The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. John
Ver. 54 .—Jesus therefore said, &c. Hear S. Chrysostom, “They indeed judged this to be impossible, but He showed it to be altogether possible ; and not only so, but necessary.” “ The manner indeed in which it was possible,” says Cyril, “ He did not unfold, but exhorted them to ask in faith : but they before they believed asked querulously.” Similarly Augustine, “ How indeed It is given, and the manner of eating that Bread ye know not, but unless ye shall eat . &c.”
Unless ye shall eat: this is Christ's precept concerning taking the Eucharist. Therefore from the very form of the words it is clear that it pertains only to adults : although indeed some of the ancients have extended it to little ones and infants, to whom they actually gave the Eucharist. This appears from S. Augustine (Epist. 23 ad Bonifac.) and S. Cyprian (Tract. de Laps). Indeed at Constantinople and elsewhere it was the custom to give the remains of the Eucharist to pure and innocent boys whom they called out of school into the church for the purpose. This appears from the case of the Jewish boy which I will speak of presently. But the Church subsequently defined that young children not yet come to the use of reason, are not the subject of the precept, and but little capable of fulfilling it reverently. Wherefore the Council of Trent says ( Sess . 21, Can. 4), “ If any one shall say that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for young children before they come to years of discretion, anathema sit.” It is otherwise concerning the precept of baptism : Unless any one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost , he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For there it is plain from the form of words that Baptism is not only commanded , but also that it is ordained as a necessity for salvation, and therefore that infants cannot be saved without baptism as a means, although they are not bound by the precept of it, indeed cannot be bound. Others have extended this command of eating the Eucharist to little children in a non-literal but figurative sense, namely, that the little ones ought to eat the flesh of Christ, i.e., ought to be partakers of the mystical body of Christ which is the Church, that is, they ought to be baptized, that by the faith, hope and charity infused into them at their baptism, they may be incorporated with Christ and the Church. So think and explain S. Cyprian (lib. 3, ad Quirin. c. 53.), Pope Innocent I. (Epist. 93, ad Patres Concil. Milev.), &c. But this meaning is far fetched and symbolical, not literal and natural.
You will say, infants ought to be united to Christ and the Church : and this union is the effect and fruit of the Eucharist, as the Council of Florence teaches : therefore they ought to receive It, that they may obtain this union. I reply, that infants are united and incorporated into Christ and the Church by baptism, but that the perfecting of the union takes place in the Eucharist, and is Its proper and peculiar effect. But this perfection is not required of infants, nor is it necessary for their salvation. So Suarez.
And drink His Blood . From hence the Hussites, Luther, Calvin and others contend that the Eucharistic chalice ought to be given to the laity also, that they may communicate in both kinds. But the practice and definition of the Church is otherwise, and this is the best interpreter of Holy Scripture.
I reply therefore (1.) that as regards the thing ( rem ) contained in the Sacrament, the laity do also drink the Blood of Christ when they receive His Body under the species of bread. Because under that species (sub ea) by virtue of consecration, there is there (ponitur) the Body of Christ, but by concomitance there is under the same the Blood of Christ, for the Body of Christ is not bloodless, nor can the Blood of Christ be separated from His glorified Body. As therefore he who takes the Eucharist under the species of wine by virtue of the words of consecration, takes directly and primarily the Blood of Christ, and yet by concomitance takes the Body of Christ, because the Blood of Christ cannot be without His Flesh ; so in turn, he who takes the Flesh of Christ, under the species of bread, takes directly the Flesh of Christ, but by concomitance takes also his Blood. For in spiritual and sacramental and divine things food and drink are the same : consequently to eat and to drink means the same thing.
Wherefore he who receives in one kind only receives as much profit and grace as he who takes in both kinds. Indeed as in material things, the same milk is both food and drink, the same bread dipped in wine both feeds and affords drink. It is at once eaten and drunk. It satisfies at once hunger and thirst. Still, as regards the sacramental species, he is properly said to eat the Flesh of Christ who eats It under the species of bread, and he is said to drink His Blood who drinks It under the species of wine.
You will say, then the laity ought to do both, for Christ Jesus commands it. I reply that the expression, and drink, both here and elsewhere is frequently put by a hebraism for or drink. For it suffices to receive one species, because under either is contained whole and perfect Christ. Thus it is said (Ex. xxi. 13), “ Whoso striketh father and (i.e., or) mother, let him die the death.” For he who strikes either one or the other is guilty of death. The conjunction and here, although it disjoins the members of the subject, viz. father and mother, nevertheless conjoins them in the predicate, that is to say, the penalty of death. Thus also, “ silver and (i.e., or) gold have I none ” (Acts iii. 6). Similar constructions are found in Ex. xxii. 10; Ezek. xliv. 22, and elsewhere. So here too it may be taken thus, from what Christ says (Ver. 51, 58), concerning bread alone. And thus Paul explains Christ’s saying, “ Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord ” (1 Cor. xi. 27). See the Council of Trent (Sess. 21, Can. 1), Bellarmine, Suarez, Maldonatus and others.
We may add that also by a hebraism, the word unless ought to be repeated, thus, Unless ye eat, &c , and unless ye drink, &c. That means, If ye neither eat nor drink, &c. This clearly appears from the Greek, which for unless has ἐὰν μή, i.e., if ye do not eat, and if ye do not drink, that is, if ye do neither the one nor the other. The reason a priori is because Christ is here answering the Jews striving among themselves , and saying concerning the Flesh alone of Christ, How can this man give us His Flesh to eat ? To whom He replies, Amen, Amen , i.e., most truly and certainly, except ye shall eat the Flesh of the Son of man, &c. But He adds, and drink His Blood, that He may strengthen the expression, unless ye shall eat His Flesh. For that is not true and living flesh which has no blood. He would also show His liberality, charity, and the greatness of the benefit, by which He affords to the faithful in the Eucharist, the complete sustenance which consists of food and drink. These words have respect therefore rather to the blessing than to the precept.
Lastly, there is a canon for the interpretation of Holy Scripture delivered by S. Augustine (de Doct. Christ lib . 3, c. 17). There are many precepts in Scripture which are given to the whole Church, which yet are to be fulfilled by some, not by all. Such is, “ Increase and multiply” (Gen. i.) This bids some to take wives, and propagate the human race, but not that all and each should do so. So here, Unless ye shall eat , &c., unless there are some, viz. priests, who take the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, ye shall not have life in you. For if there be none such, then there will be none to consecrate the Eucharist, none to administer it, and so the whole fruit of the most Blessed Sacrament would be lost, as Bellarmine observes. For it is the office of priests to consecrate and receive in both kinds, that there may be not only a perfect Sacrament, but also that they may offer the sacrifice. This requires both kinds, both to signify perfect nourishment (for the sacrifice is, as it were, the food of God) : and this nourishment consists of food and drink : as also that there may be a perfect representation of the passion and death of Christ. In them the Blood was separated from the Body of Christ, as by the force of the words of consecration, the Body is consecrated separately under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine. Formerly indeed the laity at times, not always, communicated in both kinds in the primitive Church. This is plain from S. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 28), and S. Dionysius (Celest. Hierarch, cap. 3, part 3), and S. Cyprian ( Serm . de Laps). But as the number of believers increased, the Church rightly abrogated this custom, because of the peril of irreverence, and various abuses which had been often experienced.