Why Take Only The Body?

I've noticed in some of the forums I frequent, one of the recurring issues between Catholics and Orthodox is whether it is legitimate to take only the bread/body of Christ and not the cup/blood. Catholics, though we do both during our liturgy, don't always do so. Orthodoxy, from what I understand, do both through intinction. I had a protestant friend come to Mass once and concluded that we were more liberal on the issue. No such thing is true. 

There are plenty of places in scripture that discuss only the body in reference to the Eucharist, such as John 6:31-35, 48-51, 57-58, Acts 2:42, and others. The reason is that since you take his body or blood, you receive the fullness of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. This is brought out in more explicit terms in 1 Corinthians 11:27 "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." Paul makes two uses of logical operations "or" and "and". If you take one species then you are guilty of both. Implied in this is that in St. Paul's time, it was common to take only one species, and if St. Paul was aware of this and was opposed, this would be the place to see his protestations. But no such things occurs. So St. Paul is okay with it. And thus, is permitted by Apostolic Tradition.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more