A conversation about unity.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Why would you want to partake of our Eucharist when you reject our doctrines?

Because they want to recreate your Church in their image.

 

[Valletta]

Jesus and the Apostles did not say to fast before taking communion.

As a matter of fact the first communion took place at the last supper, while they were eating.

There's nothing wrong with fasting. But a rule about fasting before taking communion is a man-made rule.

It is a man-made rule, a discipline. There are plenty of man-made rules you and I and all of us follow. One has to go pretty far out of his or her way to criticize how or when another fasts or gives alms or prays.

 

[ozso]

Because they want to recreate your Church in their image.

That question was directed at me, and in my case your conclusion is incorrect. The only change I have ever suggested is simply admitting to what is man-made doctrine and practices. However I am not stating that man-made doctrines, practices, and traditions are wrong just because they are man-made. As for taking the Eucharist, it's not that I'm pining away to take it in a Catholic church. It's just the fact that a baptized disciple of Christ is forbidden to. I don't think it's too huge of a deal. But I'm not sure that it's something Christ would endorse.

 

[Strong in Him]

That would be in all four of the last supper narratives.

He said this is my body
This is my blood of the new covenant

Yes - but not "if you fail to discern the real presence there is no communion."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That question was directed at me, and in my case your conclusion is incorrect. The only change I have ever suggested is simply admitting to what is man-made doctrine and practices. However I am not stating that man-made doctrines, practices, and traditions are wrong just because they are man-made. As for taking the Eucharist, it's not that I'm pining away to take it in a Catholic church. It's just the fact that a baptized disciple of Christ is forbidden to. I don't think it's too huge of a deal. But I'm not sure that it's something Christ would endorse.

If you are not willing to fully embrace their Church's teachings (or mine for that matter), even if you were admitted, why would you participate? Our Lord did condemn hypocrites.

 

[ozso]

It is a man-made rule, a discipline. There are plenty of man-made rules you and I and all of us follow.

Yes indeed, there's nothing wrong with it in and of itself. Rules are important. And discipline is vital.

One has to go pretty far out of his or her way to criticize how or when another fasts or gives alms or prays.

However one does not have to go far to take offence where none is intended. I personally couldn't care less when or how often someone else fasts, or gives alms, or prays. Our Lord Jesus has told us those things are private matters to be kept private. What a church hierarchy orders along those lines however are matters that are up for discussion, debate, questioning and critique.

 

[ozso]

If you are not willing to fully embrace their Church's teachings (or mine for that matter), even if you were admitted, why would you participate? Our Lord did condemn hypocrites.

Because I don't think that's a requirement Christ Himself demands. As disciples of Christ and brethren in Christ, should we not base such decisions exclusively upon what our Lord wants? Do you think this Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist stuff is going to exist between us all within the Kingdom of Heaven?

It's a bit strange to me that such rigidity doesn't exist in the requirements of baptism, but does to the Nth degree in communion.

 

[Strong in Him]

As Scripture says, they failed to discern the body and blood of Christ, therefore, there is no communion.

No it doesn't say that.
No doubt you are thinking of 1 Corinthians 11:29. Read it in context.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:18 he has heard that, when they come together as a church, there are divisions among them. When they come together to eat 1 Corinthians 11:21, some go ahead with their own private suppers, which means that some of the believers go hungry and some get drunk. They are not sharing with one another or in fellowship together. 1 Corinthians 11:22, "do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing?" They are eating and drinking in an unworthy manner; selfishly.
So the context for verse 29 is - you are not united, one body, looking out for each other.

Somehow that has become; "if you are not eating the Lord's body in a discerning manner and believe that it really is his body and not a symbolic piece of bread, you are not in communion."
In communion with who - the Lord? That's nonsense. We are in communion, or fellowship, with him every day when we talk to and spend time with him. No one can snatch us out of the Shepherd's hand nor separate us from his love - therefore, we cannot be out of communion with him.

It is that simple.

No - see above.
No human has the right to tell anyone that they are out of communion, or fellowship, with God. Or that Jesus won't be with them because they are not eating and drinking in the "right way".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you are not willing to fully embrace their Church's teachings (or mine for that matter), even if you were admitted, why would you participate? Our Lord did condemn hypocrites.

Some of us-------like me------are Minimalist Essentialist, for various academic reasons, and I don't see everything in clear Aristotelian terms for each and every single Christian Doctrine, where every doctrine is "Either it's all this, or it ain't" by definition. The Bible isn't comprehensive and neither are our historical records, or our overall tradition(s). They're all piece-meal, fragmentary, and overworked by not always sound deductive inferences. And I readily recognize this fact.

So, personally, I've never been bothered by sitting in another denomination's milieu, and even if I may not agree with the historical permutations in the specifics of their view of Communion/The Eucharist, I don't have a problem with seeing it as another "form" of the substance of the original idea. I just have a wider scope of acceptance and a more generalized set of expectations for Christian unity.

But, I understand that not everyone is going to go in for a more nuanced, philosophically inclined analysis, operating along the line of a continuum by which to then conscientiously participate. In my case, though, it's not a matter of playing the hypocrite.

