Ethical meaning of the real presence.

[GingerBeer]

Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence". But no matter what view is taken on that matter Christians believe that they are participating in the body & blood of Jesus Christ when they receive communion.

I wonder, what is the ethical significance of receiving the broken body and shed blood of Christ in holy communion. His body was broken by beatings and crucifixion and his blood shed by the same. So in communion Christians receive Christ in his most terrifying form - a murdered body and the blood shed in the murder. What does it say when Christians receive Christ in that way - a man killed unjustly by violence perpetrated by violent men and because of the sins of Christians and everybody else who benefits from Christ's sacrifice? Can Christians continue in violence of any kind given that they receive Christ violently killed every time they receive holy communion.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="GingerBeer, post: 72241310, member: 396516"]Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence". But no matter what view is taken on that matter Christians believe that they are participating in the body & blood of Jesus Christ when they receive communion.

...But not those who agree with Zwingli.

I wonder, what is the ethical significance of receiving the broken body and shed blood of Christ in holy communion.

My guess would be it only means what He said it does.

 

[Albion]

Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence". But no matter what view is taken on that matter Christians believe that they are participating in the body & blood of Jesus Christ when they receive communion.

I like the way you've stated this.

We so often start off discussions of the Real Presence with a defective premise or representation of the doctrine.

I wonder, what is the ethical significance of receiving the broken body and shed blood of Christ in holy communion. His body was broken by beatings and crucifixion and his blood shed by the same. So in communion Christians receive Christ in his most terrifying form - a murdered body and the blood shed in the murder. What does it say when Christians receive Christ in that way - a man killed unjustly by violence perpetrated by violent men and because of the sins of Christians and everybody else who benefits from Christ's sacrifice?

I do not think that we can say that this is how Christians receive Christ's body or that they think of it in that way. It's his body, all right, but even among those who think of that concept in the most carnal way the belief is always described as though flesh is flesh and not that Christ's flesh is received, complete with skin, fingernails, scars, pimples, body temperature, or any of that. The doctrine of Transubstantiation isn't THAT literal!

Besides, it's probably safe to say that the words spoken at the Last Supper when the sacrament was being instituted indicate that it would be his body that was GOING TO BE tortured and crucified that would be received.

Can Christians continue in violence of any kind given that they receive Christ violently killed every time they receive holy communion.

Even if that were correct, I don't see that there is much of a point to be made. They are not the people who tortured, killed, or used violence against Christ's physical body.

 

[Dave-W]

I wonder, what is the ethical significance of receiving the broken body and shed blood of Christ in holy communion. His body was broken by beatings and crucifixion and his blood shed by the same. So in communion Christians receive Christ in his most terrifying form - a murdered body and the blood shed in the murder. What does it say when Christians receive Christ in that way - a man killed unjustly by violence perpetrated by violent men and because of the sins of Christians and everybody else who benefits from Christ's sacrifice?

You cannot separate Our Lord's sacrifice from the sacrificial slaughter of lambs, goats and bulls in the Temple. Hebrews links them indissolubly.

 

[GingerBeer]

...But not those who agree with Zwingli.


My guess would be it only means what He said it does.

No ethical significance in the idea that it is the broken body and shed blood received in communion? It does not matter if one takes that as literal flesh & blood or some spiritual partaking in it or some symbolic partaking in it because no matter which view one holds it remains the broken body and shed blood of Christ that is received.

Jesus gave emphasis to the shedding of his blood in the gospel account of the last supper - see Matthew 26:26-30. Luke 22:14-20 is less explicit. Paul alludes to the broken body in 1 Corinthians 10:14-17; 11:23-26 and there are numerous passages that speak of the death of Christ as expiation/propitiation for the sins of believers as well as passages that speak of the sacrifice of Christ . Not all of them are in the context of the Last Supper memorial meal but the idea is prevalent enough in the new testament to make it seem that the first Christians ate and drank communion with the thought of Christ crucified at the forefront. Do you think that had no ethical significance for them, that it did not influence their teaching about violence and attitude towards violence in their own conduct?

 

[RDKirk]

Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence". But no matter what view is taken on that matter Christians believe that they are participating in the body & blood of Jesus Christ when they receive communion.

