The same "species"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Agape11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Agape11

Guest
I’m a bit confused… Jesus told us, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man AND drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” John 6:53 So, why is it ok to not take the Blood of Christ at Communion? It clearly states “AND” not “or”.
 
Agape11 said:
I’m a bit confused… Jesus told us, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man AND drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” John 6:53 So, why is it ok to not take the Blood of Christ at Communion? It clearly states “AND” not “or”.
Click to expand...
Because each species ( of bread and wine) are the Living Son of God in His entirety.

When we partake of a single species, of bread let’s say, our eyes percieve bread, our mouths taste bread, but what we are consuming is both the Body and Blood of Christ.

In the same way that our mouths percieve the taste of bread, they experience the sense of eating. Which it is, it is eating the Flesh of Christ. At the same time, our mouths are drinking of the Blood of Christ

The command is thus fulfilled, even in a single species.

Your very question implies a strong misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharist. The contents of the chalice are in no way different from the contents of the ciborium, except in how they appear to our human senses. Present in both is the full, Living Christ. His Flesh is living, and His Blood courses through His veins. All this is really present, even if our eyes percieve only bread, and even if our mouths only experience eating.
 
Brendan said:
Because each species ( of bread and wine) are the Living Son of God in His entirety.

When we partake of a single species, of bread let’s say, our eyes percieve bread, our mouths taste bread, but what we are consuming is both the Body and Blood of Christ.

In the same way that our mouths percieve the taste of bread, they experience the sense of eating. Which it is, it is eating the Flesh of Christ. At the same time, our mouths are drinking of the Blood of Christ

The command is thus fulfilled, even in a single species.

Your very question implies a strong misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharist. The contents of the chalice are in no way different from the contents of the ciborium, except in how they appear to our human senses. Present in both is the full, Living Christ. His Flesh is living, and His Blood courses through His veins. All this is really present, even if our eyes percieve only bread, and even if our mouths only experience eating.
Click to expand...
I’m certain that I understand the “nature” of the Eucharist… thanks! Also, I understand that He is present in both, yet, I see it as different and need a better explanation than what you gave.
 
Agape11 said:
I’m certain that I understand the “nature” of the Eucharist… thanks! Also, I understand that He is present in both, yet, I see it as different and need a better explanation than what you gave.
Click to expand...
First, it is important to understand what the Latin word “species” means in theology. It simply means “appearance” – not “type, variety, a distinct sort.” Thus we say that we have the Blessed Sacrament “under the species [appearance] of bread” and “under the species of wine.” However, the appearance isn’t truly relevant to salvation; what’s important is the substance. While there are two different appearances, bread and wine, there is only one substance: the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. It might help to read through the explanations given by St. Thomas Aquinas here. Since, Christ having risen, his Body and Blood can no longer be separated, a person who receives under a single species (appearance) in fact receives both the Body and Blood.

Or else, what is it that you “see as different”?
 
MarkThompson said:
First, it is important to understand what the Latin word “species” means in theology. It simply means “appearance” – not “type, variety, a distinct sort.” Thus we say that we have the Blessed Sacrament “under the species [appearance] of bread” and “under the species of wine.” However, the appearance isn’t truly relevant to salvation; what’s important is the substance. While there are two different appearances, bread and wine, there is only one substance: the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. It might help to read through the explanations given by St. Thomas Aquinas here. Since, Christ having risen, his Body and Blood can no longer be separated, a person who receives under a single species (appearance) in fact receives both the Body and Blood.

Or else, what is it that you “see as different”?
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response and explanation. I didn’t realize that there is another thread giong on with similar questions. Your response, along with theirs, has helped me to understand. 👍
 
All the explanation needed is the one the Church gives.

CCC:
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.207

The Eucharist is a mystery and you will never understand it completely. If you believe the Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth, then you should submit to teachings that you may not grasp at this point in your life. Just try to read and learn as much as possible to understand the teachings you submit to.
 
I would be all for that if it would get rid of all the emhc’s.
 
