Can anyone explain the different views of the Eucharist?

[Crandaddy]

Hmm...try to find that explicitly taught in the NT! I've been looking for decades. (yeah, I know, you can build an argument for it if you try hard enough)

Well then, here's an article you might find enlightening:

The Continuum: The Biblical Basis of Eucharistic Sacrifice

 

[Cappadocious]

when he prays the Epiclesis, for you Orthodox).

We don't believe it happens at a particular moment, rather, the entire liturgy is the consecrating act. This is also why the Holy Spirit is called down upon the people as well as the gifts in order that both may be changed together; the words recapitulate the liturgy, they do not "ring the bell", so to speak.

 

[ContraMundum]

Well then, here's an article you might find enlightening:

The Continuum: The Biblical Basis of Eucharistic Sacrifice

Yeah read that. Doesn't touch on the point I was making...besides....who reads THAT rubbish blog?

 

[Albion]

We do give ourselves and our praise and thanksgiving as a sort of sacrificial offering, but there's also a sense in which the one perfect and all-sufficient Sacrifice of Christ is made present at the Altar of Consecration when the priest says the Words of Institution (or alternatively, when he prays the Epiclesis, for you Orthodox).

But that doesn't make our celebration of the Lord's Supper a sacrifice.

To the extent that it has a sacrificial quality, it is because of it being the sacrifice of ourselves as a sacrifice of "praise and thanksgiving."

 

[MKJ]

But that doesn't make our celebration of the Lord's Supper a sacrifice.

To the extent that it has a sacrificial quality, it is because of it being the sacrifice of ourselves as a sacrifice of "praise and thanksgiving."

How would we describe it if we were present at the original event I guess becomes the question.

Clearly in neither case are we the being sacrificed in the most literal sense of the term. It would be more accurate to say we are present at the sacrifice.

I suppose you might say the priest at a sacrifice, say a sacrifice of a bull, is sacrificing something. So in the case of Christ, who is it doing the sacrificing - the priest, God, everyone as the priesthood of believers, something else.

I can see good reason for all of these ideas, but I tend to think that we can say that the people present at the Crucifixion that demanded Jesus death were the ones doing the sacrificing, though unknowingly. And it is not wrong for us to identify ourselves with them.

 

[Albion]

I can see good reason for all of these ideas, but I tend to think that we can say that the people present at the Crucifixion that demanded Jesus death were the ones doing the sacrificing, though unknowingly. And it is not wrong for us to identify ourselves with them.

Not a problem so long as we know that it's imagery or "identify with" that we are speaking of.

 

[MKJ]

Not a problem so long as we know that it's imagery or "identify with" that we are speaking of.

Well, is it just imagery, or are we in fact part of that crowd, metaphysically speaking.

 

[Albion]

Well, is it just imagery, or are we in fact part of that crowd, metaphysically speaking.

It's imagery. But imagery can be powerful and meaningful. OTOH, what if we are part of that crowd, metaphysically speaking? It still isn't a sacrifice if that's the case, and that was the point. The Supper can be seen in a dozen mystical and very meaningful ways and yet not be a literal OT-type sacrifice.

 

[rhartsc]

I am still having difficulty with this topic. It seems that Anglicans take issue with the "Sacrifice" of the Mass. But if the really is no sacrifice then:

a) why is there a priest to begin with? the Function of a priest is?
b) why is there an altar? the function of an altar is?
c) why was the purpose of God creating a priesthood in the OT? Was it to foreshadow the Priesthood of Christ and why would Christ tell us to do something in remembrance of Him that is just window dressing?

 

[Albion]

I am still having difficulty with this topic. It seems that Anglicans take issue with the "Sacrifice" of the Mass. But if the really is no sacrifice then:

a) why is there a priest to begin with?

He is the scriptural presbyter. We call him "priest" as a colloquialism.

b) why is there an altar?

Again, slang. The Prayerbook uses a more appropriate term, "Holy Table."

c) why was the purpose of God creating a priesthood in the OT?

That was the Old Testament church. Christ's church is different. You yourself referred to a foreshadowing.

