Skip to main content

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

+
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 »
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.  


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is Tradition?

 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...

The News is an Addiction ...

 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...