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.
This is not something a Christian brain should be preoccupied with, especially at communion, but if you think it is important to know, here it is.
OK, presuming that the passage does say that the bread and wine actually do turn into the literal body and blood of Christ, what about this part of the passage where it says that anyone eats of His body, he will live forever?
Seems to me that everyone who has ever taken communion in the Catholic church has died. Unless the Catholic church has saints that it claims are almost 2,000 years old?
“Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine”
Let’s see here: Before the ‘species’ is consecrated Christ is not present body, blood, soul and divinity but after consecration he is but only “so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.”
He’s not present, he is present and then he’s not present as the apparent bread, which is body, blood, soul, divinity is eaten and changes appearance. Same for the apparent wine.
“This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.”
Amongst whom? Certainly not among those who followed Jesus’ instructions given at that last memorial meal, not amongst those who were going to be part of that “new covenant”, so amongst whom was this counterfeit communion acceptable?
The only place where Christ’s blood was offered was in heaven. (Hebrews 9:12)
I can see why you say it’s not something to think about
Just as Jesus taught His Apostles - NOT!
Matthew 26:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
But then, you know a better way than Jesus taught.
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.
So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.
1 Corinthians 11
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
Jesus gave BOTH the cup and the bread at the Last Supper and said we were to partake of both.
Paul states that we eat the bread AND drink the cup.
There's simply no where in Scripture that says that partaking of only one element of communion is acceptable or shows the Lord's death. It's BOTH elements.
So, why have the Catholic church for all these centuries taught otherwise? And why does it still do so?
Is tradition trumping Scripture?
Again?