John 6:53

[Dan_Blake]

Take for example the Eucharistic passages in John 6, 1st Cor.10:17, 11:23-31, and all the Last Supper passages. To us they are literal and fairly simple.I lifted this quote from a distant thread to ask a question on the Eucharist. If we are to enjoy a simple, literal understanding of the cited passages, how is it possible that one can receive a valid sacrament under a single species?

Jesus Christ:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh

of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

 

[porthos11]

Because when you receive under one species, you are already eating his body and drinking his blood. Why?

Because to deny this is to declare that his Body and Blood are separated, hence Jesus is dead. This, of course, is unacceptable. Since we believe that Jesus is alive, his body and blood have to be both present under each species. Receiving under both species brings out the full symboliism of what is taking place, but receiving under one does not diminish its truth.

Besides, if that were the case, then those suffering from celiac disease would have no eternal life, and neither would those who may be intolerant to the properties of alcohol.

 

[Dan_Blake]

porthos11:

Because when you receive under one species, you are already eating his body and drinking his blood. To deny this is to declare that his Body and Blood are separated, hence Jesus is dead. This, of course, is unacceptable. Since we believe that Jesus is alive, his body and blood have to be both present under each species.

Your conclusion (Jesus is dead.) is a non-sequitur. One might as easily conclude that because the blood should not be separated from the body, it would be a grave matter to consume the body without likewise drinking the blood.

Receiving under both species brings out the full symboliism of what is taking place, but receiving under one does not diminish its truth.

Is it true that the Mass is not valid unless the priest consumes the body and blood under both species?
Mark 14:22-24:

And as they did eat, Jesus took bread . . . and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and . . . he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood.

It doesn’t seem to have bothered Jesus to handle the body and blood separately. He didn’t even consecrate the wine until after the bread was eaten.

 

[porthos11]

Dan Blake:

Your conclusion (Jesus is dead.) is a non-sequitur. One might as easily conclude that because the blood should not be separated from the body, it would be a grave matter to consume the body without likewise drinking the blood

Again, no because both the species of bread and wine each contain BOTH the body and blood already, hence receiving only one species fulfills the command to eat his body and drink his blood.

If we were to say that Jesus’ blood is not present in the consecrated host, then we declare that Jesus is dead, which, of course, is heresy. This is why the Latin Church permitted the reception under one species only, because of a spreading of this error in thinking. Because Jesus is whole and entire under each species, then receiving under bread alone already has us consuming his blood as well. The correct belief is that Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under both species.

Is it true that the Mass is not valid unless the priest consumes the body and blood under both species?

No, it doesn’t invalidate the Mass. It is, however gravely illicit.

It doesn’t seem to have bothered Jesus to handle the body and blood separately. He didn’t even consecrate the wine until after the bread was eaten.

So? It doesn’t matter whether or not the Bread was eaten before the consecration of the wine. That was the rite of the Mass as Jesus celebrated it.

 

[Dan_Blake]

porthos11:

Again, no because both the species of bread and wine each contain BOTH the body and blood already. If we were to say that Jesus’ blood is not present in the consecrated host, then we declare that Jesus is dead.

Porthos11, you made the same declarations in both of your posts, which I appreciate. However, I don’t see any basis for your statements. Now, if you want to say that they true as an article of faith, okay, but that pretty much ends the discussion.

Do you have some justification for your understanding. It seems so contrary to what Jesus declared when he said, “This is my body.” He did not say, “This is my body and blood.”

Best regards.

 

[porthos11]

See the following authoritative sources.

For Catholics, this should be enough. For non-Catholics, it’s another argument entirely.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

And from the Baltimore Catechism

243. Q. Is Jesus Christ whole and entire both under the
form of bread and under the form of wine?

**A. **Jesus Christ is whole and entire both under the form of bread and
Under the form of wine.

From the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas.

After what we have said above (1), it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (1, ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ’s blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as it was then, in fact.

 

[Dan_Blake]

porthos11:

See the following authoritative sources. For Catholics, this should be enough. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1390) . . . And from the Baltimore Catechism (Q243) . . .

If quoting authoritative sources were sufficient, we would have no need for the doctors of the Church. Such sources, as above, tell us what the faith is, but often give us no clue as to why that is the faith. For many (faithful) Catholics, that is not enough. A well-formed conscience is more than a well-informed conscience. Regarding our discussion, CCC1390 has it as a presupposition, whereas BC243 simple declares it to be so.

From the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, “It must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance.”

Now, we are getting somewhere. St. Aquinas tells us that the consecration changes the bread into the body of Christ, not the blood. (That is why all the Biblical passages speak of only a single element for each species.) But through the necessary concomitance, we understand that the entire Christ, BBS&D, must be present.

It is said that a single answer often leads to two new questions. Here is one: if through concomitance the entire Christ is present (because of the current unity of BBS&D), is God, the Father, and God, the H.S., likewise present due to the reality of the inseperable unity of the triune Godhead?