I wonder, what is the ethical significance of receiving the broken body and shed blood of Christ in holy communion. His body was broken by beatings and crucifixion and his blood shed by the same. So in communion Christians receive Christ in his most terrifying form - a murdered body and the blood shed in the murder. What does it say when Christians receive Christ in that way - a man killed unjustly by violence perpetrated by violent men and because of the sins of Christians and everybody else who benefits from Christ's sacrifice? Can Christians continue in violence of any kind given that they receive Christ violently killed every time they receive holy communion.

The correct correlation of communion is not with Christ's crucifixion as the method of His death (because, actually, it wasn't the nails that killed Him--He surrendered His own life hours before the cross could have killed Him),

The correct correlations are with the blood shed upon the execution of a testament and with the blood shed under the Law as an atonement for sin.

This is described fully in the letter to the Hebrews.

 

[Albion]

No ethical significance in the idea that it is the broken body and shed blood received in communion? It does not matter if one takes that as literal flesh & blood or some spiritual partaking in it or some symbolic partaking in it because no matter which view one holds it remains the broken body and shed blood of Christ that is received.

We get your meaning, but so what?

Do you think that had no ethical significance for them, that it did not influence their teaching about violence and attitude towards violence in their own conduct?

That's right. It did not. The Eucharist is inherently a memorial of His crucifixion and resurrection, but that doesn't translate into teaching communicants to have some kind of sympathy for violence, if that's what you are getting at.

 

[GingerBeer]

We get your meaning, but so what?

That's right. It did not. The Eucharist is inherently a memorial of His crucifixion and resurrection, but that doesn't translate into teaching communicants to have some kind of sympathy for violence, if that's what you are getting at.

I am getting at the opposite. I am wondering if holy communion played a role in the early Christians eschewing violence. But I am happy to hear what people think and why they think it.

 

[Albion]

Since you are asking for opinions, mine is that it had neither that effect nor the opposite one. The early Christians did eschew violence and service in the Roman armies, but I don't think this played a part in that.

 

[Rick Otto]

No ethical significance in the idea that it is the broken body and shed blood received in communion? It does not matter if one takes that as literal flesh & blood or some spiritual partaking in it or some symbolic partaking in it because no matter which view one holds it remains the broken body and shed blood of Christ that is received.

Jesus gave emphasis to the shedding of his blood in the gospel account of the last supper - see Matthew 26:26-30. Luke 22:14-20 is less explicit. Paul alludes to the broken body in 1 Corinthians 10:14-17; 11:23-26 and there are numerous passages that speak of the death of Christ as expiation/propitiation for the sins of believers as well as passages that speak of the sacrifice of Christ . Not all of them are in the context of the Last Supper memorial meal but the idea is prevalent enough in the new testament to make it seem that the first Christians ate and drank communion with the thought of Christ crucified at the forefront. Do you think that had no ethical significance for them, that it did not influence their teaching about violence and attitude towards violence in their own conduct?

I think the symbolic significance was spun into mystical importance for less than noble reasons.

 

[JIMINZ]

I do not see where Jesus said He is present in the Communion Bread & Wine, or what is called the Transubstantiation.

But I do see where we are participating in the Remembrance of Jesus Sacrifice as He said we should do.


Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co. 11:24,25
24) And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Where does it say He, or anyone else will turn the Bread & Wine, into His Body & Blood, or that they should?

 

[JIMINZ]

The Eucharist is inherently a memorial of His crucifixion and resurrection,

.
In relation to the moment when Jesus spoke about His Body & Blood there is not one connection or mention to His Resurrection.

The only mention of this belief, was made by Paul after Jesus had already been Resurrected and Ascended.

 

[FireDragon76]

As a Lutheran, of course I believe our ethics are shaped by our sacramental faith. Because we have been graciously forgiven by God donating himself to us, even in our very hands, mouths, and bodies, we should go and do likewise in the world. Jesus is our servant Lord whom we ought to imitate, serving people in the whole depth of their being as embodied persons, just as God does.

 

[Albion]

I do not see where Jesus said He is present in the Communion Bread & Wine, or what is called the Transubstantiation.

