As Catholics, we believe Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity present in the Eucharist, is in the visual appearance of bread and wine.

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 know from several conversations, that many Catholics believe they are not receiving the fullness of Christ unless they receive BOTH the "bread" and "wine".

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!

here is a link that already has FAQ's

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

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.

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.

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

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

did you get a chance to research the link?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  This is a great forum!

GK - God is good!

 "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.