic union with the Body and the soul” (DS 1640).
“It is therefore entirely true that under only one species, the whole Christ is contained as under both.
For Christ is whole and entire under the species of bread and under any part of that species; likewise, He is whole under the species of wine and under any part of it” (DS 1641).
- Until the 12th century, it was common practice, both in the East and the West, to give Holy Communion under both species.
However, there was also the practice of giving Communion under only one species, especially when it was brought to the absent.
Likewise, the Eucharist was preserved only under the species of bread by hermits (anchores), and in that form, it was brought to the sick. - In the 12th century, the practice of Communion under only one species prevailed in the West, both for the laity and for priests who were not celebrating.
St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica notes that in certain regions, given the growing multitude of faithful — including elderly and children who were not sufficiently careful about the risk of spilling the Blood — Communion under the species of wine was no longer given to the faithful, but was reserved to the priest alone (Summa Theologica, III, 80, 12). - It was the Council of Constance, on June 15, 1415, that for the first time
“declared, decreed, and defined that although Christ instituted and administered this venerable sacrament to His apostles after the Supper under both species of bread and wine, nonetheless, by the admirable authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the Church, this sacrament ought not to be administered after the Supper nor to non-fasting faithful (except in case of illness or other necessity allowed by law or the Church).
And just as the custom of only distributing Communion to non-fasting faithful was introduced to avoid dangers and scandals, in like manner or with even greater reason, this custom was introduced and maintained: although in the early Church the faithful communicated under both species, later the celebrants alone continued to receive both species, while the laity received only under the species of bread, without any doubt about the firm truth of faith that the whole Body and Blood of Christ are truly contained under either species.
Since this custom has been introduced with good reason by the Church and the holy Fathers and has been observed for a long time, it must be regarded as a law that cannot be rejected or altered without the consent of the Church.
It is erroneous to claim that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or unlawful.
Those who obstinately maintain the contrary must be treated as heretics” (DS 1198–1200).
- Regarding your last question, you did not express yourself clearly when attributing to Thomistic theology… what exactly?
St. Thomas holds that people saw the humanity of Christ but recognized His divinity through His works.
The Magisterium of the Church has defined that in Christ there is one person (divine) in two natures: divine and human.
I bless you, wish you all good things, and remember you in prayer.
Father Angelo
Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:
Italian 
Spanish 
Portuguese
