Eucharist Elements

[RileyG]

I respectfully feel that you're oversimplifying and skewing this. As I said, nobody would suggest something is symbolic if it is *obviously so.* So the only time they would have to bring it up would be when the Church got old and exclusive, denying any other church rights unless it is done under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, where the wine is "really" turned into Jesus' blood.

Uhhh the Catholic Church recognizes all the sacraments of the ancient Churches as valid.

 

[RandyPNW]

Uhhh the Catholic Church recognizes all the sacraments of the ancient Churches as valid.

Never said nor implied otherwise....

What I'm suggesting is that over time the supremacy of the Catholic Church caused it to double down on its monopoly of acceptable Eucharistic practices. And that likely took place over an extended period of time.

But how could anybody claim that the Catholic Church recognizes sacraments in *current* denominations other than in the Catholic Church when it claims to be the exclusive organization unifying Christianity?

 

[RileyG]

Never said nor implied otherwise....

Ok…?

 

[sparow]

I just answered that. The whole issues revolves not around whether the word "transubstantiation" is there, but on whether the *concept* of transubstantiation is there? I don't happen to think it is. Others disagree.

So I believe we simply have to answer the question: Is the concept of *change* from wine to blood in the text? Is it in the text that the wine *becomes* blood?

If not, then it appears that Jesus is simply using object lessons, using the wine for his blood, and the bread for his body so that when the worshiper participates in them he is showing that he lives off of the word of Christ, and not off of the world's fare. We do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from Christ.

I think context is important, the unleavened bread was already a feature of the Passover meal, what did the unleavened bread mean relative to the Passover, every prophesy fulfilled that day was Passover related.

 

[jas3]

There are times when something used for sacred purposes should be treated with respect. Paul used that example, in reverse, in his argument against eating food offered to idols.

The dedicated meat was "sacred" to the pagans, and so eating it sometimes conveyed to those watcing the idea that the eater was participating in their sacred meat. In reality, the eater may consider the element of "meat" to be distinct from its consecration. They were eating *meat,* and not *sacred meat.*

You have misinterpreted 1 Cor. 8; St. Paul says, "we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one." That is, meat that pagans consider sacred isn't really sacred at all. This passage would not apply to anything that is actually sacred before God.

If wine consecrated to the Eucharist is tossed away it appears to some that the wine is being treated in a "banal way," even though the one throwing the excess wine away no longer considers the wine sacred and consecrated to the Eucharist.

Since God exists, it follows that things consecrated to Him are actually consecrated in reality, not just in the mind of the individual. It doesn't matter if someone no longer considers the communion elements sacred.

You are applying too loose an application to your hermeneutic, or casting too wide a net. Sometimes the lack of a word indicates that a concept is not actually present in a text.

Sure, but in this case the person I was responding to made the simplistic argument that if a word isn't in the KJV specifically, a doctrine that uses that word must be false. That argument can be proven wrong by contradiction (at least among Christians) because neither "Trinity" nor the Greek "homoousion" is in the Bible, but both of these are part of the Nicene Creed, the standard Christian profession of faith; even if "consubstantial" or the exact phrase "of one essence" isn't in the KJV, one can't deny that our Lord is of one essence with the Father without endangering his salvation.

In this case, it is at least arguable that "transubstantiation," meaning conceptually that one substance becomes another, is not in the text.

A lot of things can be argued, that doesn't mean there are good arguments for them.

And it isn't. Jesus said the wine represents his blood.

No, He said "this is My blood."

 

[jas3]

I'm not sure that's true. It may be that people just naturally assumed that the Eucharist was symbolic with an active participation in it.

Have you even read Ignatius or Justin Martyr? They're both very explicit that it's not symbolic. Seriously, this is possibly the single best-attested Christian doctrine in history.

And Jesus' use of the bread and wine, and saying it is his body and blood, is also obviously symbolic and requires no explanation. That is, it didn't need explanation until the established Church got old and began to become hardened in its sacraments and rituals, dignyifying it as the only proper Church organization in the world.

When do you think that happened?

 

[RandyPNW]

You have misinterpreted 1 Cor. 8; St. Paul says, "we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one." That is, meat that pagans consider sacred isn't really sacred at all. This passage would not apply to anything that is actually sacred before God.v

No, you just didn't understand my point. There were Christians who saw Christians eating the sacred meat of pagans who were offended that Christians would dignify paganism in eating their meat. Paul said he personally knew the meat itself was not sacred, but felt that those who indulged it with the knowledge it was so dedicated were actually dallying with demons.

