Disputed doctrine.

Servus said:

By presence does that mean believing that the wine has turned into the literal physical blood of Christ? That they are drinking the actual human corpuscles of Jesus?

Click to expand...

John 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. RSVCE

Valletta said:

John 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. RSVCE

Click to expand...

Jesus also spoke of sheep and goats, and drinking living waters, and called Peter a rock, and so on symbolic language not ment to be taken literally.

Valletta said:

John 6:48-59
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[c] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[d] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um. RSVCE

Click to expand...

Did you notice that it was the Jews who usually misunderstood Jesus, who took it literally?

34 All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed he said nothing to them without a parable. 35 This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet:[a]

“I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.” Matthew 13:34-35 RSVCE

O taste and see that the Lord is good! Psalm 34:8 RSVCE

Servus said:

Did you notice that it was the Jews who usually misunderstood Jesus, who took it literally?

34 All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed he said nothing to them without a parable. 35 This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet:[a]

“I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.” Matthew 13:34-35 RSVCE

O taste and see that the Lord is good! Psalm 34:8 RSVCE

Click to expand...

Paul got it right:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 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” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27).

Hentenza said:

If you want to see the tone that I usually receive from your camp just look at your fellow Catholics @concretecamper and @jas3

Click to expand...

Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Xeno.of.athens said:

deal with my posts when answering me.

Click to expand...

What does that mean?

concretecamper said:

Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Click to expand...

lol Using Holy Scripture to flame others. That’s rich.

Xeno.of.athens said:

It makes one wonder how Christians can ever hope to find a way to mutual respect and shared communion.

Click to expand...

I know it is not a shared belief, but I believe mutual respect and shared communion could be done without 100% doctrinal agreement.

Servus said:

Jesus also spoke of sheep and goats, and drinking living waters, and called Peter a rock, and so on symbolic language not ment to be taken literally.

Click to expand...

The reactions were quite different. When Jesus said He was a door, the people did not respond "How can this man be made out of wood?"
When questioned about eating His flesh, Jesus became more emphatic.

Valletta said:

Paul got it right:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 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” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27).

Click to expand...

Paul specified what he meant by in an unworthy manner. He was addressing a specific occurance. Which was mainly leaving fellow disadvantaged Christians in want. Similar to the admonishment in James 2:15-17.

20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. 1 Cor 11:20-22 RSVCE

15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. James 2:15-17 RSVCE

Servus said:

Paul specified what he meant by in an unworthy manner. He was addressing a specific occurance. Which was mainly leaving fellow disadvantaged Christians in want. Similar to the admonishment in James 2:15-17.

20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. 1 Cor 11:20-22 RSVCE

15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. James 2:15-17 RSVCE

Click to expand...

"profaning the body and blood of the Lord?"

Valletta said:

The reactions were quite different. When Jesus said He was a door, the people did not respond "How can this man be made out of wood?"
When questioned about eating His flesh, Jesus became more emphatic.

Click to expand...

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” John 3:4

When questioned Jesus became more emphatic.

Servus said:

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” John 3:4

When questioned Jesus became more emphatic.

Click to expand...

Jesus changed from the general word meaning "to eat" to a word meaning to "gnaw" or "chew" so there would be doubt. And He let disciples leave him, walk away from Him, because they believed Him. Nor did He shout after them to come back because he was just using a metaphor.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Christians dispute many things but none more vehemently than the doctrines that divide them. Consider these:

1. Credo baptism
2. Sabbatarianism
3. The number of sacraments
4. The canon of holy scripture
5. The use of doctrinal standards
6. The proper interpretation of the holy scriptures
7. Symbolic sacraments that perform no effective mediation of any graces
8. Rejection of confession and penance
9. Rejection of bishops
10. Predestination both to glory and to perdition
11. Submersion in baptism
12. The real absence
13. Rejection of vestments
14. Rejection of the Crucifix
15. Rejection of prayers to and through the saints
16. Rejection of postmortem cleansing of souls
17. ... many many more.

It makes one wonder how Christians can ever hope to find a way to mutual respect and shared communion.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it has always bothered me the ease to which many (but not necessarily all) fellow Trinitarian Christians get riled up so over interpretive distinctives inherent to their denominational doctrines and are quickly willing to destroy solidarity and poke other Christians in the eye. Something is off with all of that.