 

[ozso]

No it doesn't say that.
No doubt you are thinking of 1 Corinthians 11:29. Read it in context.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:18 he has heard that, when they come together as a church, there are divisions among them. When they come together to eat 1 Corinthians 11:21, some go ahead with their own private suppers, which means that some of the believers go hungry and some get drunk. They are not sharing with one another or in fellowship together. 1 Corinthians 11:22, "do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing?" They are eating and drinking in an unworthy manner; selfishly.
So the context for verse 29 is - you are not united, one body, looking out for each other.

Somehow that has become; "if you are not eating the Lord's body in a discerning manner and believe that it really is his body and not a symbolic piece of bread, you are not in communion."
In communion with who - the Lord? That's nonsense. We are in communion, or fellowship, with him every day when we talk to and spend time with him. No one can snatch us out of the Shepherd's hand nor separate us from his love - therefore, we cannot be out of communion with him.

I read 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 earlier and saw the same thing. You addressed it quite well. It's hard to understand how passages that are so clear and easy to understand are misconstrued by hierarchs writing out doctrines.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I read 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 earlier and saw the same thing. You addressed it quite well. It's hard to understand how passages that are so clear and easy to understand are misconstrued by hierarchs writing out doctrines.

For right or wrong, it comes down to historiographical understanding of what form of hermeneutics has been applied within past time-periods and places, particularly among those who even had the means to apply different forms of biblical interpretation to tradition and/or to the extant canonical Scriptures.

Personally, I don't assume I can just easily understand ancient religious writings from a foreign land; I assume that even what sounds "clear" in a modern English translation has been open to many different misunderstandings because the original writers and original settings have disappeared off the world stage (such as with attempting to understand Peter or Paul, for when they were martyred they were no longer accessible on the world stage for further clarification about what they "originally meant" in all cases.)

 

[ozso]

For right or wrong, it comes down to historiographical understanding of what form of hermeneutics has been applied within past time-periods and places, particularly among those who even had the means to apply different forms of biblical interpretation to tradition and/or to the extant canonical Scriptures.

Personally, I don't assume I can just easily understand ancient religious writings from a foreign land; I assume that even what sounds "clear" in a modern English translation has been open to many different misunderstandings because the original writers and original settings have disappeared off the world stage (such as with attempting to understand Peter or Paul, for when they were martyred they were no longer accessible on the world stage for further clarification about what they "originally meant" in all cases.)

It's not a theological issue though. People were being gluttons and drunkards and selfishly neglecting the needy hungry among them. Oh and forming cliques. I didn't need anyone to explain that to me. I didn't need to apply hermeneutics in this instance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not a theological issue though. People were being gluttons and drunkards and selfishly neglecting the needy hungry among them. Oh and forming cliques. I didn't need anyone to explain that to me. I didn't need to apply hermeneutics in this instance.

You didn't apply hermeneutics? Are you sure? I think you did, because "doing hermeneutics [& exegesis]" and "doing philosophy" and "doing theology" require prior interpretive assumptions about the nature of human communication. Some folks do it in a more nuanced way, maybe in line with one of several choices among academic interpretive positions, or folks may do it in a more pedestrian or heuristic way. And this will affect even how we read a passage like 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

The problem here is that in the overall history of interpretive methods, there are those who tend toward a more singular, prima-facie, not intertextual or minimally contextual approach to any selected biblical passage, and there have been those who take a very high contextualist, intertexualist approach to understanding the general messages that seem to be expressed. And there have been those who see biblical passages subject to two, three, or even four interpretive modes.

We all interpret: therefore we're all doing hermeneutics and exegesis. But we're not all assuming the same frameworks of reading and understanding; we're also not all doing the same interpreting or necessarily doing it well.

Catholics by and large tend to synthesize their tradition along with an intertextual approach to the biblical writings; fundamentalist Protestants tend to read the Bible in a more simple, straightforward, prima facie mode.

References

Corley, Bruce, Grant Lovejoy, and Steve W. Lemke, eds. Biblical hermeneutics: A comprehensive introduction to interpreting Scripture. B&H Publishing Group, 2002.

Granados, Jos, Carlos Granados, and Luis Snchez-Navarro, eds. Opening up the Scriptures: Joseph Ratzinger and the foundations of biblical interpretation. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.

McKim, Donald K., ed. Historical handbook of major biblical interpreters. InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Yarchin, William. History of biblical interpretation. A reader. Hendrickson, 2006.

 

[ozso]

You didn't apply hermeneutics? Are you sure? I think you did, because "doing hermeneutics" and "doing philosophy" and "doing theology" require prior interpretive assumptions about the nature of human communication. Some folks do it in a more nuanced way, maybe in line with one of several choices among academic interpretive positions, or folks may do it in a more pedestrian or heuristic way.

The problem here is that in the overall history of interpretive methods, there are those who tend toward a more singular, prima-facie, not intertextual or minimally contextual approach to any selected biblical passage, and there have been those who take a very high contextualist, intertexualist approach to understanding the general messages that seem to be expressed. And there have been those who see biblical passages subject to two, three, or even four interpretive modes.