1 Cor 8.7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do....
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.
10.18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

For the sake of those offended by those who ate this meat, whether dallying with demons or just eating meat, it behooved the believers not to eat the meat at all, since some in their weakness associated the meat with demonism.

My point was that in the Eucharist some might in their weakness associate throwing away the "holy water" with a "banal act." In reality, we know the water is not "holy" unless the act of using it in a sacrament makes this association. Wine left over does not remain "dedicated," but is only "wine." So perhaps, so as to not offend someone weak and making the connection of leftover wine to something dedicated as sacred, we should treat the wine with kid gloves?

A lot of things can be argued, that doesn't mean there are good arguments for them.

No, He said "this is My blood."

Yes, and I can say "the man is a fruitcake." Does that make him edible? No.

 

[prodromos]

Wine left over does not remain "dedicated," but is only "wine."

In the Orthodox Church there is nothing left over. It is all consumed precisely because it is no longer bread and wine but truly the pure body and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[prodromos]

I can say "the man is a fruitcake." Does that make him edible? No.

That's a bad example seeing as "fruitcake" does not mean something edible in that context.

 

[RandyPNW]

Have you even read Ignatius or Justin Martyr? They're both very explicit that it's not symbolic. Seriously, this is possibly the single best-attested Christian doctrine in history.

As I said, early on there was an automatic assumption that the act inferred participation in a *real* Christ. Drinking the wine represented participation in a real Christ, in what his *real* blood represented.

The emphasis likely was not on using a proper language to explain how the wine constituted the "blood of Christ." Likely we were just made to focus on the need to participate in Christ's "real presence," which was what the act portrayed and intended to lead us into.

It wasn't just wine--it represented something much more sophisticated, which would've been the object of any discussion of the subject. It wasn't ordinary blood, like wine was an ordinary drink. Rather, it was blood with real redemptive powers.

That was the focus. I should think that Transubstantiation was not the early focus. But I can be corrected. Errors can happen at any time--even early in history.

I've read a smattering of the Church Fathers. I'd have to research to find out precisely what they said. I can imagine they did not import a future controversy into the subject, and simply stated things as Jesus stated them.

It can be assumed something is symbolic while we state that the symbolism reflects a very *real* truth.

The wine is clearly symbolic. The bread is clearly symbolic. You would have to lack a gear in your clock if you think otherwise.

It grieves the Lord, I think, that Christians are so silly that in order to prove Christ is real, and that his word is true, they have to prove that an obvious metaphor is serious and real. We do not have to declare a metaphor is not a metaphor simply to prove we *really* participate in Christ when we express this in the Eucharist! Use of a metaphor does not make a religious act a fake.

Sorry, I'm not buying.

When do you think that happened?

When do I think church denominations become egocentric and feel their doctrine alone is the best path? It happens all the time with every one of them. It's something we always have to watch out for.

In history, the Catholic Church, like all future church denominations, was mixed, true believer with purely nominal believer. The nominal believer views sacraments differently from how the true believer views them. But in time, believers can gradually allow the nominal believers to view things in a purely external way. And the sacrament then becomes a means of grace and not a reminder of grace we've already experienced.

I really don't know how long this process took, to turn religious sacraments into a means of grace. Institutionalization of holy requirements is as old as the Pharisees and Saducees. The laws and sacred acts become a false door into God's house. True believers enter in by faith in Christ, and not by faith in the rituals themselves.

I don't care to denounce the Catholic Church since it was the only Church in the West for a long time. I might as well put down my own denomination, because they are mixed, as well, and have errors. We just need to clean things up for ourselves, even if we can't clean up the whole organization. But that's just how I see it, and I have no personal axe to grind.

 

[RandyPNW]

In the Orthodox Church there is nothing left over. It is all consumed precisely because it is no longer bread and wine but truly the pure body and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, I love Christ's Church, East and West. But I do feel sad that a simple metaphor cannot be recognized due to a greater interest in proving that a sacrament has real mystical abilities. It is much more important to recognize that it is a reminder that we've *already benefitted* from the giver of grace, from Christ himself, when we received him into our heart.

Christ gave us a simulated ritual to reenact our belief that we actively partake of his Spirit *every day.* That he used "symbols" is obvious. That we enact our participation in him through the use of those symbols is obvious.

There is nothing in what Jesus said indicating a *transformation* from one substance to another to accomplish this ritual. Again, it was a "reminder."

