This is my body.

[Xeno.of.athens]

Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, though I don't believe in the sacrament we are chewing up bits and pieces of Christ's body. That isn't accepted by any Protestant, and I doubt that's what educated Catholics believe, either.

 

[Dan Perez]

Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?

This is what Matt 26:29 says , that I will NOT / OV is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and means that Jesus will NEVER drink it a NEW with YOU in my Fathers Kingdom and that will be in the 1000 N NYEAR REIGN of Christ .

dan p

 

[Philip_B]

Yes. I wrote this a few weeks ago for another situation, and I share it here as it seems apposite. I see no need to revisit the disagreements of the 16th century, for there is more that binds us together than tears us apart.

The Body of Christ​

Introduction​

The Feast of Corpus Christi celebrated in various parts of the Western Church since the 13th century. As a feast, it was set aside to provide for a specific reflection on the Holy Sacrament, the Body of Christ.​

​

Originally the observation was on the Thursday following Trinity Sunday, however, in many places, it has come to be observed on the Sunday after Trinity Sunday. The linking of Corpus Christi to the octave (8 days following) Trinity Sunday may not seem immediately apparent, but read on.​

​

It was not adopted in churches following the Continental Reformation and was not formally set aside in any of the classic Prayer Books of the Church of England, including 1549 and 1662. What is clear however is that in some places the observance continued, and was permitted, as a minor solemnity.​

Does it have meaning for today?​

Well the first way we may speak of the Body of Christ, is not so much in the sacrament as it is in the person of Jesus. Although the 2nd person of the Trinity existed from before the beginning, it is in the incarnation, God born in time and space, that we know Jesus. Born to an unwed mother, in an occupied territory, and away from home, the Body of Jesus often speaks of vulnerability. The child in the manger attracts the attention of both shepherds and wise men, and the ire of the powerful. The Body of Jesus on the Cross again attracts attention, to the horror of what we can do to one another, the brutality of political expediency, and the vulnerability of the innocent.​

​

Nonetheless, that is hardly the full picture of Jesus as presented in the Gospels. Jesus is presented in solidarity with asylum seekers and refugees, as an itinerant preacher who spoke with authority, as a healer, a carer, and as a person who did not seek the crowd, though at times the crowd sought him. Jesus is a storyteller, whose stories often have an impact and a power that became apparent later.​

​

Of course, the first intention of the Feast was to reflect on the Holy Sacrament of the Body of Christ. This builds on several teachings of Jesus, that perhaps became more apparent later. In John 6 we have a discussion based on Jesus’ declaration ‘I am the Bread of Life.’ This is one of the seven ‘I am’ sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. In Matthew, Mark and Luke we have the accounts of the Last Supper, with words we are all familiar with, as they have become part of our regular celebration of the Eucharist.​

​

In the Western Church, we have tended to use the word Sacrament to describe what is going on, The word suggests a sign pointing to something more, a deeper meaning. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians tend to use the word ‘Mystery’ which, whilst very similar suggests something more than a sign, but perhaps something that has no words.​

​

Ultimately Christians everywhere acknowledge Christ's presence here as we break the bread, for this is what he promised us on the night of his betrayal. The encounter of the tangible and the intangible, in the same moment. Of all the reasons we go to Church, perhaps the most profound is that we go to be in the presence of Jesus.​

​

This shared encounter in the broken bread in some ways is the essence of what it is to be Church. In the book of Acts, we are told that they gathered on the first day of the week, for the breaking of the bread.​

​

Of course, Church does not end there, and it should not. The enabling meal at the table strengthens us to go out into the world, carrying the Body of Christ within us into the many situations that form our daily life.​

​

Ludwig Feuerbach, The German philosopher, argued that ‘we are what we eat - man is meat’. Whilst the original construct was addressing the problem of malnutrition, it was also clearly picked up by those who wanted to argue a case for atheism.​

​

The Church of course has an understanding of self as The Body of Christ. We reiterate this at every Eucharist as part of the Greeting of Peace. This of course is based on several New Testament passages including “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” 1 Corinthians 12:27.​

​

This seems sometimes to be a big call, and indeed sometimes at best it may be an aspirational challenge. Surely we are not always as good as this, and we constantly meet people who have been damaged one way or another through their dealing with what they understand to be the Church.​

​

Church in this sense of course is not the building, nor is it the institution or the corporation, but simply the believing folk. So whilst we fail, and fail again, we keep getting up and going again, determined to do better.​

To misuse Feuerbach we might want to say, “We are what we eat We are the Body of Christ.”​

In the Octave of Trinity​

So now that we understand that it makes sense to understand the Body of Christ in these three distinct ways, as the Man of Galilee, as the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and as the Body of Believers, it seems only appropriate that the place in the liturgical Calendar for this is within the octave of Trinity.​

 

[HTacianas]

Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?

