Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Okay, you win brother--I'm stupified! There will always be crumbs of "Christ" dropping on the floor unintentially. I think "Christ" can handle it!That is why great care is taken. It is not just bread one can be careless with.
Well, I think that's more than fair. It *is* a special rite--an important sacrament of remembrance. So it is certainly more than just eating bread and drinking wine in honor of Christ. It is a form of participating in him, just as prayer, service, or obedience is a form of participating in Christ's actual presence.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.
Nobody does, when considered apart from the sacrament. Rejecting this idea doesn't mean that memorialism or anti-sacramentalism is the only remaining option.I don't believe the bread and wine are *in themselves* sacred.
You're still not getting the fact that the "sacred pagan nature" doesn't exist because Zeus and Baal don't really exist, notwithstanding that there are demons who pose as them. The only reason a separation of the imagined nature and the meat can be made is because the nature is not real. I hope I don't have to explain why that doesn't apply in the case of Christian sacraments.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.
You're the one making claims about how the true believers initially held the Eucharist to be metaphorical and over time the nominal believers introduced the idea that it's literal and a means of grace. That is an invented history, plain and simple.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.
I wouldn't call a time scale of multiple centuries "quick," but the Arians weren't part of the Church anyway, properly speaking. They may have held ecclesiastical offices and titles, but they excluded themselves from the Body of Christ by their heresy, as many do today.The Early Church quickly fell into Arianism--how would you explain that?
Then it should be trivial for you to cite a single one in defense of the claims you've made.I've read through all of Church history, and I've read a good amount of the Church Fathers.
I'll try not to prolong this, and still respond. The association between food and paganism is in fact a real association, whether or not the particular pagan gods exist. For Paul, we're just talking about food because the dedication does not contaminate the food with something that doesn't exist--you're right about that.Nobody does, when considered apart from the sacrament. Rejecting this idea doesn't mean that memorialism or anti-sacramentalism is the only remaining option.
You're still not getting the fact that the "sacred pagan nature" doesn't exist because Zeus and Baal don't really exist, notwithstanding that there are demons who pose as them. The only reason a separation of the imagined nature and the meat can be made is because the nature is not real. I hope I don't have to explain why that doesn't apply in the case of Christian sacraments.
I know the Church Fathers would speak of a "change" caused by the dedication of elements to represent Christ. But the notion of this change without explanation in terms of actual substance means that the dedication simply rendered the act of eating and drinking *spiritual acts.*You're the one making claims about how the true believers initially held the Eucharist to be metaphorical and over time the nominal believers introduced the idea that it's literal and a means of grace. That is an invented history, plain and simple.
Not according to my reading of Church history. The Arians took over a large part of the Early Church at one point. You might as well call the entire church "false Christians."I wouldn't call a time scale of multiple centuries "quick," but the Arians weren't part of the Church anyway, properly speaking. They may have held ecclesiastical offices and titles, but they excluded themselves from the Body of Christ by their heresy, as many do today.
It isn't relevant. The language of "change" is there, but what did that mean? I can't prove any more than it's just indicating common elements become a sacred thing, and thus, the elements could be eaten as Christ himself. It sounds more like an effort to just do what Jesus said without really understanding it.Then it should be trivial for you to cite a single one in defense of the claims you've made.
Thank you. Your questions are very good and I think all Catholics should consider them. What do we mean by "real presence". We always say that but what does it mean and how does it differ from Christ present among those gathered in his name, the body of Christ as church, or ever present God? Is there such a thing as sacred times, places and objects? If so what makes them sacred?Okay, you win brother--I'm stupified! There will always be crumbs of "Christ" dropping on the floor unintentially. I think "Christ" can handle it!
I'm not mocking you. I love ya, brother. You seem very kind and self-controlled. That matters much more than this discussion.
Which is observably the case across most of Protestant thought. the Eucharist is a sip and a nibble that's taken now and then "in remembrance", no big deal. It's just something you do sometimes at church.The problem has been that many Catholics think that by rendering Jesus' statement "symbolic" we reduce the sacrament from something spiritual to something banal.
Jesus says otherwise, in fact He doubles down on it.Jesus' flesh and blood are not edible in the context of the Eucharist either.
In my view, the weakness of faith lies in refusing to believe that our Lord would work a miracle with bread and wine and that His Church would transmit the correct Apostolic understanding of this sacrament down through the generations.I don't mean this as an insult to you personally, because I have no idea how "weak" your faith is? But it seems more likely that you just want to resist my suggestions because you seem unable to understand them.
