Eucharist Elements

[Akita Suggagaki]

If it is "useful," yes, it is certainly "efficacious!" Thank you!

This is Catholic heresy but I like to think of "substance" in the sense of substance of an idea, belief or argument, not material.
That is too idealistic for orthodoxy though.

And yet I am not aware of any philosophy, including Aquinas, who adequately defines what is mean by "substance". The middle age theologians took Aristotelian language and pretty much changed it. So now there is a transcendent substance, not material. What something really is. As if what something really is could be different from the totality of its material.

Well then it seem to me it would have to be ideal.

But then that makes the change subjective rather than objective, something in the mind and belief of the believer rather than ontological.
That is why it it not orthodox.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Let me add that I think we try to get too technical.
The Lord's supper and prayer do something to that bread and wine that make it different.
What and how are not as important as the MEANING they now have for me.
Someone else can be there and receive them and nothing happens to them. There is no mechanical action.
But for me and people like me there is a real, intimate and unique encounter with Christ. I am happy to leave it at that.

 

[concretecamper]

On another forum I addressed a perennial problem with interpreting the Eucharistic elements, as either symbolic or literal transformation from bread and wine to body and blood. I come out on the "symbolic" side of this. We were asked if Transubstantiation is meant to infer a typical "miracle" in the Scriptures? I answered as follows...

Of course it is a miracle, and it is exactly as Jesus said, "This IS my body.

With respect to Transubstantiation, this is called a "miracle," but is actually only an attempt to explain, literally, what Jesus meant by calling the Eucharistic elements his blood and body. If we take these elements of bread and wine as though they are Jesus' body and blood, how can that be explained?

Miracles can't be explained

Well, when we get something like this we are immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech, and not a literal statement. The elements are not literally the elements of body and blood, but they only literally *represent* them as figures of speech.

an idea that has become popular (although the vast minority) among those who claim to be Christians.

So the Eucharist/Communion is meant to celebrate a spiritual event, but not *be* the mechanism by which that event is experienced. It is a *memorial* of that event so that its spiritual nature if "remembered" and therefore contitnuously practiced--not just during Communion but always.

I would suggest you research what "memorial" or "remeberance means in the Jewish sense.

There is one sacrafice, those at The Divine Liturgy are present at the One Sacrafice of Christ.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

AI overview:

Both Scotus and Ockham challenged Aquinas's Aristotelian-based explanation of transubstantiation, offering more nuanced and radical interpretations that emphasized the miraculous nature of the Eucharist and the role of divine power in explaining it.

• Some scholars interpret Ockham's views as a step towards a more symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, emphasizing the presence of Christ rather than a literal substitution of substances.

And yet I believe both gave religious assent (obsequium religiosum) to the transubstantiation doctrine. of the Catholic Church..

 

[Jipsah]

We were asked if Transubstantiation is meant to infer a typical "miracle

"Imply", not "infer". Pet peeve.

 

[sparow]

On another forum I addressed a perennial problem with interpreting the Eucharistic elements, as either symbolic or literal transformation from bread and wine to body and blood. I come out on the "symbolic" side of this. We were asked if Transubstantiation is meant to infer a typical "miracle" in the Scriptures? I answered as follows...

I agree that a miracle is not predictable by human formula, but only by the revealed word of God. For example, Jesus commissioned his 12 disciples to go out an work miracles for 3.5 years. This was somewhat routine, but was not a formula anybody could pick up and do. Nor was it something that even the 12 Disciples could do following Jersus' death. God's Word commissioned them to work miracles during the earthly ministry of Christ to confirm who he was.

To be clear I'm not a dispensationalist with respect to the idea that miracles ceased with the termination of the 1st generation of apostles and prophets. I believe miracles continue today--again, not by formula, but by revelation of God's word. How and when they occur is subject to God and to the specifics of how He commissions certain individuals to work miracles.

With respect to Transubstantiation, this is called a "miracle," but is actually only an attempt to explain, literally, what Jesus meant by calling the Eucharistic elements his blood and body. If we take these elements of bread and wine as though they are Jesus' body and blood, how can that be explained?

Well, when we get something like this we are immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech, and not a literal statement. The elements are not literally the elements of body and blood, but they only literally *represent* them as figures of speech.