Valletta said:

Jesus changed from the general word meaning "to eat" to a word meaning to "gnaw" or "chew" so there would be doubt. And He let disciples leave him, walk away from Him, because they believed Him. Nor did He shout after them to come back because he was just using a metaphor.

Click to expand...

I've also heard "munch".

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. John 6:63

Or; "the flesh is of no avail" RSVCE if you prefer.

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, and it has always bothered me the ease to which many (but not necessarily all) fellow Trinitarian Christians get riled up so over interpretive distinctives inherent to their denominational doctrines and are quickly willing to destroy solidarity and poke other Christians in the eye. Something is off with all of that.

Click to expand...

We should be able to disagree with each other regarding doctrine amicably. I listed to a recorded lengthy debate between a Protestant and Catholic once, and while they had sharp disagreements they were quite cordial with one another and developed a friendship.

Servus said:

We should be able to disagree with each other regarding doctrine amicably. I listed to a recorded lengthy debate between a Protestant and Catholic once, and while they had sharp disagreements they were quite cordial with one another and developed a friendship.

Click to expand...

That's awesome when a more amicable and gracious rapport can be expressed, as it should be.

Servus said:

By presence does that mean believing that the wine has turned into the literal physical blood of Christ? That they are drinking the actual human corpuscles of Jesus?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that even those who believe in transubstantiation would phrase it this way, since I think they affirm that it's the substance (in the Aristotelian sense) that's transformed, and I would guess that individual red blood cells are accidents rather than substance. But I'll let the Catholics in this thread speak for themselves on this. I don't connect well with Aristotle's view of metaphysics, so I'm not the best one to describe it (or, by extension, St Thomas' explanations that build on Aristotle).

I will speak as best as I can from my own tradition. Starting with our liturgy, because that's where everything starts with us.

Liturgy:

From Eucharistic Prayer A:
"Recalling [Christ's] death, resurrection, and ascension, we offer you these gifts. Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we may faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace; and at the last day bring us with all your saints into the joy of your eternal kingdom."

From Eucharistic Prayer D:
"Lord, we pray that in your goodness and mercy your Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts, sanctifying them and showing them to be holy gifts for your holy people, the bread of life and the cup of salvation, the Body and Blood of your Son Jesus Christ."

Note that we do not put leftover wine back in the bottle to be consumed as an ordinary beverage; similarly with leftover bread. Once they have been consecrated, they are either consumed or reverently reserved for later occasions of Communion.

Reflections:

God is spirit, so God's presence in the Sacrament is, at the very least, spiritual. Note, importantly, that what is spiritual is real; it's not just our imagination or memories. God is acting here, and God is present here, in a particular way that goes beyond God's generic omnipresence.

And God is present in the consecrated Elements. The Elements become connected in some way to the body and blood that Jesus inhabited while on earth and that were broken in the crucifixion.

At that point, I think, we reach the end of our understanding. Some of us make various guesses as to the underlying mechanism -- transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, or other explanations. Some of us simply say "God is here, and I don't know how."

The Anglican tradition is one that's comfortable with ambiguity, and with saying that there are limits to our understanding of God and God's activity. Here is one of the places where this shows up. Still, in our liturgical words and actions, we're affirming that God is doing something at the Altar, that something holy is happening here, that it's more than just Christians remembering what Jesus did for us in the past.

PloverWing said:

I don't connect well with Aristotle's view of metaphysics

Click to expand...

I think the Aristotle reasoning has jumped the shark. You really don't need to look beyond the 1st and 2nd century Christians.

Justin Martyr: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus”

So to others who whine about the Catholic Church's closed communion, it's been that for close to 2,000 years.

concretecamper said:

I think the Aristotle reasoning has jumped the shark. You really don't need to look beyond the 1st and 2nd century Christians.

Justin Martyr: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus”

So to others who whine about the Catholic Church's closed communion, it's been that for close to 2,000 years.

Click to expand...

He's saying it is closed to those who don't believe the gospel and who aren't baptized.