We all interpret: therefore we're all doing hermeneutics and exegesis. But we're not all assuming the same frameworks of reading and understanding; we're also not all doing the same interpreting or necessarily doing it well.

Catholics by and large tend to synthesize their tradition along with an intertextual approach to the biblical writings; fundamentalist Protestants tend to read the Bible in a more simple, straightforward, prima facie mode.

References

Corley, Bruce, Grant Lovejoy, and Steve W. Lemke, eds. Biblical hermeneutics: A comprehensive introduction to interpreting Scripture. B&H Publishing Group, 2002.

Granados, Jos, Carlos Granados, and Luis Snchez-Navarro, eds. Opening up the Scriptures: Joseph Ratzinger and the foundations of biblical interpretation. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.

McKim, Donald K., ed. Historical handbook of major biblical interpreters. InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Yarchin, William. History of biblical interpretation. A reader. Hendrickson, 2006.

That's way over complicating it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's way over complicating it.

And your statement of inferred simplicity here carries with it assumptions that might not all bear out in demonstration, especially when the form of Christian belief is:

I believe X because I think my Church says the Bible says that the Church said that M and P heard Jesus say X. ​

It is complicated. But not because I say it is. And it's because of this obvious complicated nature of the historical transmission of human communication that we now have all of the various claims to authoritative interpretive jurisdiction represented by each Christian denomination, and we see each one jockeying for position and influence in the World. Unfortunately, this competition brings with it issues of Unity and Disunity.

 

[childeye 2]

And your statement of inferred simplicity here carries with it assumptions that might not all bear out in demonstration, especially when the form of Christian belief is:

I believe X because I think my Church says the Bible says that the Church said that M and P heard Jesus say X. ​

It is complicated. But not because I say it is. And it's because of this obvious complicated nature of the historical transmission of human communication that we now have all of the various claims to authoritative interpretive jurisdiction represented by each Christian denomination, and we see each one jockeying for position and influence in the World. Unfortunately, this competition brings with it issues of Unity and Disunity.

I see Jesus displaying a self-sacrificing love, in that he endured great suffering bearing the sins of this cruel world that mercilessly mocked him beat him and crucified him; And yet he would forgive it on account that they know not what they do. The commemoration of that act of Love is what is being preserved in the Eucharist (thanksgiving). There's only One Holy Spirit testifying to the Father and His Christ. Doesn't everyone led by the testimony of the Holy Spirit see the same thing?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I would rather not see other Christians eating and drinking judgement upon themselves, but there is also the doctrine of "free will"... So, have at it people!

 

[ozso]

And your statement of inferred simplicity here carries with it assumptions that might not all bear out in demonstration, especially when the form of Christian belief is:

I believe X because I think my Church says the Bible says that the Church said that M and P heard Jesus say X. ​

It is complicated. But not because I say it is. And it's because of this obvious complicated nature of the historical transmission of human communication that we now have all of the various claims to authoritative interpretive jurisdiction represented by each Christian denomination, and we see each one jockeying for position and influence in the World. Unfortunately, this competition brings with it issues of Unity and Disunity.

It was broken down in post #529 if that helps.

 

[Strong in Him]

I would rather not see other Christians eating and drinking judgement upon themselves,

Thank you for your concern, but we don't.

 

[Valletta]

No it doesn't say that.
No doubt you are thinking of 1 Corinthians 11:29. Read it in context.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:18 he has heard that, when they come together as a church, there are divisions among them. When they come together to eat 1 Corinthians 11:21, some go ahead with their own private suppers, which means that some of the believers go hungry and some get drunk. They are not sharing with one another or in fellowship together. 1 Corinthians 11:22, "do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing?" They are eating and drinking in an unworthy manner; selfishly.
So the context for verse 29 is - you are not united, one body, looking out for each other.

Somehow that has become; "if you are not eating the Lord's body in a discerning manner and believe that it really is his body and not a symbolic piece of bread, you are not in communion."
In communion with who - the Lord? That's nonsense. We are in communion, or fellowship, with him every day when we talk to and spend time with him. No one can snatch us out of the Shepherd's hand nor separate us from his love - therefore, we cannot be out of communion with him.

No - see above.
No human has the right to tell anyone that they are out of communion, or fellowship, with God. Or that Jesus won't be with them because they are not eating and drinking in the "right way".

Saint John Chrysostom (c 347-Sept 14, 407 A.D) spoke to 1 Cor 11:29 in one of his homilies, Homily 28:

1 Corinthians 11:29​

2. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself.

What do you say, tell me? Is this Table which is the cause of so many blessings and teeming with life, become judgment? Not from its own nature, says he, but from the will of him that approaches. For as His presence, which conveyed to us those great and unutterable blessings, condemned the more them that received it not: so also the Mysteries become provisions of greater punishment to such as partake unworthily.

But why does he eat judgment to himself? Not discerning the Lord's body: i.e., not searching, not bearing in mind, as he ought, the greatness of the things set before him; not estimating the weight of the gift. For if you should come to know accurately Who it is that lies before you, and Who He is that gives Himself, and to whom, you will need no other argument, but this is enough for you to use all vigilance; unless you should be altogether fallen.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 28 on First Corinthians (Chrysostom)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org