In relation to the moment when Jesus spoke about His Body & Blood there is not one connection or mention to His Resurrection.

I'm surprised. The Gospel does record him as saying "This is my body"..."this is my blood," followed by "which is given for you" and "which is shed for you." There is not much else it could mean!

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence". But no matter what view is taken on that matter Christians believe that they are participating in the body & blood of Jesus Christ when they receive communion.

I wonder, what is the ethical significance of receiving the broken body and shed blood of Christ in holy communion. His body was broken by beatings and crucifixion and his blood shed by the same. So in communion Christians receive Christ in his most terrifying form - a murdered body and the blood shed in the murder. What does it say when Christians receive Christ in that way - a man killed unjustly by violence perpetrated by violent men and because of the sins of Christians and everybody else who benefits from Christ's sacrifice? Can Christians continue in violence of any kind given that they receive Christ violently killed every time they receive holy communion.

I say let's not misuse a sacrament for social reasons. Jesus said it was a new covenant and Paul said to proclaim Jesus' death. I think you miss the whole reason millions of Christians wear crosses.

Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

 

[JIMINZ]

I'm surprised. The Gospel does record him as saying "This is my body"..."this is my blood," followed by "which is given for you" and "which is shed for you." There is not much else it could mean!

.
No, No, No, I'm the one who is surprised, are you not aware, Jesus was using a Metaphor?

His Body was Represented by the Bread, His Body by the Wine.

Metaphor:
1) Something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
2) The comparison of one thing to another without the use of like or as

Jesus was not saying 2,000 years ago that His Body & Blood would be in the Communion Wafer in the future.....in other words The Transubstantiation, that is a man made Dogma of the Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

.
No, No, No, I'm the one who is surprised, are you not aware, Jesus was using a Metaphor?

The fact is, we do not know that Jesus was using a metaphor.

Jesus was not saying 2,000 years ago that His Body & Blood would be in the Communion Wafer in the future.....in other words The Transubstantiation, that is a man made Dogma of the Catholic Church.

Then you will have to prove your point, but we are talking about the Real Presence, not Transubstantiation, so I hope you will make that adjustment if you continue trying to prove your point.

 

[JIMINZ]

The fact is, we do not know that Jesus was using a metaphor.

Then you will have to prove your point, but we are talking about the Real Presence, not Transubstantiation, so I hope you will make that adjustment if you continue trying to prove your point.

.
You can call it what you want.

You can Spiritualize things all you want, there is no Real Presence, it was Metaphor then, it is Remembrance now.

What we do in Communion is Remembering Jesus Sacrifice, that is what He Said, while using the Metaphor of the Bread & Wine as representative of His Body & Blood.

You can add anything you like to Scripture, or believe Jesus was alluding to any number of things.

Your only voicing your learned Doctrinal beliefs.

 

[FireDragon76]

.
You can call it what you want.

You can Spiritualize things all you want, there is no Real Presence, it was Metaphor then, it is Remembrance now.

What we do in Communion is Remembering Jesus Sacrifice, that is what He Said, while using the Metaphor of the Bread & Wine as representative of His Body & Blood.

You can add anything you like to Scripture, or believe Jesus was alluding to any number of things.

Your only voicing your learned Doctrinal beliefs.

The notion that it is only a memorial rests on philosophical presuppositions that are not part of the Scriptures themselves. In fact it's quite alien to the 1st century worldview to separate signs from the thing signified. That notion would not appear until the the late middle ages, in philosophical debates between nominalism and realism, and the emerging science of the time.

If he intended to say "these are representations of my body and blood", the language in Greek or Aramaic was certainly there to imply that, if that is what he intended.

 

[JIMINZ]

The notion that it is only a memorial rests on philosophical presuppositions that are not part of the Scriptures themselves. In fact it's quite alien to the 1st century worldview to separate signs from the thing signified. That notion would not appear until the the late middle ages, in philosophical debates between nominalism and realism, and the emerging science of the time.

If he intended to say "these are representations of my body and blood", the language in Greek or Aramaic was certainly there to imply that, if that is what he intended.

.
He did.
Jesus spoke in Metaphor, and everyone there knew what He meant.