Was it to foreshadow the Priesthood of Christ

Yes, Christ is our high priest.

and why would Christ tell us to do something in remembrance of Him that is just window dressing?

Who said anything about window dressing or mere remembrance? No one who has contributed to this thread. At least not so far as I remember. (Actually, you are confusing two different matters at this point--the Lord's Supper as (possible) sacrifice and the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament.)

 

[MKJ]

It's imagery. But imagery can be powerful and meaningful. OTOH, what if we are part of that crowd, metaphysically speaking? It still isn't a sacrifice if that's the case, and that was the point. The Supper can be seen in a dozen mystical and very meaningful ways and yet not be a literal OT-type sacrifice.

If we want to talk about literalism, and really rejecting it, we cannot even use the language of the Trinity or of Fatherhood and Sonship for God. After all, God is not a Father or a Son, literally.

 

[Albion]

If we want to talk about literalism, and really rejecting it, we cannot even use the language of the Trinity or of Fatherhood and Sonship for God. After all, God is not a Father or a Son, literally.

How do you know?

But of course some things are to be taken literally and others not.

 

[Crandaddy]

Yeah read that. Doesn't touch on the point I was making...

What point were you making, then? Are you looking for an explicit and obvious statement? The doctrine of the Trinity isn't explicitly and obviously stated anywhere in the Bible either, but it is implied, and certainly Holy Tradition most emphatically and dogmatically asserts it.

besides....who reads THAT rubbish blog?

I do. My own bishop is a contributor to that "rubbish" blog.

But that doesn't make our celebration of the Lord's Supper a sacrifice.

To the extent that it has a sacrificial quality, it is because of it being the sacrifice of ourselves as a sacrifice of "praise and thanksgiving."

I endorse what Fr. Kirby writes in the comments of the article I linked:

"The difficulty with the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice is that there is a plurality of sacrificial elements, united in a unique way.

1. There is a lesser sense in which the offering of the Bread and Wine to be consecrated is a physical sacrifice, though in itself non-propitiatory.

2. The prayers, intercessions and worship offered by priest and people, including the Consecration and surrounding Canon themselves, are a spiritual sacrifice, in and of themselves non-propitiatory.

3. The mode of consecration by the priest, with Body and Blood separated, is a symbolic sacrifice insofar as it signifies the One Sacrifice of the Cross, but even this is not the Res of the propitiatory Sacrifice, but the Sacramentum of it.

4. Finally, the inner, effectual Res or Reality "contained" or mystically "present" within the Sacramental/Unbloody Sacrifice is the once-offered Blood-Shedding Sacrifice of Christ, which in itself could only be historically and physically offered by Him, and this offering is complete. This is the only propitiatory component. That is why both Anglican and RC theologians are wont to use the technical term "relative sacrifice" for the propitiatory Eucharistic Sacrifice. This does not mean "relative" in the modern sense of "almost", but in the sense "having this characteristic due to its relationship with something else"

In sum, this means the church's priests don't do anything "to" Christ, and Christ himself undergoes no transitus from unsacrificed to sacrificed state due to anything happening at the Mass. What they do is make his past Offering sacramentally and effectually present, and his present Offered-ness present through His Body and Blood, on the Altar." ​

 

[MKJ]

How do you know?

But of course some things are to be taken literally and others not.

I am not absolutely sure what you are asking.

Specifically, God the Father is not the Father of the Son in the normal sense of the world. Because he does not have a body, there is no mother, and so on.

More generally - all of the words we apply to God are pointers, we cannot name his essence or confine it to human language and human terms. Even the things he says to us about himself are a kind of translation into human terms.

We understand what is meant by these things because the Tradition of the Church tells us. Most obviously you wont see the term Trinity in Scripture at all.

So when we say that there is a sacrifice involved in the Eucharist, it does not have to be a literal OT type sacrifice for it to be true. In the same way when we say that the first person of the Trinity is the Father, we do not think he has to have a body and boy-parts for it to be true.

One might even say that human fatherhood derives its nature from that characteristic of God which is above fatherhood, and the OT sacrifice is a reflection of the more real sacrifice of the Eucharist.