But we sacrifice that fact in order to state something patently absurd when it is obvious what Jesus really meant? We reenact our initial commitment to Christ through the use of symbolic elements intended to represent our participation in Christ's Real Presence.

This reenactment represents something *we've already done when we accepted Christ," and serves as a *reminder!* Why do you emphasize "Transubstantiation" when the focus is on it being a "Reminder?" It is not a means of grace, but a reenactment of the grace of our participation in Christ, which began when we first received him.

Of course, all churches would admit that there is a kind of "means of grace" by which God uses institutions, sacraments, and methods to bring change into our lives. But when the "means of grace" becomes an institutionalized mechanism by which we can manipulate change through a ritual or something apart from God, then it has ceased to be a real "means of grace." It has become a mechanism for self-justification, participation in rituals to get into heaven via the back door.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Since God exists, it follows that things consecrated to Him are actually consecrated in reality, not just in the mind of the individual.

As an amateur philosopher this is the teaching I have struggled with. I am more an idealist. I can understand that in the mind of the believer the substantial understanding has changed. But that is subjective. The difficulty lies in the objective but invisible change. It is no wonder some find it a hard teaching. I know a guy who thinks it is idolatrous. Making bread God. How unfortunate. It s such a great gift.

 

[RandyPNW]

That's a bad example seeing as "fruitcake" does not mean something edible in that context.

Jesus' flesh and blood are not edible in the context of the Eucharist either.

 

[RandyPNW]

As an amateur philosopher this is the teaching I have struggled with. I am more an idealist. I can understand that in the mind of the believer the substantial understanding has changed. But that is subjective. The difficulty lies in the objective but invisible change. It is no wonder some find it a hard teaching. I know a guy who thinks it is idolatrous. Making bread God. How unfortunate. It s such a great gift.

Well yes--that is the problem. When one makes a common object or substance like "bread" God, then it is embracing a form of Pantheism.

God cannot be associated with His creation in this way, unless in a case like Christ God is revealing Himself via His Word. He is not doing that in the case of the Eucharist. The argument is over "substance," which would render this a Pantheistic notion.

And yes, it would be a kind of "idolatry." We do not partake God when we partake bread and wine. We illustrate that we have already done so and continue to do so, symbolically. It is an act of "remembrance."

 

[jas3]

Paul said he personally knew the meat itself was not sacred, but felt that those who indulged it with the knowledge it was so dedicated were actually dallying with demons.

And therefore you can only apply what he says here to the Eucharist if you likewise don't believe it's actually sacred. I'm not accusing you of that, just pointing out why it's inapplicable.

In reality, we know the water is not "holy" unless the act of using it in a sacrament makes this association.

Yes, we've had a similar discussion about baptism before. The material element of the sacrament is made sacred by nature of being part of the sacrament, not on its own.

Wine left over does not remain "dedicated," but is only "wine."

That doesn't follow unless you think the sacrament only exists as long as you have an intention for it to exist. But then it's entirely subjective rather than real.

I've read a smattering of the Church Fathers. I'd have to research to find out precisely what they said. I can imagine they did not import a future controversy into the subject, and simply stated things as Jesus stated them.

You've made a lot of speculation about what they taught and what the early Church did without being able to substantiate any of it. It would not take long at all to familiarize yourself with at least a few instances of Patristic writings on the subject.

The nominal believer views sacraments differently from how the true believer views them. But in time, believers can gradually allow the nominal believers to view things in a purely external way. And the sacrament then becomes a means of grace and not a reminder of grace we've already experienced.

More speculation. What happened to the true believers' writings? Why is it that the only position we have represented among the early Christian writers is the one you attribute to nominal believers?

Well yes--that is the problem. When one makes a common object or substance like "bread" God, then it is embracing a form of Pantheism.

God cannot be associated with His creation in this way, unless in a case like Christ God is revealing Himself via His Word. He is not doing that in the case of the Eucharist. The argument is over "substance," which would render this a Pantheistic notion.

And yes, it would be a kind of "idolatry."

This is a claim that's much more serious than I think you realize. If this were true, the Bible, the Nicene Creed, and really the faith as a whole came from an institution that had fallen into idolatry. It would falsify the words of our Lord, "...I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." It would falsify the article of the Creed that professes belief in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," since idolatry is completely incompatible with holiness.

I would really encourage you to spend some time learning about this history. I'm happy to discuss further if you'll substantiate any historical claims you make, but I'm not inclined to continue defending the 1st millennium Church from accusations of idolatry based on made-up history or biblical exegesis that starts and ends with "it's obvious."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

God cannot be associated with His creation in this way, unless in a case like Christ God is revealing Himself via His Word. He is not doing that in the case of the Eucharist.