The attempt to make this more mystical is really an attempt to preserve the spiritual meaning of the Eucharist so that when it is practiced it is done with a real sense that we participate in Christ. But we do this all the time, and not just during the Eucharist/Communion. We walk every day in Christ, and not just experience this in the ritual of Communion.

So the Eucharist/Communion is meant to celebrate a spiritual event, but not *be* the mechanism by which that event is experienced. It is a *memorial* of that event so that its spiritual nature if "remembered" and therefore contitnuously practiced--not just during Communion but always.

Jesus changed water into wine, that is transubstantiation, Jesus did not change the bread and wine into his flesh and blood, Jesus's comments suggest that Jesus considered himself to be a combination of fruit and nuts or wine and bread.

 

[RandyPNW]

Jesus changed water into wine, that is transubstantiation, Jesus did not change the bread and wine into his flesh and blood, Jesus's comments suggest that Jesus considered himself to be a combination of fruit and nuts or wine and bread.

Well, I think I know what you mean? The miracle of changing water into wine is a change of "substances," and hence you use the term "transubstantiation."

But that term actually refers to the doctrine that wine is turned into blood mystically, and not substantially. The wine does not actually become blood, but *becomes Jesus' blood* for the purpose of participation by the celebrants.

I don't think anybody knows what this really means? If the wine becomes blood it either changes substances and evidences it as blood or there is no "transubstantiation" at all.

Again, the only thing that makes sense to me is that Jesus was using a figure of speech, much as we might say a person is a "nut" or a "fruitcake." These are metaphors and not literal statements, even if it literally true that they're crazy!

The problem has been that many Catholics think that by rendering Jesus' statement "symbolic" we reduce the sacrament from something spiritual to something banal. But I believe that Jesus' "symbolic" use of this sacrament renders it very much a "spiritual act," even if it makes use of representative media, and not Jesus actual flesh and blood!

At any rate, we just take Jesus at his word, that we take the elements to *be* his body and blood for the purpose of showing we actively and spiritually participate in him, and live off of him.

No controversy there. We show that we are members of his body, both by his Spirit and in our own flesh. The sacrament and our participation in it reminds us of that and shows that we take it both literally and seriously.

 

[RileyG]

Jesus changed water into wine, that is transubstantiation, Jesus did not change the bread and wine into his flesh and blood, Jesus's comments suggest that Jesus considered himself to be a combination of fruit and nuts or wine and bread.

Change of substance, not the “accidents.”

 

[jas3]

The problem has been that many Catholics think that by rendering Jesus' statement "symbolic" we reduce the sacrament from something spiritual to something banal.

Respectfully, and speaking from experience having grown up in memorialist churches, that's exactly what happens. You take something that has always been the central mystery of Christian worship and turn it into prepackaged cups of grape juice with a wafer, much of which ends up in the trash.

 

[RandyPNW]

Respectfully, and speaking from experience having grown up in memorialist churches, that's exactly what happens. You take something that has always been the central mystery of Christian worship and turn it into prepackaged cups of grape juice with a wafer, much of which ends up in the trash.

I should think that's what happens to paper or plastic cups when you're done with them. In Jesus' time I imagine clay or metal cups would be too expensive to toss out. But none of that has a thing to do with depreciating the sacrament.

As someone who used to counsel alcoholics I can see using grape juice as an alternative. Either way...

 

[RileyG]

I should think that's what happens to paper or plastic cups when you're done with them. In Jesus' time I imagine clay or metal cups would be too expensive to toss out. But none of that has a thing to do with depreciating the sacrament.

As someone who used to counsel alcoholics I can see using grape juice as an alternative. Either way...

Welch’s grape juice was actually founded by a Methodist minister, which is why many Methodist denominations use grape juice for their communion elements.

Grape juice wasn’t even invented until the 1800s.

At least in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches, real wine must be used for the sacrament.

 

[jas3]

I should think that's what happens to paper or plastic cups when you're done with them. In Jesus' time I imagine clay or metal cups would be too expensive to toss out. But none of that has a thing to do with depreciating the sacrament.

You don't throw things you value into the trash. So what does that say about churches that see nothing wrong with throwing the remnants of their communion elements into the trash?

 

[RileyG]

You don't throw things you value into the trash. So what does that say about churches that see nothing wrong with throwing the remnants of their communion elements into the trash?

