Skip to main content

Cycnical Resistors 2h - Concomitance of Our Lord's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

Image
By
+
JMJ


After I explained the principles in my 'challenge' he went silent on that topic.

Then he posted a fairly good question.  Even though I suspected that Gerard was attempting to lay a trap - unlike him - I still provided an answer.

Now since Gerard has sprung his little 'trap', I thought I would dig a little deeper into my understanding of the Mystery of the Eucharist.  Specifically, concomitance.



First here's what Ott has to say about the Dogma that states: The Body and the Blood of Christ together with His Soul and His Divinity and therefore the Whole Christ are truly present in the Eucharist. (De fide.)
The body of Christ is present under the form of bread and the blood of Christ under the form of the wine ex vi verborum, that is, by the power of the words of consecration. Per concomitantiam (by concomitance), that is, on account of the real connection between the body and the blood of Christ, His blood and His soul are also present with the body of Christ under the form of bread, as He is a living body (Rom. 6, 9) (Concomitantia naturalis), and on the ground of the Hypostatic Union His Divinity is also present (concomitantia supematuralis). Similarly, under the form of wine besides His blood Christ's body and soul and Divinity are also present by concomitance. Cf. D 876. S. the III 76, I. (Ott)
Now, this argument is about the visible form of Christ's Blood as provided to the children at Fatima.  This means we're going to have look at the principles involved in the explanation above.  The word used to describe the link between the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is concomitance.

Here's an explanation of Concomitance from CatholicCulture :
CONCOMITANCE: The doctrine that explains why the whole Christ is present under each Eucharistic species. Christ is indivisible, so that his body cannot be separated from his blood, his human soul, his divine nature, and his divine personality. Consequently he is wholly present in the Eucharist. But only the substance of his body is the specific effect of the first consecration at Mass; his blood, soul, divinity, and personality become present by concomitance, i.e., by the inseparable connection that they have with his body. The Church also says the "substance" of Christ's body because its accidents, though imperceptible, are also present by same concomitance, not precisely because of the words of consecration.  In the second consecration, the conversion terminates specifically in the presence of the substance of Christ's blood. But again by concomitance his body and entire self become present as well. (Etym. Latin concomitantia, accompaniment.)
Lastly, here's what we find in the Catechism of Trent:
Presence In Virtue Of The Sacrament And In Virtue Of Concomitance
Pastors, however, should not fail to observe that in this Sacrament not all these things are contained after the same manner, or by the same power. Some things, we say, are present in virtue of the consecration; for as the words of consecration effect what they signify, sacred writers usually say that whatever the form expresses, is contained in the Sacrament by virtue of the Sacrament. Hence, could we suppose any one thing to be entirely separated from the rest, the Sacrament, they teach, would be found to contain solely what the form expresses and nothing more.

On the other hand, some things are contained in the Sacrament because they are united to those which are expressed in the form. For instance, the words This is my body, which comprise the form used to consecrate the bread, signify the body of the Lord, and hence the body itself of Christ the Lord is contained in the Eucharist by virtue of the Sacrament. Since, however, to Christ's body are united His blood, His soul, and His Divinity, all of these also must be found to coexist in the Sacrament; not, however, by virtue of the consecration, but by virtue of the union that subsists between them and His body. All these are said to be in the Eucharist by virtue of concomitance. Hence it is clear that Christ, whole and entire, is contained in the Sacrament; for when two things are actually united, where one is, the other must also be.
I'll try to summarize this very rich exposition of the Dogma.

If the Body of Christ is present, because Our Lord cannot be separated, His Blood, Soul and Divinity are present by "virtue of the union that the union that subsists between them and His body".

The inverse is true, if the Blood Of Christ is present, then His Body, Soul and Divinity are also present.

One other thing to note is that the Accidents are also present, but invisible. Now, knowing Gerard's modus operandi, I dug a little further and found that the Catholic Culture definition is supported in other older texts.  One that I will cite is The Teaching of the Catholic Church.

So in answer Gerard's question:  Yes, Our Lord's Body, Soul and Divinity are present by concomitance where-ever the Blood is to be found.  This is the Catholic Dogma regardless of whether the accidents are visible or invisible.

Now back to the idea that Gerard finds abhorrent concerning consuming Our Lord's Body or Blood in Its visible form.  Catholic Dogma as noted above indicate that the  'accidents' of  Our Lord's Body or Blood are present by the same commitance - although they are invisible.

Now, while human nature will find the mere idea of consuming Our Lord's Body and Blood under their visible form (accidents) repulsive, that does not prevent us from consuming His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, including accidents.

So the question is what is the difference between Jacinta and Francisco consuming the Blood of Christ under its visible form, versus under its sacramental form?

Substantially, nothing.  The only thing missing were the accidents of wine.  The rest were as they are when we receive Holy Communion and the Priest consumes the Precious Blood.

P^3




Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #627 on: July 05, 2017, 11:17:31 PM »
Quote from: tradical on July 05, 2017, 11:03:22 PM
Quote from: Gerard on July 05, 2017, 10:45:14 PM
Tradical,

Do you believe the "visible form" in the chalice is the Blood of Christ or both the Body and Blood of Christ? 

A very good question as we are dealing with the visible form in which the accidents and substance are consistent.

Let's see what did the Angel say?

Quote from: Angel of Peace
“Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men! Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.”


This is consistent with Church Teaching on concomitance. In addition to His Blood, His body, soul and Divinity are also present.

Having a qualm of conscience Gerard or simply trying to trap me?


I'm trapping you.

Doesn't concomitance refer to the Eucharistic species?  You stated that the kids did not receive a sacramental Communion.

Isn't the "visible form" as you refer to it, the separated blood?

Or are there literally pieces of flesh in there?

Did the Angel make sort of a "smoothie" out of our Lord?

This is how ridiculous it gets when you try to incorporate something patently fraudulent into Catholic teaching.  


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

By
 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin
Post a Comment
Read more

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

By
+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu
Post a Comment
Read more

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R
Post a Comment
Read more