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.
If we're going to take that at exactly face value, why doesn't it apply only to THAT wine and bread there and then?
prhaps you haven't been to a mass yet, but as for the "left over wafers and wine" there is a plan.This has been argued ad nauseum.
Really, what do you think. When the communion service is over, the servers have a bunch of pieces of Jesus' body left on a plate and a bunch of cups of His blood left over.....??? Or, the priest has bag or container of flat wafers of Jesus' flesh left over and a chalice of His blood??? Really?
When they were at the last supper,
Matthew 26:26-28King James Version (KJV)
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
He stated, at this time even, "which is shed for many" but it had not even happened yet.
While Jesus held up the bread and broke it and blessed the wine, it did not become His flesh. He did not indwell it. The wine did not turn into blood....
People, these are emblems, symbols, they represent the body and shed blood of Christ. It is a method of association of what Christ did for us.
Ever make a plan in a game of some sort? You all get down on the ground and someone will say "OK, here's the plan... Freddy, this pebble is you, you stay here till I give the signal.. Bobby, this bottle cap, that's you, you run toward this stick which is that ditch by the Henderson House.... Tom, you're this broken piece of glass, you go to the Johnson garage and cut them off there.....
Ever done that??? Is the pebble really Freddy, Bobby becomes part of the bottle cap and the broken glass is somehow, Tom?
Of course not.
you're probably not taking it far enough.I see what you are saying here, I think I'm getting thrown off a bit not by Christ's word, but by those who in debate with those who see it as a memorial emphasize the literalness of it all. I may be taking it too far in my understanding?
prhaps you haven't been to a mass yet, but as for the "left over wafers and wine" there is a plan.
That plan is that all broken consecrated wafers are consumed; the crumbs from the plate are brushed into the cup of wine which is then consumed.
some of the consecrated water is then poured into the cup and into the plate, is swirled about to clean all inside surfaces of each, and is then drank by the celebrant.
the linnen cloth is then used to clean both the plate and the cup inside and out.
the reserved wafers (whole and unused) are then returned to the reserve on the altar, and the serving elements are returned to the sacrasty to be cleansed and returned to their place of rest.
All remaining consecrated water is consumed--NOT poured down the drain.
the linnens used are removed, folded, and placed in a separate basket to be collected, washed separately, pressed, and returned to the linnen closit.
this above is a very brief explaination of what actually takes place. there is more of course, but this will give you a general idea of how the body and blood of Christ are handled.
thanks for the help.In addition to the ablutions, which pdudgeon describes, it is also common for unused gifts to be set aside in a tabernacle for distribution to the sick, or in Orthodox praxis, for use in the Presanctified Liturgy (there is also in the Roman church a Presanctified Mass on Good Friday).
Thanks for both your posts which explained a lot of what happens to the remaining wafers and wine.you're probably not taking it far enough.
do you remember the occasion when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples?
The usual take on this scripture is that of Jesus washing our sins away from us, but take another look at what He says. John 13:1-8
"But if I don't wash you, you won't belong to me."
Here Jesus was just cleansing the "outside of the Cup" so to speak. but with the Eucharist He shows that just washing the outside of the cup is not enough. The inside must be washed too.
and that is a part of what the Eucharest does; the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus goes to every part of us inside and outside so that we are scrubbed clean by Him, just like the cup at the Eucharist.
and thats why the Eucharist is so much more than just a memorial of His death and resurrection. A memorial doesn't change anything--it only recalls what went before.
The Eucharist on the other hand is cleansing, restorative, and refreshing
from the inside out. And it's Jesus who does it.
We recieve Him into our very being to literally become part of us in a way that no thing or no one else ever will be.
So yes, the Eucharist is very different than just remembering Him from a far off vantage point separated by time and space.
I think part of the difference is in the basic concept of Christianity. Is it just the words of Jesus? How much does the experience of the early Church matter, including Paul? How much does the later experience of the Church matter?I'm going to admit that I don't fully get the argument that goes "He said 'This is my body and blood', so therefore in the Eucharist it's really his body and blood." If we're going to take that at exactly face value, why doesn't it apply only to THAT wine and bread there and then?
Not saying that anything is or isn't so. Just that I can't follow thst thought.
Hopefully we don't ascribe to Communion more than what Scripture does.
I have argued against physical transubstantiation in the past, however this is interesting:Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.
Ever make a plan in a game of some sort? You all get down on the ground and someone will say "OK, here's the plan... Freddy, this pebble is you, you stay here till I give the signal.. Bobby, this bottle cap, that's you, you run toward this stick which is that ditch by the Henderson House.... Tom, you're this broken piece of glass, you go to the Johnson garage and cut them off there.....
