Eat my Flesh and drink my blood?

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well there's the rub; the reasoning looks self-serving.
X and Y differ in content
One can read X and Y so that they contradict
Our beliefs preclude contradiction between X and Y
Therefore X and Y MUST be metaphorical.

I counter with
X and Y differ in content
One can read X and Y at face value without contradiction
Our beliefs preclude contradiction between X and Y
Therefore X and Y are consistent.

My one question is: how can one read X and Y at face value without contradiction?

The Traditional way that the church fathers taught; "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you" refers to the blood in the cup that the apostles are to drink and "this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins" refers to the same thing. No contradiction and reading at face value according to the normal rules of spoken (and written) language.

EDIT: For example, I give you a cup, it is filled with coffee and I say "here; this is the cup of coffee that you ordered". If I take a very literal approach then those words literally mean "here; this is the cup [made out of] coffee that you ordered".

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[MoreCoffee]

This does not make sense; the blood is never said to be in the cup, but is clearly referring to the blood shed on the cross.



The two are referring to the same thing, but that doesn't imply that there is literally blood in the cup.

I did not say that blood was "literally" in the cup.

The Church teaches that the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, are present in the chalice and in the host; in every particle and every drop fully and completely. This presence is sacramental not literal. The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament.

One is confident that the teaching of the Church is known even if it may be somewhat mysterious to some. In an earlier post a video clip presented an explanation. I refer those reading to that earlier post.

Fr. Barron comments on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - YouTube

Jesus said:

This is my blood
This is the covenant in my blood

We know that we are saved through His blood, and His blood is the core of the new covenant. Therefore, you are correct in saying that the two are referring to the same thing: the new covenant.

But my post spoke of partaking in the sacrifice of the Lord on Calvary and not of partaking of something rather more abstract such as the new covenant.

Not agreed that we are merely reminded of the new covenant in Jesus' blood. Those who partake of holy communion partake of the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. They really partake of it not merely remember it. It works very much like the Israelites on the verge of entering the promised land where it is said, "The LORD, our God, made a covenant with us at Horeb; not with our fathers did he make this covenant, but with us, all of us who are alive here this day." (Deuteronomy 5:2-3) even though the generation that was at Horeb had passed away in the desert while Israel wandered there until they all died because God refused to let them enter his rest. The generation that Moses addressed is still said to have been there at Horeb and God is said to have made his covenant with them not with the generation that was there 40, or so, years previously. The point being that God's speaks of them being there in a way quite unlike a literalist might but his words are still true without being a metaphor; they are a revelation.

The cup is the new covenant in His blood, which we partake in when we internalize Christ and accept Him. Communion mirrors this when we drink the cup, the new covenant in His blood.

The bread and the cup are changed by the Word (our Lord, Jesus Christ). "You will send forth your Spirit, and they will be created. And you will renew the face of the earth." (Psalms 104:30)

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thanks for your comments and posts brother searchingforapostolicity. Let us move on now that we know each other's point of view.

God keep you and bless you.

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[Albion]

The teaching of transubstantiation is based on aristotlean psuedo-philosophy (the concept of "substance").

That is correct. The "miracle of the Mass" was awe-inspiring to Medieval man, who lived in a world of myth and magic, precisely because it inverted the teachings of Aristotle. Aristotle couldn't be bested...except by God, it was reasoned. BTW, Aristotle was regarded by the church as a saint, because of his wisdom, even though he'd died before Christ's nativity.

Not only that, but there is no need for transubstantiation to participate in the sacrifice at Calvary.

Quite right.

The bread and cup are not changed and were not changed at the Lord's Supper.

Again, correct.

Nice going. I appreciate such clear thinking, particularly in contrast to all the bluster and belligerent loyalty to one's denominational POV that we encounter on these forums.

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[MoreCoffee]

The teaching of transubstantiation is based on aristotlean psuedo-philosophy (the concept of "substance").

The concept of substance and the related concept of accident is a component of Aristotelian Philosophy. I do not know why you added the prefix "pseudo". Perhaps you can explain that?

Not only that, but there is no need for transubstantiation to participate in the sacrifice at Calvary.

That is true, one can participate in the benefits of Jesus' passion without ever having taken holy communion.

We participate in His sacrifice when we internalize and accept Him, which is symbolized when we take communion and internalize the bread and wine.

I think that "We participate in His sacrifice when we internalize and accept Him" is true but not to the point. The discussion is about eating the Lord's flesh and drinking his blood; that is to say, it is about the last supper dialogues and the bread of life dialogue in sacred scripture. (see Matthew 26:26 ff; John 6:26-71)

The new covenant is not abstract; all Christians partake in it as we are washed in His blood.

I meant that covenant is an abstraction while sacrificial blood and flesh are concretes; that is to say, one partakes of holy communion in physical ways by eating and drinking.

The bread and cup are not changed and were not changed at the Lord's Supper. Transubstantiation is not required (or even desirable) to be able to say that one is participating in Christ's sacrifice during Communion.

Some assert that "The bread and cup are not changed and were not changed at the Lord's Supper" yet the text of the last supper dialogue suggests otherwise by saying "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:26-28)"

Those who take the words in red as metaphorical do, nevertheless, also recognise that something is different about the bread and the cup's contents even if for them the difference is only a metaphor.

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[FreedByte]

EDIT: - whoops double post -

 

[MoreCoffee]

Changed your mind?
...

Yes, I decided that Albion's post made a reply to your post useful after all.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
Because the idea of "substance" and that it can change without affecting external properties and appearance has been disproven. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
...

One is not persuaded that wikipedia on Chemistry is a serious attempt at answering Aristotelian philosophical distinctions between substances and accidents.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
Taking this to a much further degree makes it more accurate:

one can participate in the benefits of Jesus' passion much more fully when they are not confused over the nature of communion in believing that it is literally changed, but rather experience the transforming power of internalizing Christ and His power to save us from damnation and wash us of our sin through His blood, as is represented by internalizing the bread and wine.
...

Exactly how does belief in the real presence as explained by terms such as transubstantiation inhibit one from receiving Christ internally with his power to save his people from damnation and wash them clean of their sins by his blood?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Exactly how does belief in the real presence as explained by terms such as transubstantiation inhibit one from receiving Christ internally with his power to save his people from damnation and wash them clean of their sins by his blood?

Even though we do not accept the theology of transubstantiation, belief in it does not preclude our Catholic brothers and sisters from receiving the very body and blood of our Lord, nor the efficacy of that grace conveyed in it's reception!

Nor does the unbelief of the recipient prevent them from receiving Christ's body and blood; but unbelief does prevent the efficacy of that grace, and according to Scripture will actually bring the Lord's judgment upon one's self.

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[Knee V]

Because believing that you literally internalize Christ by literally consuming His flesh and blood is a distraction from the way we are actually called to internalize Christ through faith and have his Blood wash us from our sins and save us from damnation

Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive?

One way that the Orthodox Liturgy draws attention to the full reality of both of those is with our iconostasis. We have something called the "royal doors". On either side of the royal doors are two icons: one icon is Christ and His mother, which represents His first coming; on the other side is Christ as Judge, which represents His second coming. Through the doors pass two things: the Gospels and the Eucharist. What that teaches us is that between Christ's two comings (when people see Him face-to-face) we commune with Him through the Gospel and through the Eucharist. So yes, we truly consume His flesh and blood as a way of communing with Him, but we also commune with Him through meditating on the Gospels and a life of prayer. What it true of the Eucharist is true, but that doesn't mean that that excludes anything either.

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -