corpus christi


By Jonathan Hunter-Kilmer

chew and swallow baby steps

hold and savor, mind progress

feel the melting taste convey

light from eyes to mouth to stay

soft the gentle message comes

born and bread my heartstrings thrums

making perfect absolute

pull at my soulas aflute

slowly down my throat You spin

skin and wine-made-blood begin

transform me as were transformed

in those hands hold You that formed

once before my mouth I kiss

then between lips soar tobliss

know and feel my soul to You

translate goldening the view

flash then permanent sunblind

out of universe alligned

take me where I long to be

liquid in Your body

Three

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Guest

    Corpus Christi :

    Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin, literally, body of Christ

    ???

     

  • Guest

    Matty,

    I think you have an excellent question.

    I have no idea the answer.

    All I can say is that I, too, think it is confusing.  Looking forward to answers!

  • Guest

    Catholic theology offers this explanation: By the words of consecration, Christ's Body is under the appearance of bread, and His Blood under the appearance of wine. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ form one indivisible Person, and must be found together. That virtue or force which unites the body to the blood, and vice versa, in the Eucharist, is known in Catholic theology under the term concomitance.

  • Guest

    here is a link that already has FAQ's

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm

  • Guest

    David, this still doesn't explain why so many are confused, thinking the host is ONLY the body and the chalice contains ONLY the blood.
    Yes, both bread and wine must be consecrated.  But each becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity.  The reception of one is the reception of everything.

  • Guest

    for discussion… 

    CCC 1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

    Therefore, many Catholics would be on the right track when stating, "…they are not receiving the fullness of Christ unless they receive BOTH the "bread" and "wine"."

    1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

     

    We must not forget however that all that is necessary for salvation is to receive the Body of Christ.

    The Nestorians were condemned in the patristic period, and the heretics in the Council of Trent, because they denied that the Real Presence was whole and entire under each form. The Nestorians had denied that the Real Presence was wholly and entirely under each form. The bread, they said, contained only the Body of Christ and the wine only His Blood. This is heretical.

     

  • Guest

    lpioch – The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ form one indivisible Person, and must be found together. That virtue or force which unites the body to the blood, and vice versa, in the Eucharist,

  • Guest

    David, from what I can tell, you contradict yourself:

    Therefore, many Catholics would be on the right track when stating, "…they are not receiving the fullness of Christ unless they receive BOTH the "bread" and "wine"."

    but then later you say,

    The Nestorians had denied that the Real Presence was wholly and entirely under each form. The bread, they said, contained only the Body of Christ and the wine only His Blood. This is heretical.

     

    It seems you are equating "the sign of communion" (from the CCC quote above) with "Christ".  Christ is not a sign.  He is.  Signs POINT to the reality. 

    I would have to (maybe personally?) interpret the above "the sign of communion {being} more complete under both kinds {of species} since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly" as meaning that TO HUMANS, the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly….not that the reality of the complete Eucharistic meal is more real.

    In the above, I think "appears" means "is made apparent" not "is".  It is a statement to say that reception under both species can help us more because the reality is made more apparent to us….not that the reception under both species helps us more because there is more of the reality of Christ.

     

  • Guest

    from your interpretation, I guess it could be a contradiction.  

    I don't mean to. You receive the fullness of Christ whether you consume His Body or His Precious Blood. I guess it would be better, and properly put, to say that Catholics are wrong in thinking that they are not receiving the fullness of Christ if they receive only the Body or Blood. To receive under both species is to represent the Last Supper more fully.

    Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the consecratred bread{Body} and wine{Blood}.

     sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly" as meaning that TO HUMANS

    to whom should it appear or mean?

    The Nestorians had denied that the Real Presence was wholly and entirely under each form. The bread, they said, contained only the Body of Christ and the wine only His Blood. This is heretical.

    This is still true.

     

    Maybe the Eastern Rite receives communion as Body and Blood to stay in line with Jesus' teaching,"unless you eat my Body and drink My Blood…"

    I don't know.

     

  • Guest

    Based on what David T. has quoted from the Catechism he is correct.  But Matty also stated that some Catholics feel that they have not completely recevied the fullness of Christ unless they receive the body and the blood.

     

    I know personally I feel as if something is missing if I only receive the body.  But I still feel in communion with God as I have received the body of Christ.  I truly think that each one of us feels differently when we receive the body and blood of Christ.  And with this in mind when the Holy Fathers did write our catechism that they said you did receive the fullnss of Christ by only receiving the body.  This concept or idea of the authors of our catechism was not one of their own but something they received form the Holy Spirit.

