Do some people take it too far? Eucharist

[bbbbbbb]

Jesus did say he was the door. But that's all. The analogy is obvious, as Prodromos pointed out.

But when he instituted the Lord's Supper, that wasn't the end of it. He went much further, articulating the meaning, connecting it to his coming sacrifice, instructing the Apostles in how to use it, how often, and more.

However, in two of the gospels, as well as in I Corinthians 12 the cup is not called a cup of blood, but the cup of the New Covenant. In I Corinthians 10 the loaf is directly associated with the church as the body of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is evident that both the bread and the wine carry multiple levels of meaning.

 

[prodromos]

However, in two of the gospels, as well as in I Corinthians 12 the cup is not called a cup of blood, but the cup of the New Covenant. In I Corinthians 10 the loaf is directly associated with the church as the body of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is evident that both the bread and the wine carry multiple levels of meaning.

So how exactly does having multiple levels of meaning, negate one of those meanings?

 

[bbbbbbb]

So how exactly does having multiple levels of meaning, negate one of those meanings?

It doesn't necessarily. On the other hand, it does not through wide open the door to meanings that may never have been intended. For example, one could develop a theology that the bread in the eucharist is the literal manna which the children of Israel ate in the wilderness and, in fact, the children of Israel were eating the very flesh of Jesus Christ in the wilderness.

 

[prodromos]

It doesn't necessarily. On the other hand, it does not through wide open the door to meanings that may never have been intended. For example, one could develop a theology that the bread in the eucharist is the literal manna which the children of Israel ate in the wilderness and, in fact, the children of Israel were eating the very flesh of Jesus Christ in the wilderness.

The Church didn't develop a theology, they were handed the theology which has subsequently been defended over the centuries. The Church has never understood the bread and wine of the Eucharist to be anything less than the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is a modern heresy which teaches it is purely symbolic.

 

[Albion]

However, in two of the gospels, as well as in I Corinthians 12 the cup is not called a cup of blood, but the cup of the New Covenant.

That's not unusual. We find other places in which the same event is described differently in one Gospel from the way it is recorded in one or more of the other ones. However, we do not decide to consider one or two of the Gospel accounts as being in error or as being uninspired as a result.

Thus, it is evident that both the bread and the wine carry multiple levels of meaning.

Okay. I don't see how this diminishes the message in any way.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's not unusual. We find other places in which the same event is described differently in one Gospel from the way it is recorded in one or more of the other ones. However, we do not decide to consider one or two of the Gospel accounts as being in error or as being uninspired as a result.

Okay. I don't see how this diminishes the message in any way.

I agree. As I said in my previous post, it can and does carry multiple levels of meaning. When it comes to the particular meaning we are discussing there are multiple ways of understanding. At one extreme there are those who are fully convinced that the bread becomes actual physical flesh and the wine becomes actual physical blood. As we all know, such a belief completely fails when examined at a scientific level. There is no human DNA in consecrated bread or wine. That is a simple scientific fact.

That, then opens the door for a much more nuanced understanding. Our more sophisticated RCC friends, following the lead of our Lutheran friends, have embraced an Artistotelian model, which seems to suit most sacramental Christians quite well. In fact, a lot of Zwinglians such as myself, don't have a particular issue with that model, with the understanding that the bread is bread physically and the wine is wine physically and remains so. What is becomes metaphysically is open to various understandings.

 

[Albion]

At one extreme there are those who are fully convinced that the bread becomes actual physical flesh and the wine becomes actual physical blood. As we all know, such a belief completely fails when examined at a scientific level. There is no human DNA in consecrated bread or wine. That is a simple scientific fact.

FWIW, the doctrine of Transubstantiation takes account of all of that.

That, then opens the door for a much more nuanced understanding. Our more sophisticated RCC friends, following the lead of our Lutheran friends, have embraced an Artistotelian model, which seems to suit most sacramental Christians quite well. In fact, a lot of Zwinglians such as myself, don't have a particular issue with that model, with the understanding that the bread is bread physically and the wine is wine physically and remains so.

That doesn't sound like a description of the Lutheran view of the sacrament, though.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The doctrine of Transubstantiation takes account of all of that, however. (FWIW)


That doesn't sound like a description of the Lutheran view of the sacrament, however.

The Lutheran view is actually quite nuanced, as I am sure we both agree. The Lutherans, in the final analysis, do admit that the bread does not become literal, physical human flesh with human DNA nor does the wine become literal, physical human blood with human DNA.

Traditional transubstantiation does, however, insist vehemently that this is what actually and really occurs at the moment of consecration. However, that view seems to be a dwindling minority in favor of a more Artistotelian view which is closer to the Lutheran understanding. Hence, there have been significant development on the ecumenical reconciliation between Lutheranism and Catholicism.

 

[Albion]

The Lutheran view is actually quite nuanced, as I am sure we both agree. The Lutherans, in the final analysis, do admit that the bread does not become literal, physical human flesh with human DNA nor does the wine become literal, physical human blood with human DNA.

The Lutheran explanation might be nuanced. The belief itself is that the very same, literal, presence of Christ that the Catholic Church speaks of holds true, BUT that the physical elements coexist with that at the same time. And/or the Lutheran position is described by Lutherans as them not having articulated an explanation about any change occurring at the consecration, period.

Traditional transubstantiation does, however, insist vehemently that this is what actually and really occurs at the moment of consecration. However, that view seems to be a dwindling minority in favor of a more Artistotelian view which is closer to the Lutheran understanding. Hence, there have been significant development on the ecumenical reconciliation between Lutheranism and Catholicism.