I think in the theology of the Church, the division into literal and non-literal is not often that helpful; it often clouds the issue and is not really part of the way the people who wrote Scripture thought.

 

[Cappadocious]

He is the scriptural presbyter. We call him "priest" as a colloquialism.

Albion is correct. There is no good translation into English for what we call the Old Testament 'priesthood'. The word "priest" in English is a shortened form of "presbyter".

After all, God is not a Father or a Son, literally.

God is a Father to his Son, literally. Human fathers are fathers to their sons, relatively.

-the Lord's Supper as (possible) sacrifice

In Judeo-Christian tradition, how would you define "sacrifice", Albion?

 

[Albion]

In Judeo-Christian tradition, how would you define "sacrifice", Albion?

What I'm saying is that the Lord's Supper is not a New Testament version of a priest slaying some living being as a way of placating God. It does not earn merit with God because something has given its life as an offering to God. Generally speaking, those who think it is that say that the victim is Christ, and that is possible only if he who was crucified for our sins is somehow sacrificed again so that God will give us something in return. But the crucifixion cannot be repeated, therefore the usual way around that is to say that it is a timeless act, meaning that the priest sacrifices Christ if not directly; he just allegedly "re-presents" the one sacrifice to the Father...with the same result. No, we don't get to do that, and we don't need to do that.

We do say, however that we offer ourselves and that we offer our praises and thanksgiving. These do not earn us the putting-away of God's wrath towards us, as the old sacrifices were supposed to do, but we come with a sacrificial spirit, thanking God for his sacrifice, and offering our worship and our lives to him.

 

[Cappadocious]

What I'm saying is that the Lord's Supper is not a New Testament version of a priest slaying some living being as a way of placating God. It does not earn merit with God because something has given its life as an offering to God.

That's not what Old Testament sacrifice was for either.

Generally speaking, those who think it is that say that the victim is Christ, and that is possible only if he who was crucified for our sins is somehow sacrificed again so that God will give us something in return.

Only if the sacrifice is a re-sacrifice.

But the crucifixion cannot be repeated, therefore the usual way around that is to say that it is a timeless act, meaning that the priest sacrifices Christ if not directly; he just allegedly "re-presents" the one sacrifice to the Father...No, we don't get to do that

Why not?

 

[Crandaddy]

What I'm saying is that the Lord's Supper is not a New Testament version of a priest slaying some living being as a way of placating God. It does not earn merit with God because something has given its life as an offering to God. Generally speaking, those who think it is that say that the victim is Christ, and that is possible only if he who was crucified for our sins is somehow sacrificed again so that God will give us something in return. But the crucifixion cannot be repeated, therefore the usual way around that is to say that it is a timeless act, meaning that the priest sacrifices Christ if not directly; he just allegedly "re-presents" the one sacrifice to the Father...with the same result. No, we don't get to do that, and we don't need to do that.

No, the priest doesn't “re-present” Christ's Sacrifice to God. Rather, by his consecratory act in persona Christi by the authority of his priestly office, he makes Christ's historical Sacrifice “present” to us in the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. Or, more properly, Christ Himself makes His one perfect, all-sufficient, and historical Sacrifice “present” to us through the Eucharistic ministry of His priests.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well, the pre-consecrated bread and wine symbolize Christ's Body and Blood, respectively, and they're vehicles of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in that once the priest consecrates them on the Holy Altar they actually become the Body and Blood of Christ for the faithful to partake of.

If I may ask...


I had a friend recently who was asking on the issue and shared the following:

I've been meditating on scripture regarding Communion and have a few new thoughts on it.

Yeshua said that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no eternal life. (John 6:53-58)
Paul told the Corinthians that many of them died because they didn't correctly discern the body of the son of God. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

Of course, the blood gives us eternal life but the flesh is for our physical healing:

Surely our griefs [sickness] He Himself bore, and our sorrows [pains] He carried….But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. (Isaiah 53:4-5 - emphasis added)

According to Exodus 12, the Hebrews ate the Pascal lamb - all of it - and none were feeble.