Ever done that??? Is the pebble really Freddy, Bobby becomes part of the bottle cap and the broken glass is somehow, Tom?
Of course not.
It has been my understanding that anyone who participates in the Eucharist (aside from children) does so on the basis that the bread and wine become (at some point) the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. Would you mind clarifying that from your own understanding? Does the bread and wine become literal flesh and blood at any point during the ritual?
If so, at what point?
Or, is the point of transfiguration fluid depending on how the ritual is performed or who participates?
For example, will the bread change quicker (or at all) for the Pope
as opposed to some other person in a little church in a slum somewhere?
Does the bread transfigure into the literal DNA of Jesus' body?
Also, if you don't mind me asking for personal testimony, what do you personally get from performing the ritual?
I understand platitudes like "we become one with the lord" etc. I'm asking what you get out of it. Is your reason for performing the ritual now the same as when you started? You have a reason for performing the ritual, which surely must go beyond, "I'm just doing what the church tells me to do".
Yes.
in the Words of Institution ("hoc est corpus meum") whereas in Orthodoxy we say, in the epiclesis
By the way the most doctrinaire Orthodox answer would be that the bread does not change at all for the Roman Pontiff.
In the bread, we partake of the divine nature of our Lord.
Performing what ritual? Really, if you think attending a liturgy is some sort of performance, you might think again.
Partaking of Holy Communion has, on several occasions, delivered me from severe physical infirmity. For instance, on one occasion I was suffering from a horrible stomach flu, was nauseated and unable to eat, and when I received the body of our Lord, these manifold symptoms were entirely removed.
Our God is extremely loving, and if we approach with fear and faith He will deliver us from evil.
Ok thanks for clarifying that you do think the bread and wine change into the literal flesh and blood. I hope you won't mind if I re-ask my previous questions about this change.
At what point does it change? If Jesus said "this is my flesh" and yet it was still bread in his hands, then that rationally proves he meant something other that what he literally said.
What he meant is still up to interpretation (including the possibility that he did mean it will eventually become flesh), but it's a significant distinction. That significance obligates us to consider that he's talking about something much more important than bread, just like he was talking about more than bread when he said to some disciples, "Beware the leaven of the pharisees".
Haha why didn't anyone make a ritual out of that? The leaven of the pharisees!!!!! If you eat this bread it will have the opposite effect and push you further away from God!
Huh. But neither way seems to answer the question of "at what point does the change happen"? "In the words of institution" sound more like an answer to, "where do I find some advice on being a good patriot!" (Or maybe the title of a Metallica album".
lol WHAT! Wheeee....It feels like a roller coaster! The Roman pontiff doesn't get the literal flesh and blood? That's the Pope, right?
Why doesn't he get it?
Is it meant to be a humility thing?
And if so, doesn't that an answer to my other question implying that the Pope gets some kind of special treatment during the ritual?
If his bread is the only bread which doesn't change, then it's still singling him out.
Am I misunderstanding?
Is there any other group or organization which is collectively referred to as "The Roman Pontiff"?
This doesn't seem like a particularly satisfying answer to the question, "Does the bread transfigure into the literal DNA of Jesus' body?" I mean it just seems a little...evasive. A clear "yes" or "no" would be more helpful for me in understanding what the ritual actually means.
I think any act can become a performance, whether it be prayer, praise, study, evangelism, attending church, helping the poor or whatever.
Ultimately it's up to God to judge the motivations for why we performed this or that behavior, but still, I think the matter is one of learning rather than oppressing.
One example is the most obvious; community, from where we get the concept of "communion". Jesus and his followers lived, worked, traveled, and shared together day to day. The book of Acts shows thousands of early Christians living together, the result of a fantastic manifestation of the Holy Spirit inspiring them. They shared all things in common as every person had need and the account says that these people "turned the world upside down". Communion, as a ritual, is pretty boring and I'd fairly suspect that most of the people who do it only do it because it's what's expected of them as part of their religion. Whether the bread is eaten joyously or grudgingly, that kind of thing has no hope whatsoever of turning the world upside down.
But thousands of Christians living, working, and sharing all things together for the benefit of the Kingdom of Heaven? That would be revolutionary. Now which one was Jesus talking about; Bread, or Revolution?
Romans had been practicing this sort of thing for centuries before Christ, in their worship of various gods they believed consuming certain things would benefit them spiritually, especially consuming blood in various rituals, it is not surprising that they continue to translate many of the pagan rituals into Christianity. There are several teachings in the NT that show that consuming certain things for spiritual benefit is vain. Even the Lord Jesus Himself taught that consuming materials has no spiritual value positive or negative:Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.
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?