     

    Tarheel

  • Guest

    go back to OT and read about the Mana.  Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.  This is the first place to start to understand God giving bread from Heaven.  NT references are when Jesus is speaking about this very thing.  John 6

    what is better:  Here's is Bread and Wine from Heaven?

    Imagine a priest saying Bread from Heaven.

    Christ is the Bread from Heaven.

    So they say what is obvious.  Body of Christ.

    Peace

  • Guest

    Tarheel – do you also feel something is 'missing' if there is no music or signing at mass?

     Suppose you went to a house mass in a country where it was illegal to celebrate mass.  the priest followed all the proper rights and used the words of consecration , but their was no music , no decorations , the altar  was a kitchen table , and the crucifix was a small figurine that could be placed in someone’s pocket. 

    Would you feel something was missing?

    Probably and you'd be right. 

    It is a mystery something like monstrance.

    The most glorious and beautiful thing in a room is the host during adoration, yet we humans like to augment the invisible reality by lavishing on it visible reality.  This is good and natural , but does not change the super-natural reality which is much greater and more glorious.

     

     The same is true of both species although receiving in one species is all that is 'necessary' since when was loving someone about doing only what was necessary we should do all that we can and enjoy our lovers lavishness.  I think that is what you 'feel' is missing.

     

     I also believe many Catholics 'feel' this but don't understand why and explain their feeling with poor theology because they have not been well catechized.  

     

     

  • Guest

    The Tridentine Mass, or Mass of Blessed John XXIII, did not include the reception of both species by anyone in the congregation but the priest. 

     

    Though I have never researched the translation discrepancy, I always theorized that "Corpus Christi" literally translated is "Body of Christ", but the word "Corpus" actually meant "being", and not just body as in skin, but body including all of Jesus being BBSD.  

  • Guest

    don't know – I always thought it was Latin for Body of Christ

    did you get a chance to research the link?

  • Guest

    I was able to scan parts of the article. 

     

    My question is not on the reality of Christ's presence, but on the inaccuracy of the words "body" and "blood" as being separately represented in the "bread" and "wine".  The words are inaccurate.

     

    I am looking more on definition and tradition before translation into English (which has butchered the meanings and definitions of so many words and prayers in Catholicism). 

  • Guest

    I don't believe the words are inaccurate. It is the Body of Christ and it is the Blood of Christ. And in each you receive the fullness of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

    While someone could have used corpus to mean something that is all encompassing, it appears it means simply what it is, body. Then we get to what has already been stated, By the words of consecration, Christ's Body is under the appearance of bread, and His Blood under the appearance of wine. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ form one indivisible Person, and must be found together. That virtue or force which unites the body to the blood, and vice versa, in the Eucharist, is known in Catholic theology under the term concomitance.

    Therefore, I think the words are most accurate. I have heard it said in some parishes, when distributing the Blood of Christ, the priest or Eucharistic minister actually says Body of Christ…and in doing so does not err.

  • Guest

    No fishman I don't feel something is missing if there is no music.  And I have attended masses very similar to the one you described.  When I was in Saudi Arabia no music was allowed as it could be heard, possibly, by Muslims outside the building and it would be considered blasphemy and against Islamic law.  We also had to be very careful displaying the crucifix.

     

    Like I said before missing something is more of a personal thing.  My wife rarely partakes of the 'blood' and she feels fulfilled.

  • Guest

    David wrote:  I have heard it said in some parishes, when distributing the Blood of Christ, the priest or Eucharistic minister actually says Body of Christ…and in doing so does not err.

    When a priest or Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister says, “Body of Christ” when they are offering you the Blood of Christ your response should be, “The Blood of Christ.  Amen.”

    The EEM might have had memory lapse or wasn’t well trained.

  • Guest

    Matty, referring to your first post:

    If this is the case, why then, when presented at communion, do we use the words "Body of Christ" and "Blood of Christ" when really each is the full BBSD?  Isn't it inaccurate to say "Body of Christ" and "Blood of Christ" when "Corpus Christi" is far more appropriate?

    I can recall the changes after Vatican Council II.  The Mass was changed from Latin to English or the vernacular and the altar and the priest face the congregation for the Mass.  The Communion railing was removed.  People were instructed to line up to receive the Body of Christ in the hand.

    For a short period time during the implementation of changes in the liturgy the priest administered Holy Communion and said, “Corpus Christi” and the communicant responded with the acknowledgement “Amen.”  Since the time of the early Christians the Church has taught that each species-the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine-is the Body and Blood of Christ.  The early Christians took the Body of Christ to homebound Christians. 

    Soon the liturgy changes allowed the Blood of Christ to the faithful.  By this time Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister had been trained to help the priest to administer Holy Communion.

