Eucharistic Miracles

[Philip_B]

Again only the Catholics as far as I know believe in Transubstantiation, that is the substance of the bread and wine actually change into the actual blood and flesh of Christ and are therefore no longer bread and wine in substance but only in accident.

Yet physicality is not the only form of reality.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Yet physicality is not the only form of reality.

Incarnational rather than just physical?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

start at post Saturday at 5:03 PM#2

 

[disciple Clint]

But I'm not sure there's much of a difference at the end of the day. The question addressed here is whether or not Jesus is really present in the host.

define "really present"

 

[disciple Clint]

Yet physicality is not the only form of reality.

Then we need to define what exactly is "really present"

 

[Philip_B]

Then we need to define what exactly is "really present"

I am very comfortable with reality that is not physical. Love is essentially real, and yet it is not physical. Sydney Carter wrote about music being mere physical vibrations in the air, beating on the ear drums, and yet carrying a burdon that is not physical at all. Jesus said, this is my body and then he said do this as my anamnesis, and he said I will be with you to the close of the age.

The Anglican World, The Orthodox World, and to some extent the Lutheran World, all embrace reality here without need to be caught up is a mechanical debate about the physicality of the Blessed Sacrament.

Here, at this table, set in this world and the next, we encounter the logos made flesh of the first 18 verses of the Gospel of John.

Now God is prisoner of neither tabernacle, nor book, no institution, yet he is faithful, and as we recognise him here is this encounter, so we are better prepared to recognise at work in the world.

I hope this helps.

 

[fhansen]

define "really present"

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Matt 26:26

“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” 1 Cor 11:27-29

“Is” just means is. With the Eucharist we’re provided, for one thing, a means by which we can honestly face the question regularly as to whether or not we’re partaking of God worthily, whether or not the relationship is sound, whether communion with Him is valid or a mockery due to how we live. If we’re living by the flesh in some grave and gross manner that opposes love of God and neighbor, partaking would be a joke. He’s really there. That’s of great benefit for us to know.

 

[Fervent]

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Matt 26:26

“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” 1 Cor 11:27-29

“Is” just means is. With the Eucharist we’re provided, for one thing, a means by which we can honestly face the question regularly as to whether or not we’re partaking of God worthily, whether or not the relationship is sound, whether communion with Him is valid or a mockery due to how we live. If we’re living by the flesh in some grave and gross manner that opposes love of God and neighbor, partaking would be a joke. He’s really there. That’s of great benefit for us to know.

I've never understood the "is means is" argument. If I show you a picture of an apple, I'm going to say "this is an apple," the same as if I am holding an apple in my hand so "is" doesn't indicate a distinction between representation or object.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I've never understood the "is means is" argument. If I show you a picture of an apple, I'm going to say "this is an apple," the same as if I am holding an apple in my hand so "is" doesn't indicate a distinction between representation or object.

A picture of an apple doesn't meet the requirements of being an apple.

 

[Fervent]

A picture of an apple doesn't meet the requirements of being an apple.

No, but if I show you a picture of an apple I can reasonably say "this is an apple" since it represents an apple. Since the discussion is about whether Jesus meant to imply actual object vs representation, arguing "is means is" doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the phrasing is appropriate in either case.

 

[Eloy Craft]

No, but if I show you a picture of an apple I can reasonably say "this is an apple" since it represents an apple. Since the discussion is about whether Jesus meant to imply actual object vs representation, arguing "is means is" doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the phrasing is appropriate in either case.

The teaching was a hard teaching. Difficult to accept. One that no one had heard. They had already heard Him teach bread as a representation or a picture of Himself.

 

[fhansen]

I've never understood the "is means is" argument. If I show you a picture of an apple, I'm going to say "this is an apple," the same as if I am holding an apple in my hand so "is" doesn't indicate a distinction between representation or object.

It's just the way the church and ECFs have always viewed it anyway, so why bother speculating otherwise? What's the point in examining myself to see if I'm worthy of partaking of a representation of Christ? To know He's really there is to discern His body-and that's what makes partaking a truly special and reverential occasion.