Is that actually common?

 

[jas3]

Is that actually common?

Yes, these are the type of cups in question:

Fellowship Cup Prefilled Communion Cups, Box of 500

Fellowship Cups are portable prefilled Communion juice cups and wafers in one convenient set. Each individually wrapped set contains one fresh unleavened bread wafer and 100% Concord grape juice blend with no artificial sweeteners. Opening the cup is an easy two-step process with an outer seal...

www.christianbook.com

Alternatively, the "traditional" option in the Methodist churches I went to was disposable plastic cups that weren't prefilled, but were filled with grape juice in the kitchen before the service and placed in nicer-looking gold plated serving trays to be held by the acolytes:

Christianbook Communion Cups - Plastic 1,000

Our exclusive Christianbook Communion Cups (1,000 cups) - Quality cups at a great value and a customer favorite! Cups Easily SeparateManufactured from only the highest quality ('Top Grade') plastic (not made from recycled plastic)Smooth-Edged, ensuring an even lip on each cup Disposable &...

www.christianbook.com

Either way, these cups aren't rinsed out into a sacrarium before being thrown away, and in the nondenom and Methodist churches where I've seen the prefilled cups used, unused cups full of grape juice and wafers went into the trash with all the rest. I have a hard time imagining other places where these disposable cups are used are treating them differently.

 

[Dan Perez]

Change of substance, not the “accidents.”

AND this is what I believe what the WINE meant , the ATONTMENT . in Gen 3:21

The BTEAD I believe meant the BTEAD of LIFE .

dan o

 

[RileyG]

AND this is what I believe what the WINE meant , the ATONTMENT . in Gen 3:21

The BTEAD I believe meant the BTEAD of LIFE .

dan o

Care to elaborate?

 

[RandyPNW]

You don't throw things you value into the trash. So what does that say about churches that see nothing wrong with throwing the remnants of their communion elements into the trash?

Since there is no change of substance from wine to blood, one is just throwing the remnants of wine away.

 

[RandyPNW]

Change of substance, not the “accidents.”

That is meaningless to me. It's philosophical mumbo jumbo. The idea of a thing is not the thing itself. The idea of a thing is one thing, and the thing itself is another thing. The thing itself is of necessity the substance and the accidents of the thing that define it for what it is.

What a thing is substantially is not separate from it as an idea. The accidents, in whatever form they take in a substance, define the substance. If the accidents aren't changed in any way at all, neither is the substance changed.

 

[jas3]

Since there is no change of substance from wine to blood, one is just throwing the remnants of wine away.

And thus something spiritual has been reduced to something banal.

 

[sparow]

Well, I think I know what you mean? The miracle of changing water into wine is a change of "substances," and hence you use the term "transubstantiation."

But that term actually refers to the doctrine that wine is turned into blood mystically, and not substantially. The wine does not actually become blood, but *becomes Jesus' blood* for the purpose of participation by the celebrants.

I don't think anybody knows what this really means? If the wine becomes blood it either changes substances and evidences it as blood or there is no "transubstantiation" at all.

Again, the only thing that makes sense to me is that Jesus was using a figure of speech, much as we might say a person is a "nut" or a "fruitcake." These are metaphors and not literal statements, even if it literally true that they're crazy!

The problem has been that many Catholics think that by rendering Jesus' statement "symbolic" we reduce the sacrament from something spiritual to something banal. But I believe that Jesus' "symbolic" use of this sacrament renders it very much a "spiritual act," even if it makes use of representative media, and not Jesus actual flesh and blood!

At any rate, we just take Jesus at his word, that we take the elements to *be* his body and blood for the purpose of showing we actively and spiritually participate in him, and live off of him.

No controversy there. We show that we are members of his body, both by his Spirit and in our own flesh. The sacrament and our participation in it reminds us of that and shows that we take it both literally and seriously.

The word used to describe the last supper means THANKS GIVING, and that is not what Jesus requested. Jesus said, while eating the Passover meal, on the third of seven days of wine and unleavened bread, "remember me" (as the Passover Lamb). The unleavened bread being the anti-thesis of pagan conflation or false doctrine.

Transubstantiation as a word is not in the KJV, so I assume it is a doctrine of men and therefore the pros and cons are not relevant.