    At Holy Communion the priest (or EEM) says, “Body of Christ”and the communicant acknowledges by saying, “Amen”; “Blood of Christ” the communicant says “Amen.”  When the communicant fails the say “Amen” the priest or EEM must say “Amen” for that person. 

    To receive Holy Communion with reverence all Catholics need to be taught early that the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ is Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity .

  • Guest

    sorry typing what I'm thinking is a bit of a problem – I have heard it said in some parishes, when distributing the Blood of Christ, the priest or Eucharistic minister actually says Body of Christ…and in doing so does not err. this should read:

    I have heard it said in some parishes, when distributing the Blood of Christ, the priest or Eucharistic minister has actually said "Body of Christ"…and in doing so technically does not err.

  • Guest

    David,

    Once we begin to ad-lib and improvise, where will it end?

    In regard to the term “technical” we must adhere to the General Instruction of the Rite of the Mass:

    Holy Communion as an Act of Faith:

    14. The act of Communion, therefore, is also an act of faith. For when the minister says, "The Body of Christ" or "The Blood of Christ," the communicant's "Amen" is a profession in the presence of the saving Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, who now gives life to the believer.

     from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops website:

    http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

  • Guest

    technically, it is not an error, since within the Blood of Christ there is present Body, Soul and Divinity also. I do not profess that it should be a matter of practice and if it was uttered to me, I would simply say Amen and move on

  • Guest

    Dear Mattymattychoochoo, According to the Doctrine of the Faith, both the bread and the wine contain equal properties of the body and blood, hence receiving either is equivalent to receiving both. Either is Jesus, flesh and blood, body, soul and Divinity. Also, according to the Doctrine of the Faith, any validly ordained Priest consecrates the bread and wine to become body and blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, no matter what the contrition of his soul during the Mass. The perception of disbelief is common for those whom have not confessed prior to Mass or intending to confess within 8 days. In a state of grace, no one should be able to argue the disposition of the body and blood, it is only when a person is not in a state of grace that they doubt His True Presence in any form. In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ and my name is Royal

  • Guest

    David,

    Recently the mother of a new First Communicant was behind her 7-yr.old son in the Communion line as they were approaching the chalice.  The EEM had a memory lapse and said “The Body of Christ” the 7 yr. old responded, “The Blood of Christ.”  The spontaneous response from a child was very moving.

    May you and yours enjoy a wonderfully blessed weekend.

  • Guest

    thank you Alvinal and may God bless you also

  • Guest

    The Latin for Body of Christ is Corpus Christi.  Corpus does not mean body, soul and divinity.  This becomes even clearer when we remember that Latin for Blood of Christ is Sanguinis Christi.  Sanguinis does not mean blood, soul and divinity.  It just means blood.

    There is no difference.  There is no translation issue here.  (not that there might not have been because there never are translation issues – because we know there are).  The English is as good as the Latin in this case.

    If I may be so bold the root of the body, blood, soul and divinity problem is two fold.  1) Christ only gave his apostles the elements of bread and wine.  2). We are human and have trouble meeting/seeing the spiritual side of everything, especially as it develops over time.

    Jesus knew that eventually theologians would refer to the Eucharist as the body, blood, soul and divinity – but he still only used bread and wine.  He also knew that one day the priest would add water to the wine before the consecration but no where is it recorded that He added water to the wine.  He knew there would be issues with people receiving one or both species – but he still offered us both.

    We receive the body, blood, soul and divinity in both species.  We were given this gift by Jesus.  It is a very tangible and glorious sacramental gift.  We humans love tangible things and symbols.  Like wedding rings, trophies …

    In order to clear this up in my own mind I have to ask myself if God would not make His blood present in the bread/body.  Or even wackier if He would put His body and soul in the bread but not his divinity and His blood and divinity in the wine but not His soul.  Its like the how many angels can dance on the head of a pin question.  Worrying about this type of thing, beyond just making sure you have the concept right is in my opinion wasting time that could be used to get closer to Christ in some other fashion.

    After a certain point it is straight up goofy to consider.  For example if Christ were to have given us a symbol for his soul would He have used butter on the bread?  And how about his divinity, would he have poured honey into the wine?  It seems wacky to even dice the issue up like this.

    All I can say is man does not live by bread alone.

    But, the original intent of this thread is something I have pondered in my mind many times before.  So, thanks for the discussion guys. Smile This is a great forum!

    GK – God is good!

  • Guest

    Thank you everyone for the responses.

  • Guest

     "He also knew that one day the priest would add water to the wine before the consecration but no where is it recorded that He added water to the wine" – he did add water to his blood when his side was pierced on the cross. ( which i think is part of the intended symbolism) besides the obvious baptism overtones.

