[metmom]

Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine. Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present either in the bread or in the wine. This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.

So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.

So, when Jesus took the bread and said, *This is my body* and when he took the cup and said *This is my blood* He didn't really mean that the bread was ONLY His flesh and the cup was ONLY His blood?

And this from Catholics who demand that every other part of that passage be taken literally so that the cup become the blood and the bread becomes the flesh and that we have to really literally eat it?

How did the church arrive at this conclusion that partaking of either element was adequate when Jesus Himself said to partake of both?

What gives them the right to usurp the teachings of Jesus?

The snippets are being snippefied.

[annalex]

when Jesus took the bread and said, *This is my body* and when he took the cup and said *This is my blood* He didn't really mean that the bread was ONLY His flesh and the cup was ONLY His blood?

They are when the Eucharist is consecrated, body and blood separate, to "show the death of Jesus" (1 Cor.11:26). When the Eucharist is offered, a fragment of consecrated Bred is dropped into the consecrated Wine, uniting the two in the Resurrection. When we consume either one, it is whole resurrected Christ again, and one does partake of both regardless of the manner of receiving. Good question, thanks.