He actually is. But here we disagree.

 

[RandyPNW]

He actually is. But here we disagree.

Yes, I suppose it is your view that the bread *is* Christ? That way, if you even drop a crumb of that bread on the floor, you're dropping "Christ" on the floor, and perhaps unintentially insulting him?

 

[RandyPNW]

And therefore you can only apply what he says here to the Eucharist if you likewise don't believe it's actually sacred.

I don't believe the bread and wine are *in themselves* sacred. I think the ceremony itself is sacred because it is something we do in honor of Christ's recommendation that we do it to reinforce and remember our commitment.

Again, my point was that if someone does associate the pagan offerings with their sacred pagan nature, then watching a Christian eat them would seem to encourage compromise with paganism.

In the same way, treating the Eucharistic elements with the sacredness of their association would seem to make the elements not to be treated recklessly, or risk things like what happened when Christians "partied" at their love feasts. They did not treat solemn religious observances properly.

The point isn't whether the pagan meats were "poisoned" by their association with paganism, or whether the Eucharistic elements are "sanctified" by their association with the Eucharist rite. What matters is that some in their weakness will make this association making a careless treatment of these things by the Christian something to be avoided.

I'm not accusing you of that, just pointing out why it's inapplicable.
Yes, we've had a similar discussion about baptism before. The material element of the sacrament is made sacred by nature of being part of the sacrament, not on its own.
That doesn't follow unless you think the sacrament only exists as long as you have an intention for it to exist. But then it's entirely subjective rather than real.

I want to avoid the use of Sacraments in the kind of way Nominal Christians would use them, as a door into Salvation apart from Christ. This is a Works mentality. In that case, the bread and wine are no more than bread and wine being used ritualistically apart from genuine faith.

These elements do not automatically become Jesus' body and blood when offered by the Christian of faith. So, they are indeed just bread and wine, but do obtain sacramental value when offered in faith. That is, our "remembrance" is recognized by God, and we are doing just one more thing in God's presence, among all the other things we should be doing in His presence.

You've made a lot of speculation about what they taught and what the early Church did without being able to substantiate any of it. It would not take long at all to familiarize yourself with at least a few instances of Patristic writings on the subject.

I've read through the years. If you have the issue, you do the study. I can respond to an issue you believe is real, and that I question. I would have to look for something that may not be there.

But I don't doubt they would use Catholic-like language because they had no concern to fight off the charge of Pantheism, or the charge of reducing God down to something earthly, as in idolatrous images. They could just deal with what Jesus said "as is," just as you are trying to do.

But I don't believe they were reading anything more into it, such as "the bread became flesh," or "the wine became Jesus' blood." If you know of such a reference in the Church Fathers I'd be interested in seeing it. Again, you're the one making the claim--you find these references.

More speculation. What happened to the true believers' writings? Why is it that the only position we have represented among the early Christian writers is the one you attribute to nominal believers?
This is a claim that's much more serious than I think you realize. If this were true, the Bible, the Nicene Creed, and really the faith as a whole came from an institution that had fallen into idolatry. It would falsify the words of our Lord, "...I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." It would falsify the article of the Creed that professes belief in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," since idolatry is completely incompatible with holiness.

Israel is the ultimate and original model, and where did this "chosen nation" end up? The Early Church quickly fell into Arianism--how would you explain that? We have to regularly fight off errors because we are a sinflul people. We must "overcome" our problems through the help of God.

I've read through all of Church history, and I've read a good amount of the Church Fathers. Instead of trying to get me to provide material, you do it? I'm not going to be sent on a wild goose chase, consuming my time when it could better be spent otherwise.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yes, I suppose it is your view that the bread *is* Christ? That way, if you even drop a crumb of that bread on the floor, you're dropping "Christ" on the floor, and perhaps unintentially insulting him?

That is why great care is taken. It is not just bread one can be careless with.

 

[FireDragon76]

Our denominations statement is that the bread and wine are a means of grace by which we commune with the risen Christ. In practice, this tends to be receptionist, which means the communion of Christ is only in the eating and drinking of the bread and wine. This is similar to other historic Reformed churches. So not transubstantiation, but more than just a symbol.

We have a beautiful old Scottish hymn in our older hymnal that we still use, "Here, Oh my Lord, I see Thee face to face / here faith can touch and handle things unseen". The physical part of communion is important. God uses tangible, visible means to give us grace.