Again, you haven't provided a single actual example of this, you're just vaguely gesturing toward the Church Fathers and saying they said it.I know the Church Fathers would speak of a "change" caused by the dedication of elements to represent Christ. But the notion of this change without explanation in terms of actual substance means that the dedication simply rendered the act of eating and drinking *spiritual acts.*
No, because they didn't take over the whole Church. But Arians were not and are not Christians.Not according to my reading of Church history. The Arians took over a large part of the Early Church at one point. You might as well call the entire church "false Christians."
You haven't even substantiated the assertion that the Church Fathers talked about "change." I really don't understand your aversion to taking a few seconds to search for "Ignatius Eucharist" or "Justin Martyr Eucharist" and being able to talk about what was actually said.It isn't relevant. The language of "change" is there, but what did that mean? I can't prove any more than it's just indicating common elements become a sacred thing, and thus, the elements could be eaten as Christ himself. It sounds more like an effort to just do what Jesus said without really understanding it.
Given that our Lord said if you don't eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life in you, I think a proper understanding of His teaching is actually really important.Where then do you think the priority is, on take the Communion or remembering how we should be living? Of course we should be taking Communion. But the ritual is not the main thing, but rather, its value is in remembering Christ's cross in the past, and the rights he won for us to benefit from it. My view only...
I favor combining the reflections of John Chrysostom, St. Augustine and, soon to be Blessed, Archbishop Fulton Sheen. At Eucharist, we experience a moment in eternity: Christ's sacrifice, once and for all, is made present.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?
Yes, as I've been saying Jesus said the Eucharist was a kind of memorial. It was to help us remember our Christian commitment and what it cost Christ to save us from our sins. That realization becomes *very present!*I favor combining the reflections of John Chrysostom, St. Augustine and, soon to be Blessed, Archbishop Fulton Sheen. At Eucharist, we experience a moment in eternity: Christ's sacrifice, once and for all, is made present.
Well, that's the idea, to remind us that we've been transformed--past tense. And so, we have to continually partake of Christ via his Spirit so that we remain like him and continue to be like him. That is the Gospel--to partake of him so as to become like him and to then remain like him forever.In reflecting on the Cana miracle, Chrysostom and Augustine note that in eternity the water is wine as all moments, past and future, in eternity are present. Sheen reflects on how in the natural order, the hierarchy of living things transforms the lower into higher forms in order that the lower might share life more abundantly. In the Eucharist, the bread and wine that the living Christ consumed, and in consuming transformed them into Himself, is made present to us as His body, blood, soul and divinity for us to consume that we might have life everlasting.
Interesting way to look at it. I think most of us believers recognize what a miracle life itself is, together with Nature. What do we see that isn't miraculous? It is just a process made instant in the miracle.John Chrysostom (Homily 22 on John's Gospel) says, "But now to show that it is He who transmutes water in the vine plants, and who converts the rain by its passage through the root into wine, He effected that in a moment at the wedding which in the plant is long in doing."
In De Trinitate, Augustine says that miracles are the acceleration of events that occur in nature over time. Significantly, he begins his explanation by saying that God draws the rainwater through the roots to the branches of the vine and makes wine. Christ's changing of the water into wine at Cana is the same process done with "unusual speed" (De Trin. III, 5).
We are changed from glory to glory over time, as we grow and mature in Christ. This process isn't the Communion, nor do we need to eat "divine bread" to grow in Christ. But the Eucharist does symbolize this, and reinforces, in our participation, that we accept that change is essential to our well-being and spiritual health.And Fulton J. Sheen, (Life of Christ) reflects on the Last Supper:
Everything in nature has to have communion in order to live; and through it what is lower is transformed into what is higher: chemical into plants, plants into animals, animals into man. And man? Should he not be elevated through communion with Him Who “came down” from heaven to make man a partaker of the Divine nature? …
Wait a minute! Jesus is not said to have "changed" the course elements into something substantially human! It doesn't say he "changed" anything at all!When Our Lord, after He changed the bread and wine to His Body and Blood, told His Apostles to eat and drink, He was doing for the soul of man what food and drink do for the body.
Yes, we do need to partake of Christ to grow spiritually.Unless the plants sacrifice themselves to being plucked up from the roots, they cannot nourish or commune with man. The sacrifice of what is lowest must precede communion with what is higher. First His death was mystically represented; then communion followed. The lower is transformed into the higher; chemicals into plants; plants into animals; chemicals, plants, and animals into man; and man into Christ by communion. Animals have life more abundantly than plants; man has life more abundantly than animals. He said that He came to give a life beyond the human. As the oxygen could not live the more abundant life of the plant, unless the plant came down to it, so neither could man share Divine Life unless Our Lord came down to give it.
Well, we don't need to carry our disagreement too far. I don't personally feel that the Eucharist is that essential, although I admit that Jesus encouraged it *as a remembrance.*Jesus says otherwise, in fact He doubles down on it.
A serious problem with your position is that the Jews do have a non literal understanding of what it means to eat someone's flesh, which is to destroy that person.