I never did before, and I'm not Catholic (obviously) but I've come to feel transubstantiation may be correct.

Just my thoughts....

​

And in response, this is the answers she was given by others:

transubstantiation is a teaching that is directly contrary to the teaching of imputation and supports the RCC doctrine of infusion. Communion is a covenantal act where the elements are representations of something that is imputed to the believer. Just as the act of the covenant that Abraham made with YHWH represented the covenant he was making with YHWH. There was no reason that the animal parts that were laid out on the ground turned into anything else, but instead signified the agreement made in the covenant. They were representations for the purpose of the Covenant. There is no need for magically changed Communion elements, either, when the elements are representing the blessing and cursing of the Covenant. Things that are imputed to those who partake of it. The Covenant is imputed to the believer through faith, not by something magically delicious.

​

If anything should be learned through the New Covenant, it's that we are the seed of Abraham, not of the Pope and his fantasized inventions.

Romans 4:5-7
​

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;

2 Corinthians 5:17-21

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.[a] The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

You would rather believe lies and your private interpretations than accept anything from one of the bad ol' Reformed critics that INTERPRETED scripture. Like your not INTERPRETING scripture and are far superior to any critic because you have the Spirit.

do you agree with the teaching of Transubstantiation when it states that the Eucharist not only contains the physical body of Jesus Christ, but His soul, His body, and His divinity as well?

This is, in part, the teaching of Transubstantiation, that the Eucharist is divinity. See the Council of Trent. You believe that? That is part of the definition of Transubstantiation. Or do we have to suffer through one of your private definitions of it?

We have to assume that she is heading to Rome until she rejects Transubstantiation. She seems to think that it is a possibility...

"I never did before, and I'm not Catholic (obviously) but I've come to feel transubstantiation may be correct.

Just my thoughts.... "

Real Presence is a teaching held by many Protestant groups, and has been considered an orthodox position. Lutherans are considered orthodox (within the Protestant movement) and teach this, for one. Luther having written about it and this can be easily found on the Internet. It is not the same as the teaching of Transubstantiation, which Rachel claimed she may believe in the OP. The main difference is that the RCC's doctrine considers the Eucharist an, sort of, extension of Christs body, soul, blood and divinity. It is a divine substance that literally turns into the divine Son. Even going so far as to say that Christ's soul is present in the transformed bread and wine, which is the actual body and blood of Christ to them. To this teaching, I believe all of the early Protestant Reformers objected and posited either the idea of a Sacrament in which there was a presence of Christ or an Ordinance of obedience. To this day, the Protestant church rejects the idea of Transubstantiation. This is perhaps one of the most distinguishing doctrines of the whole of the Protestant movement.

​

​

Do you feel that what my friend said on the issue was responded to properly? Or do you feel that she was off in what she said and perhaps needed to consider what was said in response?


Personally, I felt that what my friend was saying was gravely misunderstood - and IMHO, it felt that she was being attacked due to what she was saying because those opposed to it came from the understandings developed in the Protestant Reformation - a camp I agree with on certain things and yet simultaneously feel got A LOT wrong when it came to much of it divorcing itself from the mystical dynamic that Ancient Christianity was very much supportive of.....and some of the responses I did think were a bit poor in regards to what my sister in Christ said. It smacked of the ideology that just because someone believed in/supported that which was Catholic automatically meant that they were off ...and somehow, the goal was the Reformation/going from there.

But I do think it'd be wisdom for others to consider the Eucharist/the concept of DIVINE Connection from the perspective of how the Early Body of Believers saw it when it came to the concept of God's Prescence being manifest (that which is Eternal/WITHOUT limit being simultaneously experienced by that which is Mortal...a mystery). The issue of Real Prescence is no small issue - and for reference, there was more discussion elsewhere on the issue in a thread entitled "What is the Messianic equivalent to the eucharist? - Christian Forums" ....and for more:

• Ancient Christian Witness: Christology & the Eucharist
• Ancient Christian Witness: The Patristic Eucharistic Doctrine
• Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries: EUCHARIST, BISHOP, CHURCH: THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN THE DIVINE EUCHARIST AND THE BISHOP DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES

The Patristic Eucharistic Doctrine ​

To my knowledge...