Of course I do. So do the entirety of the Church Fathers and the New Testament. The New Testament is consistent throughout in identifying it as The Lord's Body.

 

[bling]

Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?

I believe Jesus is the gate, John 10:7 "Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.", but do not believe Jesus is literal a gate.

 

[prodromos]

I believe Jesus is the gate, John 10:7 "Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.", but do not believe Jesus is literal a gate.

I failed English in High School, yet even I can tell that you are claiming equivalence between two very different types of speech.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I believe Jesus is the gate, John 10:7 "Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.", but do not believe Jesus is literal a gate.

I do believe that Jesus is the gate. Is that not what he said? I see nothing of "literal gate" in the passage, do you?

 

[tonychanyt]

Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body?

I believe it. See This is my body or represents my body?.

 

[bling]

I do believe that Jesus is the gate. Is that not what he said? I see nothing of "literal gate" in the passage, do you?

Jesus says in Matt. 26:29 (NIV)
I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Jesus did not say: I will not drink my blood with you again until in the Kingdom, but fruit of the vine, so to Christ it was still wine and not His blood. I see nothing of it becoming literal blood.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

to Christ it was still wine and not His blood. I see nothing of it becoming literal blood.

I see no "literal" in any of these passages, but I do see it in your explanations and polemics. Jesus, unlike your posts, said "this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins." And not to belabour the point, you will see that use in three of the gospels and in 1 Corinthians. So, please, let's not play around with "literal". Jesus said it it is his blood and that settles the issue.

 

[Philip_B]

At the end of the Passover meal, the old man would say 'Tonight we have come out of Egypt'. This was not so much about remembering as about the historic story being real in the present. The word they used to describe this was anamnesis. If you look at the Institution narratives in Greek, you see that this is the word that Jesus used. I feel we have eroded some of the force and power of this by translating this as 'in remembrance or 'as my memorial'.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

At the end of the Passover meal, the old man would say 'Tonight we have come out of Egypt'. This was not so much about remembering as about the historic story being real in the present. The word they used to describe this was anamnesis. If you look at the Institution narratives in Greek, you see that this is the word that Jesus used. I feel we have eroded some of the force and power of this by translating this as 'in remembrance or 'as my memorial'.

It may have been better to translate as "Do this with me together with you as often as you do it" since the Lord's intention is to teach them that he is present with them every time they take bread & wine and bless it as the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. It is not a commemoration like we'd have at an annual dinner in commemoration of those who died in a war, accident, or other event that we want to remember. It is a re-enactment where heaven comes to Earth in the sanctuary of the altar and we participate in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross by receiving life from his broken body and shed blood; it is the meat and drink of the Lamb's supper in heaven to which the faithful are invited by the Lord, the wedding feast he spoke about.

 

[FireDragon76]

It may have been better to translate as "Do this with me together with you as often as you do it" since the Lord's intention is to teach them that he is present with them every time they take bread & wine and bless it as the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. It is not a commemoration like we'd have at an annual dinner in commemoration of those who died in a war, accident, or other event that we want to remember. It is a re-enactment where heaven comes to Earth in the sanctuary of the altar and we participate in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross by receiving life from his broken body and shed blood; it is the meat and drink of the Lamb's supper in heaven to which the faithful are invited by the Lord, the wedding feast he spoke about.

I think the eastern theologies have a better understanding of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper, as the West focuses so heavily on the Crucifixion as a kind of brutal punishment for sin that it often overpowers the Resurrection. The Lord's Supper is called "logical" and an "unbloody sacrifice" in the eastern liturgies for a reason. This is not something that is about blood magic rituals or anything like that, as old sacrifices were, but about bringing ourselves as living sacrifices joined to Christ.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think the eastern theologies have a better understanding of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper, as the West focuses so heavily on the Crucifixion as a kind of brutal punishment for sin that it often overpowers the Resurrection. The Lord's Supper is called "logical" and an "unbloody sacrifice" in the eastern liturgies for a reason. This is not something that is about blood magic rituals or anything like that, as old sacrifices were, but about bringing ourselves as living sacrifices joined to Christ.