The word translated as "remembrance" means "to make present". It is not simply a memorial.Well, we don't need to carry our disagreement too far. I don't personally feel that the Eucharist is that essential, although I admit that Jesus encouraged it *as a remembrance.*
So far you have not provided any evidence of any other non-literal understanding.You are using, I hope you know, a non sequitur argument, that the Jews having a non-literal understanding of eating flesh necessarily cancels out any other non-literal understanding of eating flesh? That is, there doesn't have to be just one kind of "non-literal understanding of eating flesh."
This meaning only exists in your imagination.A 2nd kind of non-literal understanding of eating flesh would be the Eucharist. We are not eating Christ's flesh and blood, but only simulating it so as to show that we remember what we are called to be doing always--not just during the Eucharist but always.
Jesus used extremely carnal language which would have been inappropriate for a metaphor. In John 6:54 and John 6:56 He uses the word τρώγων, "to gnaw, to crunch", instead of φάγητε, "to eat"Jesus did not "double down" on any literal interpretation of saying the wine was his blood and the bread was his body, in my opinion. One can use a metaphor more than once without being literal.
When and where do we ever refer to Jesus' body as a temple?We may refer to Jesus' body as being a "temple." We may even say it twice. But it doesn't mean Jesus is a literal physical wood and stone temple.
See above. I don't know anyone who refers to Jesus' body as a templeAnd we don't feel that in entering a physical temple, though it may be dedicated to Christ, that we're somehow entering into Jesus' literal body.
Seeing as neither I nor anyone I know considers Jesus as a temple, your argument is basically just noise to me.There may be other ways of saying Jesus isn't a literal temple. That doesn't mean that in saying Jesus is a temple that it definitely has a literal meaning because some other conventional use of symbolic language is not used.
Not according to the Greek lexicons I have access to. The Greek word is anamnesis, the opposite of the word from which we get the English word "amnesia." My lexicons give:The word translated as "remembrance" means "to make present". It is not simply a memorial.
Okay, this event "made present" to the memory.The word translated as "remembrance" means "to make present". It is not simply a memorial.
It requires less imagination for me to see wine as *symbolic* of Jesus' blood than see the wine as *literally* Jesus' blood. What kind of "imagination" sees the wine as *literally* Jesus' blood?So far you have not provided any evidence of any other non-literal understanding.
This meaning only exists in your imagination.
It is irrelevant to distinguish "gnaw" or "crunch" from "eating." A metaphor is not contingent upon how "carnal" the language sounds.Jesus used extremely carnal language which would have been inappropriate for a metaphor. In John 6:54 and John 6:56 He uses the word τρώγων, "to gnaw, to crunch", instead of φάγητε, "to eat"
John 2.21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.When and where do we ever refer to Jesus' body as a temple?
See above. I don't know anyone who refers to Jesus' body as a temple
Seeing as neither I nor anyone I know considers Jesus as a temple, your argument is basically just noise to me.
In that particular case Scripture plainly states it was a metaphor. There is no such explanation regarding eating Jesus Flesh and drinking His blood even when He was losing disciples over itJohn 2.21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
There is another possibility. Unbelievers often cannot see past the literal meaning of things, and were thrown off by Jesus saying something unliteral that they could not understand. That is, they knew he was not being literal, but couldn't understand the spirituality that lay behind the saying. That is the thing those of faith partake of, in my view.In that particular case Scripture plainly states it was a metaphor. There is no such explanation regarding eating Jesus Flesh and drinking His blood even when He was losing disciples over it
Yes it is your view, but is bereft of any supporting evidence. You claim the Church went off the rails with the doctrine of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist but you can't point to any evidence showing how and when it happened. It's simply a claim you make because that's what you assume must have happened. You interpret the Church Fathers according to what you've already decided.There is another possibility. Unbelievers often cannot see past the literal meaning of things, and were thrown off by Jesus saying something unliteral that they could not understand. That is, they knew he was not being literal, but couldn't understand the spirituality that lay behind the saying. That is the thing those of faith partake of, in my view.
I wouldn't say it is "without evidence" that unbelievers fail to see the unseen faith behind Jesus' statement, "this bread is my body, and this wine is my blood." We know that from all through the Gospel accounts. It wasn't likely that they were angry that Jesus was sanctioning canibalism of *himself!* No, it is that they understood Jesus was saying something that they couldn't understand, which was being kept from them. Remember the parables? They couldn't understand those either. Evidence, my friend.Yes it is your view, but is bereft of any supporting evidence. You claim the Church went off the rails with the doctrine of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist but you can't point to any evidence showing how and when it happened. It's simply a claim you make because that's what you assume must have happened. You interpret the Church Fathers according to what you've already decided.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?