I haven't noticed the Vatican giving much ground at all in their talks with the Lutheran delegations, even though a big deal was made afterwards about the supposed meeting of minds that had taken place, etc.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Lutheran explanation might be nuanced. The belief itself is that the very same, literal, presence of Christ that the Catholic Church speaks of holds true, BUT that the physical elements coexist with that at the same time. And/or the Lutheran position is described by Lutherans as them not having articulated an explanation about any change occurring at the consecration, period.

I haven't noticed the Vatican giving much ground at all in their talks with the Lutheran delegations, even though a big deal was made afterwards about the supposed meeting of minds that had taken place, etc.

I agree with you entirely that the Vatican is not noticeably shifting in its dialogue, but there is a lot of PR generated.

 

[prodromos]

What is becomes metaphysically is open to various understandings.

In the context of the Eucharist, no. There is only one true understanding which has been upheld since the establishment of the Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In the context of the Eucharist, no. There is only one true understanding which has been upheld since the establishment of the Church.

Of course there is only one truth, but, unfortunately, human insight into truth is clouded, at best.

If you mean that the one true understanding is that the bread becomes actual physical human flesh with human DNA which can be scientifically verified and that the wine becomes actual physical human blood with human DNA which can be scientifically verified you probably have a solid historical case to make, albeit a case which can be quickly destroyed by a quick DNA test.

If you mean some form of Aristotelian argument which seems to be the understanding du jour, then your case falters on historical facts.

 

[prodromos]

Of course there is only one truth, but, unfortunately, human insight into truth is clouded, at best.

If you mean that the one true understanding is that the bread becomes actual physical human flesh with human DNA which can be scientifically verified and that the wine becomes actual physical human blood with human DNA which can be scientifically verified you probably have a solid historical case to make, albeit a case which can be quickly destroyed by a quick DNA test.

If you mean some form of Aristotelian argument which seems to be the understanding du jour, then your case falters on historical facts.

Neither.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Neither.

Fair enough. What, then, according to you is "the one true understanding" of the eucharist?

 

[Albion]

Of course there is only one truth, but, unfortunately, human insight into truth is clouded, at best.

If you mean that the one true understanding is that the bread becomes actual physical human flesh with human DNA which can be scientifically verified and that the wine becomes actual physical human blood with human DNA which can be scientifically verified you probably have a solid historical case to make, albeit a case which can be quickly destroyed by a quick DNA test.

The belief, the doctrine, includes an explanation for that (DNA, testing, etc.) which believers in Transubstantiation accept.

In other words, what you are pointing to would disprove the theory, but only to the people who don't believe in it for other reasons.

If you mean some form of Aristotelian argument which seems to be the understanding du jour, then your case falters on historical facts.

Explain, please.

Then we'll explain how that doesn't affect the teaching called Transubstantiation.

And this doesn't mean that I believe it, just that Catholics have an answer for it all, which is basically that miracles don't have to conform to the rules of science. That's how we recognize a miracle, right?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The belief, the doctrine, includes an explanation for that (DNA, testing, etc.) which believers in Transubstantiation accept.

In other words, what you are pointing to would disprove the theory, but only to the people who don't believe in it for other reasons.


Explain, please.

Then we'll explain how that doesn't affect the teaching called Transubstantiation.

And this doesn't mean that I believe it, just that Catholics have an answer for it all, which is basically that miracles don't have to conform to the rules of science. That's how we recognize a miracle, right?

Yes, I understand that the RCC does, indeed, have a metaphysical explanation for the Eucharist. Of course, this leads to the problem as to whether or not it is true and is fully consonant with the historic understanding. For them, this is quite problematic as they have various relics which were claimed to be actual, physical flesh and actual, physical blood which were miraculously transformed. With those relics, the current metaphysical explanation is at odds.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I understand that the RCC does, indeed, have a metaphysical explanation for the Eucharist. Of course, this leads to the problem as to whether or not it is true and is fully consonant with the historic understanding. For them, this is quite problematic as they have various relics which were claimed to be actual, physical flesh and actual, physical blood which were miraculously transformed. With those relics, the current metaphysical explanation is at odds.

But what you are pointing to there isn't about Transubstantiation or even about the Eucharist, our topic here.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But what you are pointing to there isn't about Transubstantiation or even about the Eucharist, our topic here.

How is it, then, that a relic like this has nothing to do with either Transubstantiation or the Eucharistic?

Between flesh and bread: The autopsy of a Eucharistic miracle (aleteia.org)

 

[Albion]

How is it, then, that a relic like this has nothing to do with either Transubstantiation or the Eucharistic?

Between flesh and bread: The autopsy of a Eucharistic miracle (aleteia.org)

It's not an inherent part of the sacrament or of the Mass itself.

Allegedly, these "Eucharistic miracles," like seeing an elevated host turn into a baby or bleeding hosts, PROVE the reality of Transubstantiation to the faithful, but they're not automatically part of the Mass or the Consecration of the elements.

Perhaps they can be compared to reports of weeping icons, which in theory demonstrate to believers the rightness of saint veneration or life after death or something about the person pictured, etc.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's not an inherent part of the sacrament or of the Mass itself.

Allegedly, these "Eucharistic miracles," like seeing an elevated host turn into a baby or bleeding hosts, PROVE the reality of Transubstantiation to the faithful, but they're not automatically part of the Mass or the Consecration of the elements.

Perhaps they can be compared to reports of weeping icons, which in theory demonstrate to believers the rightness of saint veneration or life after death or something about the person pictured, etc.

I understand your perspective, but I am not convinced that it is the perspective of the RCC itself nor of its members, especially those who have associated it firmly with the eucharist of the mass. Perhaps one of our RCC friends might be able to clarify this further for us.