Christianity came to actual violence over the "one iota", i.e. "homoousios" vs. "homoiousios". That we now, in our decadence, tolerate (and exalt) the mixed metaphor of "source and summit" troubles me to no end. Why not use beginning and end, first and last, Alpha and Omega instead? Regardless, that's not Joe's fault... and reading this doubles my resolve to take the family over to Eucharistic Adoration this evening!
Good story, good post, but there's a major historical detail you left out that is for the vast majority of post-Schism Catholic history lay people were denied the blood of Christ, which is still in place in many places today. I find it hard to reconcile this with the idea that Catholics take serious consuming the blood of Christ as you argue, which Pope Gelasius I (who has been canonized by the Catholic church) even condemned this doctrine in relation to Donatists doing such a practice.
Thanks for the comment, and I'm glad you liked the post. In Catholic theology, we believe that both the body and blood of Christ are present under both species. Receiving the Eucharist in either the host or the cup means receiving both the body and blood of Christ. The reason why the Church condemned the idea that you have to receive under both species is because it implicitly denied this doctrine.
I don't know precisely why it was denied to the laity to receive both species, but my guess is that it had to do with a practical matter of the cost of wine. I think the laity should be free to receive under both or either species, but I don't believe it is necessary for salvation.
I understand the theology behind it I just think it's very very wrong as did Pope Gelasius. Also from when I did a deep dive into this a while ago cost was never given but almost always it was the fear of spilling the blood which doesn't make sense why to me given that the practice didn't start until 1100's in France and then very widespread by the 1200's. As an Orthodox Christian it just seems very strange to me (as does all the technicalities of the Catholic view of transubstantion) and seems like this problem could be solved doing it how we do it but iirc bans on "instincto panis" (dipping the body into the blood) were also banned shortly after the Great schism. I like your substack just find some of these Catholic innovations weird.
That was a lot less cursed than I thought it was going to be. Great post
"A lot less cursed than I thought it was going to be" is the highest praise I could ask for haha
Christianity came to actual violence over the "one iota", i.e. "homoousios" vs. "homoiousios". That we now, in our decadence, tolerate (and exalt) the mixed metaphor of "source and summit" troubles me to no end. Why not use beginning and end, first and last, Alpha and Omega instead? Regardless, that's not Joe's fault... and reading this doubles my resolve to take the family over to Eucharistic Adoration this evening!
What a story. Also, great writing, clear and enjoyable prose.
Thank you, my friend
Good story, good post, but there's a major historical detail you left out that is for the vast majority of post-Schism Catholic history lay people were denied the blood of Christ, which is still in place in many places today. I find it hard to reconcile this with the idea that Catholics take serious consuming the blood of Christ as you argue, which Pope Gelasius I (who has been canonized by the Catholic church) even condemned this doctrine in relation to Donatists doing such a practice.
Thanks for the comment, and I'm glad you liked the post. In Catholic theology, we believe that both the body and blood of Christ are present under both species. Receiving the Eucharist in either the host or the cup means receiving both the body and blood of Christ. The reason why the Church condemned the idea that you have to receive under both species is because it implicitly denied this doctrine.
I don't know precisely why it was denied to the laity to receive both species, but my guess is that it had to do with a practical matter of the cost of wine. I think the laity should be free to receive under both or either species, but I don't believe it is necessary for salvation.
I understand the theology behind it I just think it's very very wrong as did Pope Gelasius. Also from when I did a deep dive into this a while ago cost was never given but almost always it was the fear of spilling the blood which doesn't make sense why to me given that the practice didn't start until 1100's in France and then very widespread by the 1200's. As an Orthodox Christian it just seems very strange to me (as does all the technicalities of the Catholic view of transubstantion) and seems like this problem could be solved doing it how we do it but iirc bans on "instincto panis" (dipping the body into the blood) were also banned shortly after the Great schism. I like your substack just find some of these Catholic innovations weird.
Keep a lookout for any priests hustling through Kansas, perhaps your day can still come