Agape11 said:
I Also, I understand that He is present in both, yet, **I see it as different **and need a better explanation than what you gave.
Click to expand...
Had to give a little chuckle at at that one.😉

Yes we DO see it as different, but it really isn’t, as Mark point out, that is kind of the point.

What we see ( bread or wine) DO appear differently to our senses. But in both is the fully, living Christ.

So when you consume a Host, you are consuming living, flowing Blood. And consuming a fluid is drinking. We do not experience it in a physical, sensual (as in the senses) way. But that is what is happening in reality.
 
To put it into simpler terms than the quote above from the Catechism, the reason is that the bread and wine each contain the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. They are not one or the other. The bread and wine separately contain both body and blood, but both are used to provide a fuller symbolism.
 
Agape11 said:
I’m certain that I understand the “nature” of the Eucharist… thanks! Also, I understand that He is present in both, yet, I see it as different and need a better explanation than what you gave.
Click to expand...
Council of Trent, Session 21:
This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness, and following the judgment and custom of the Church, declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, salva fide, that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation. For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors.

For He who said: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you,” also said: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever;” and He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,” also said: “The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world;” and lastly, He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him,” said, nevertheless: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever.”
 
Japhy,

I think your response, pointing to Trent, is interesting. It seems to me that Trent distinguishes between what is normative rather then attempting to efface any distinction between receiving body or blood or by conflating eating with drinking.

I’m uneasy about taking the later course, because it seems to be that there is indeed a distinction between eating and drinking, and between the body and the blood.

VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
I’m uneasy about taking the later course, because it seems to be that there is indeed a distinction between eating and drinking, and between the body and the blood.

VC
Click to expand...
Eating and Drinking, like seeing and tasting, address only accidental properties. What is Substantially present IS Flesh and Blood.

As Matt kindly pointed out, they are Unifed in the Person of Christ.

Since Christ is Living, He is Risen, His Blood is no longer seperate from His Body. It flows within His veins, pumped by His Sacred Heart.

All of which we consume.

The contents of the chalice, and the contents of the ciborium, are one and the same. They cannot be otherwise.

If someone consumes the Host, we drink flowing Blood. What else can be done? Do you chew living Blood?
 
Brendan,

My point is that Trent preserves the distinction between species and doesn’t efface it. And for good reason.

I’m not sure how you drink the blood in a body when you consume the whole body. Do you drink water if you swallow a vial of water? Perhaps you can argue it so, but Trent seems to indicate that there is no need to argue it so. Do you see what I mean?

thanks,
VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Brendan,

My point is that Trent preserves the distinction between species and doesn’t efface it. And for good reason.

I’m not sure how you drink the blood in a body when you consume the whole body. Do you drink water if you swallow a vial of water? Perhaps you can argue it so, but Trent seems to indicate that there is no need to argue it so. Do you see what I mean?

thanks,
VC
Click to expand...
No, Trent attempted to show the difference between the Catholic Transubstantiation and some of the Reformers’ belief in Consubstantiation. Trans- means “across, over” and the bread is no longer bread and the wine is no longer the wine. The words of the Institution in Latin clearly show this. (In Hic est enim Corpus Meum, Hic refers to Corpus and not Panem, for example.)

The Lutheran belief of con- “with”, OTOH, is one where the bread is still bread but also just the Body and the wine is still wine but also the Blood. (Capitalization done for respect.)
 
PV,

I am referring to the portion of Trent quoted by Japhy, above. It distinguishes between the two forms, and says that not all the faithful are enjoined to receive under both forms.

VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
PV,

I am referring to the portion of Trent quoted by Japhy, above. It distinguishes between the two forms, and says that not all the faithful are enjoined to receive under both forms.

VC
Click to expand...
What japhy posted is correct. If you read the Catechism of Trent, you will find that there are three ways of communicating.

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml (See “Threefold Manner Of Communicating”)

All the faithful can receive spiritually the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. The priest consecrates for everyone in church. It’s when one receives sacramentally, that is where the Church teaches that the smallest amount of consecrated species of either type suffices for the reception of the sacrament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top