Transubstantiation came with the Council of Trent - centuries after the concept of REAL Presence which the early body of believers accepted, since that Trent Council was pertaining to Roman Catholicism ....not all other camps within the Body. Byzantine, Syrian, and Coptic Christian writers from the Early Church (many of which were Jewish) on the Real Presence seemed to note the same (best noted in "Eastern “Blind Spot” or “Cross-Pollination”? | Orthocath" .)The Byzantine, Oriential and Coptic Traditions had a differing view and yet seem routinely ignored by many who stereotype anything in the Church - and the average Evangelical believes that the idea of Real Presence dates from the thirteenth century and was one of those “Roman inventions" like many do with Eucharist. The fact that the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was a universal belief of the Ancient Church is lost on most Evangelicals, often because many of them don’t even know about the Eastern Christian Churches - and many Evangelicals confuse Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, let alone Coptic, Syrian or Armenian Orthodoxy.

And the concept of Real Presence differed from the later concepts of consubstantiation - which is what is held by the Lutherans when they believe a transformation of the elements happen and Christ is physically present....even though it cannot be explained. Real Presence and the issue of transubstantiation get brought up together by others who generally don't know the nuances of the terms - with others saying Christ was not fully present in the act of Communion and saying that to do so would promote cannibalism amongst other things.

Many who argue such tend to be within the Protestant world and react toward that which they see with the actual term "transubstantiation" when it comes to what the Roman Catholic Church described at the Council of Trent. But it seems Ancient Christendom had a view saying Christ in His FULLNESS (Body, Being, Spirit, etc) was somehow there during Communion just as the Lord can be all places at once because of His supernatural ability as God.

It is in the attempt to logically explain how Christ is present that it seems a LOT of misunderstanding can occur - including in making ideologies against others who seem to cross the ideas of others they set up to protect their image of who the Messiah is when in fact they limit Him by keeping out the concept of Mystery. The Early Body of believers (including the Early Fathers) expressed things well when sharing on the issue....as the Fathers looked at the Eucharist in many ways. While primarily the Eucharist was seen in realist means (as a sacrifice and as the literal body and blood of Our Lord) some Fathers also entertained other means of viewing this mystery. Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen and even at times Augustine of Hippo were more allegorical in their approach and some Protestant apologists point to the symbolism used in the writings of these Fathers (and a few others) and claim that these Fathers did not take the realist view.

However this is a serious error in anachronism because what we call a symbol or figure today is not what the ancients held it to be. As the liberal Protestant scholar Adolph Harnack (who was never fond of the Catholic Church) noted in his work History of Dogma, what we nowadays understand by "symbol" is a thing which is not that which it represents. This is markedly different from the way the ancient Church understood the concept - for according to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized....and regardless of the views, the central thing being that other connecting with Christ in a Literal way in the elements whenever Divine Liturgy/Sacraments went down.

History truly does give the best example by which to see things...

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change (transmutation) of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.

– St. Justin Martyr First Apology 66
​

But again, in talking on the issue, I don't know how well it was understood what I was trying to convey ...and if anyone feels I'm off, cool. Please let me know...

 

[Rurik]

No, the priest doesn't “re-present” Christ's Sacrifice to God. Rather, by his consecratory act in persona Christi by the authority of his priestly office, he makes Christ's historical Sacrifice “present” to us in the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. Or, more properly, Christ Himself makes His one perfect, all-sufficient, and historical Sacrifice “present” to us through the Eucharistic ministry of His priests.

Except that the position of the priests as In Persona Christi is not held by the Anglican Communion. The grace to be able to commune comes from God through the gathered community looking to what has been, what is to come and as Christ incarnate in the gathered community. This is why an Anglican Priest has to be in a gathered community to celebrate the Eucharist where a RC Priest does not.

I cannot find my uni notes on this but on Wiki there is a good summary of the position. It references the book that my notes does so I am inclined to believe it.

Anglican sacraments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia