Kevin Irwin has an article at America that gives a good example of the problems that arise when theologians do not think through what they say before they say them:
The first teaching (“canon”) about the Eucharist from the 16th-century Council of Trent states that the Eucharist contains (the Latin is “contineri”) “truly, really and substantially, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ together with the soul and divinity, and therefore the whole Christ.” The teaching from Trent never says that the Eucharist is “the real presence of Jesus.” It always uses the term “body of Christ.”
To describe the Eucharist as the “body of Jesus” or “the real presence of Jesus” would be too limiting to the historical body and earthly reality of the Word made flesh and the incarnate Son of God. The “body of Christ” refers to the entirety of the mystery of the totality of Christ: his whole earthly ministry and also his suffering, death, resurrection and ascension to the Father’s right hand to intercede for us in heaven. The Eucharist is the real presence of this body of Christ, not Jesus only.
This, of course, is gibberish; 'Christ' is a titular name for Jesus, and therefore 'Christ' and 'Jesus' have the same referent. This is why Trent explicitly says that the Eucharist contains "the body...of our Lord Jesus Christ", which quite clearly and explicitly tells us that it is talking about the body of Jesus, who is both our Lord and the Christ. This is unsurprising, since the whole thing is based on Jesus breaking the bread and saying "This is my body", in which 'my' clearly has to mean 'Jesus's'. 'Body of Christ' does not refer "to the entire mystery of the totality of Christ"; it very explicitly refers to the body of Christ. This is why it quite clearly has to tell us that it's not just the body but the blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Trent quite explicitly tells us, in other words, that the real presence is of OUR LORD, JESUS THE CHRIST, in BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY. It does not ever use 'Christ' in contrast to 'Jesus'; it does not use 'body of Christ' in the nonrestrictive way Irwin does to refer to the whole mystery on its own. For someone who makes a great hubbub about the importance of not changing the words of magisterial teaching, Irwin bends over backwards to try to make those words mean what they quite clearly do not mean and to deny that they mean what they quite clearly do mean.
Irwin is correct that the Roman Missal generally avoids using the name 'Jesus' without a modifier; but that's because the Mass is a formal situation, and so we use honorific titles, especially the two titles most closely associated with our actual worship, Lord and Christ. If in a formal situation I call Kevin Irwin, "Monsignor Irwin" or "Reverend Irwin", I am not distinguishing the referent from when I call him "Kevin Irwin"; I am just referring to him honorifically.
Like many, Irwin forgets that the Council of Trent is not the only general council to speak on the topic of the Eucharist. Fourth Lateran tells us:
There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us.
"We receive from God what he received from us." Did He receive from us the "entire mystery of the totality of Christ: his whole earthly ministry and also his suffering, death, resurrection and ascension to the Father’s right hand to intercede for us in heaven"? No, he did not. He received from us His body and blood, which is why we say the body and blood are truly contained under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance into his body and blood. Does either Fourth Lateran or Trent tell us that the bread and wine were changed into the "his whole earthly ministry and also his suffering, death, resurrection and ascension to the Father’s right hand to intercede for us in heaven"? No, they do not, and we would have no idea what they meant if they did, because we struggle enough in trying to wrap our minds around the bread becoming the body of our Lord, and don't have even the beginning of an inkling of what it would mean to say that it was changed into his earthly ministry and ascension into heaven.
What is true, of course, is that Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity are united in his person, so that if the body of Christ is present, the blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are also present, because all of these belong to one Christ. What is true is that the Christ who is present on the altar is the one born of the Virgin Mary, given the name 'Jesus', who preached and healed and suffered and died and rose and ascended to the Father's right hand. But neither of these have the implications that Irwin seems to be assuming. Jesus is the Christ, and when we say 'the body of Christ' we are referring to the body of Christ, who is Jesus.