 

[Fervent]

It's just the way the church and ECFs have always viewed it anyway, so why bother speculating otherwise? What's the point in examining myself to see if I'm worthy of partaking of a representation of Christ? To know He's really there is to discern His body-and that's what makes partaking a truly special and reverential occasion.

That's not actually how it has been viewed historically, in fact there isn't a single position historically until official positions were adopted between the 13th and 16th centuries. Transubstantiation is a decidedly Thomist idea, and the controversy that followed wasn't really addressed prior within the ECFs but a variety of viewpoints are supportable from their writings. In fact, pretty much all of the major modern views of the Eucharist would find support within the various ECFs.

 

[Fervent]

The teaching was a hard teaching. Difficult to accept. One that no one had heard. They had already heard Him teach bread as a representation or a picture of Himself.

You're confusing your verses, there was no bread or wine present in John 6 and there's nothing within the text to recommend any kind of eucharistic view of that statement.

 

[fhansen]

That's not actually how it has been viewed historically, in fact there isn't a single position historically until official positions were adopted between the 13th and 16th centuries. Transubstantiation is a decidedly Thomist idea, and the controversy that followed wasn't really addressed prior within the ECFs but a variety of viewpoints are supportable from their writings. In fact, pretty much all of the major modern views of the Eucharist would find support within the various ECFs.

Your comment/question in post #28 involved the real presence, the topic of the OP IOW, not transubstantiation which is at most a peripheral sub-topic of the matter. The early church and ECFs viewed the host as the real flesh of Christ, not a representation.

 

[Fervent]

Your comment/question in post #28 invovled the real presence, the topic of the OP IOW, not transubstantiation. The early church and ECFs viewed the host as the real flesh of Christ, not a representation.

I didn't ask about real presence, I pointed out the flaw in arguing "is means is" when the verbiage is appropriate in all proposed cases. Attempting to argue "is means is" makes even less sense when we're speaking of "real presence" unless you mean transubstantiation by "real presence" anyhow. Why are you being so elusive in defining your terms?

 

[fhansen]

I didn't ask about real presence, I pointed out the flaw in arguing "is means is" when the verbiage is appropriate in all proposed cases. Attempting to argue "is means is" makes even less sense when we're speaking of "real presence" unless you mean transubstantiation by "real presence" anyhow. Why are you being so elusive in defining your terms?

I'm not. Why are you argung against the commonly held belief of the church? "This is my body". It's never been understood in any other manner until some novel notions began floating around. God is right here, in our midst-and we commune with Him as we partake of Him. The simplest person can understand it. Why water down and demystify the faith? Transubstantiation is just a means of trying to describe the how, not the basic reality of this truth. Consubstantiation is another means of describing or conceivng of it.

 

[Eloy Craft]

You're confusing your verses, there was no bread or wine present in John 6 and there's nothing within the text to recommend any kind of eucharistic view of that statement.

What teaching in John 6 was unacceptable to many of His disciples?

 

[Fervent]

I'm not. Why are you argung against the commonly held belief of the church? "This is my body". It's never been understood in any other manner until some novel notions began floating around. God is right here, in our midst-and we commune with Him as we partake of Him. The simplest person can understand it. Why water down and demystify the faith? Transubstantiation is just a means of trying to describe the how, not the basic reality of this truth. Consubstantiation is another means of describing or conceivng of it.

I'm not really taking any position, I just made an observation about the argument you put forth, and then disputed your claim about there being a unified view among the ECF. Clement and Tertullian both expressly refer to the elements as symbolic, and there are several authors who never use the word symbolic but seem to understand the Eucharist as a representation/symbol. More often than not the writings of the ECF do not have a single unified viewpoint and claims of such unity are historical lensing rather than actual engagement with the writings.

 

[Fervent]

What teaching in John 6 was unacceptable to many of His disciples?

No more free bread and fish.