  • Guest

    Re: MattyMattyChooChoo‘s post:

    RE: "Body … bread … Blood … wine"

    I don’t understand it either.  But I was informed once by a priest in regards to receiving under one species & I accepted the statement as so.  If one accepts that His Body is present under the appearance of bread & His Blood under the appearance of wine, then why is it any more of a leap to accept that His Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity are present under each of the two forms?  In for a dime, in for a dollar.

    As to the words misleading.  Language, being an invention of humans is so inadequate to any discussion of the Divine, let alone a Divine mystery, that it seems pointless to take any word as meaning precisely and only what humans assign to it.  It some cases of course, trying to "overload" a common word with sacred meaning is too chancy & words have to be invented just for the purpose.  I am thinking of words such as "transubstantiation" "spiration" & the like.

    Regards,
    Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic [Latin rite] & generally inveterate amateur)
  • Guest

    Mattymattychoochoo, The Vatican has a policy against changing the language of the Mass. One Priest I know changed the Trinitarian Salutation to: In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier. When he made this change, all the Baptisms he did using this salutation were declared invalid and he had to Baptise all those babies again in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Corpus Christi is the name of a town in Texas not the preferred title of the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ. Ask the Vatican.

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen

  • Guest

    TrentForever

         Friends, as a new member of the forum I've been reading the posts as they come up and I hope to offer something on this one on the Eucharist.

         Trent Session XIII (Oct. 11, 1551) (that's a coincidence of date, eh!?) – Chapter 3 (Denzinger 876) –

    (excerpt… " For the Apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord (Matt. 26:26, Mark 14:22) when He Himself truly said that what He was offering was His body; and this belief has always been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and His true blood together with His soul and divinity exist 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, but the body itself under both by the force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, ' who hath now risen from the dead to die no more " (Romans 6:9), are mutually united, the divinity also because of that admirable hypostatic union  (canon 1 and 3) with His body and soul.  Therefore, it is very true that as much is contained under either species as under both.  For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever of that species, likewise the whole (Christ) is present under the species of wine and under its parts (canon 3). 

         So, the dogma of the Catholic Church of the "hypostatic union" is part of the docttine associated with the Eucharist.  The hypostatis union – a mystery of faith; transubstantiation, a mystery of faith, and like the other mysteries of faith – to be accepted by faith, not by sight,

    for faith is above reason though they are not in conflict because both are from God… but, yes, faith seeks understanding, and this is why we have great forums like this one to help each other understand so that we can deepen and defend our faith…

    May the grace and truth and love that Jesus Christ brought into this fallen world and which He offers to out fallen human natures constantly enrich us and inspire us to service ion His name…   Read the last chapter – the victory has already been won by Christ on the Cross, embrace it…

  • Guest

    Alyosha,

    Thank you so much for the quote from Trent.  In my Bible study last week, we were talking about exactly this point regarding the reception of Holy Communion.  Thank you so much for directing me straight to the mouth of the Church regarding this.

    May more come to love the reality of Christ in the Eucharist.

  • Guest

    Mattymattychoochoo, The Pope John Paul 11 did refer to the Body and Blood as Corpus Christi:

    MASS AND EUCHARISTIC PROCESSION
    FOR THE SOLEMNITY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST

    HOMILY OF JOHN PAUL II

    Thursday, 30 May 2002

     

    1. "Lauda, Sion, Salvatorem, lauda ducem et pastorem in hymnis et canticis": "Praise your Saviour, Zion, praise with hymns and canticles, Christ, your king and shepherd".

    With faith and devotion we have sung these words of the traditional Sequence that forms part of the liturgy of Corpus Christi.

    Today is a solemn feast, a feast on which we relive the first Sacred Supper. With a public and solemn act, we glorify and adore the Bread and the Wine become the true Body and true Blood of the Redeemer. "Signs not things are all we see", the Sequence stresses, but "here beneath these signs lie hidden priceless things".

    2. "Special theme for glad thanksgiving is the lifegiving Bread set before you today".

    Today we are celebrating a solemn feast that expresses the awesome wonder of the People of God:a wonder filled with gratitude for the gift of the Eucharist. In the Sacrament of the Altar, Jesus wanted to perpetuate his living presence in our midst in the same form in which he gave himself to the Apostles in the Upper Room. He left to us what he did at the Last Supper and we faithfully renew his action.

    According to established custom, the Solemnity of Corpus Christi consists of two moments: the Mass, in which the offering of the Sacrifice takes place and the procession, that manifests the public adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen

MENU