Catholic usage is "unbloody sacrifice" and has been for a long time. I cannot speak for Lutheran usage. The notion that the Lord's supper is the Lamb's supper and the wedding feast of the Lamb/Son of God is also fairly long standing Catholic usage. There is, however, emphasis on the crucifixion because of its role in redemption theology and also in practical devotions. The stations of the cross come to mind, and the rosary mysteries include a set for the sorrowful mysteries. But the resurrection is not neglected, and is it not true of Orthodoxy too, that the crucifixion plays a significant role in their theology of redemption and in their practical devotions? Again I cannot speak for Lutherans.

 

[FireDragon76]

Catholic usage is "unbloody sacrifice" and has been for a long time. I cannot speak for Lutheran usage. The notion that the Lord's supper is the Lamb's supper and the wedding feast of the Lamb/Son of God is also fairly long standing Catholic usage. There is, however, emphasis on the crucifixion because of its role in redemption theology and also in practical devotions. The stations of the cross come to mind, and the rosary mysteries include a set for the sorrowful mysteries. But the resurrection is not neglected, and is it not true of Orthodoxy too, that the crucifixion plays a significant role in their theology of redemption and in their practical devotions? Again I cannot speak for Lutherans.

I used to be an Orthodox catechumen for several years, that's where I can speak from. In my experience, it isn't emphasized to the same extent and there's no systematic theology about it the way there is in Catholicism. Several modern Orthodox theologians have repudiated any notion of penal substitution, similar to some mainline Protestants. There is maybe one prayer that resembles that type of imagery that I remember, but largely Orthodox piety about the Cross is quite different from western piety.

My own sense was that alot of it is similar to Abelard's objection to the notion of penal substitution, Orthodox emphasize the solidarity of Christ with humanity on the cross, not as a punishment per se. For example, the case of Mother Maria Skobtsova: she had been a communist when younger. She endured a great deal of suffering at a young age and gave up believing in God. However, as an adult she became fascinated by the image of Jesus suffering on the cross, started studying theology, and she became a nun after a failed marriage. She became very active as a refugee in Paris (she had been expelled from Russia in the "philosophers ship" in the 1920's), and eventually the Nazis invaded and she was arrested for helping Jews obtain fake baptismal certificates and hiding Jewish families. She would secretly draw an icon of the Cross when she was a prisoner at Ravensbruck, a concentration camp in Germany. Nobody knows how she died (she may have taken the place of a Jewish prisoner), but she is considered a holy martyr in many Orthodox churches.

So Orthodox do derive a sense of spiritual strength in the Cross, but it is difficult to fit within western notions of salvation. As I said, as close as you get in the west is in Abelard, up until contemporary times with some modernist theologians, such as liberation theologians and the like.

 

[prodromos]

In Orthodox icons of the crucifixion, Christ is standing on the cross despite being dead, instead of hanging limply from the cross. This is to signify that death has no power over Him, and indeed He is victorious over death.

 

[FireDragon76]

In Orthodox icons of the crucifixion, Christ is standing on the cross despite being dead, instead of hanging limply from the cross. This is to signify that death has no power over Him, and indeed He is victorious over death.

It sounds like a cliche, but there really is a difference between western and eastern self-consciousness, potentially. The western consciousness is present in prototypical form in somebody like Augustine, in his Confessions, lamenting stealing a pear as a child. It's a very guilt ridden and lugubrious story, lamenting many innocent things, like having a family. Augustine even recognizes himself as incurvatus in se (curved in on himself), but somehow doesn't connect that with his self-consciousness. Consequently, resentiment and narcissim are very much present as the norm in western societies, as noted even by the philosopher Charles Taylor. An over wrought sense of guilt is just one consequence of that.

Of course, now days in our post-Christian world, most young people don't think this way and it's alien to them. But it is part of western Christianity even still, as a default assumption, even though it's foreign to most of humanity.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?

No. It's a symbolic ritual, like all the rituals in Leviticus. We eat and drink in remembrance of the Lord, for he is YHWH Jireh, our Provider. If you have ever spent time and effort in the kitchen to prepare a meal, you'll understand.

 

[FireDragon76]

No. It's a symbolic ritual, like all the rituals in Leviticus. We eat and drink in remembrance of the Lord, for he is YHWH Jireh, our Provider. If you have ever spent time and effort in the kitchen to prepare a meal, you'll understand.

The ritual in Leviticus wasn't symbolic. If you didn't do the Passover exactly as the instruction said, you died, according to the story.