53. Litigabant ergo Iudaei ad 53. The Jews therefore strove invicem, dicentes: Quomodo among themselves saying: How potest hic nobis carnem suam can this man give us his flesh suam dare ad manducandum? to eat? 54. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: 54. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen dico vobis: Nisi Amen, amen, I say unto you; manducaveritis carnem Filii Except you eat the flesh of hominis, et biberitis eius the son of man, and drink his sanguinem, non habebitis vitam blood, you shall not have life in vobis. in you. 55. Qui manducat meam carnem, 55. He that eateth my flesh, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet and drinketh my blood, hath vitam aeternam: et ego everlasting life: and I will resuscitabo eum in novissimo raise him up in the last day. die. 53‐55. The Jews *therefore* (_ergo_, not enim), because of what He had now said, disputed among themselves, evidently taking different views of what He had said; but Jesus, far from retracting, solemnly insists upon what He had just said, and declares negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse 55), not only the possibility, but the _necessity_ of receiving His body and blood. It does not follow from verse 54, as the Utraquists falsely contended, that Communion under both kinds is necessary; for Christ is received whole and entire under either species. Under the species of bread only the body is present _in virtue of the words of consecration_, and similarly under the species of wine only the blood; but since Christ’s body is now a _living_ body, it follows that in the Blessed Eucharist, where the body is, there also are the blood and the soul _in virtue of the natural connection_ between the parts of a living body, and there, too, the Divinity, _in virtue of the hypostatic union_. See Decrees of the Council of Trent, sess. xiii., ch. 3. The precept is to receive both body and blood, but not necessarily under both species. For, as the Council of Trent (sess. xxi., cap. 1) points out, Christ attributes the same effects to eating in verses 55, 58, 59, as He does here to eating and drinking. See also 1 Cor. xi. 26, where he who eats _or_ drinks unworthily, is said to be guilty of _both_ body and blood. The precept of Christ, then, is obeyed whether one or both species be received, and it is a disciplinary matter entrusted to the care of the Church, whether the faithful are to receive under one or both species. Seeing, then, that there is no obligation for the faithful to receive the Blessed Eucharist under both species, it may be asked why does Christ mention both species? We reply, that He does so to signify that in the Blessed Eucharist there is a perfect repast, which ordinarily supposes the presence of both meat and drink; and, perhaps, also to indicate that this sacrament is commemorative of His death, in which His body and blood were separated.