My E-mail on the Eucharist

[Albion]

So is Jesus really present where two or three are gathered in his Name?.... "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

He is with them but in a non-corporeal sense. He cares, supports, loves them and will not abandon them...but this is a different kind of presence.

 

[thecolorsblend]

So is Jesus really present where two or three are gathered in his Name?.... "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

My guess is there’s some dialectic or another you’re trying to walk me through by dragging this entire thread off topic with your discussion about “two or three gathered in His name”. Or something.

I’m not really not interested in engaging with that. Waste somebody else’s time, please.

 

[childeye 2]

My guess is there’s some dialectic or another you’re trying to walk me through by dragging this entire thread off topic with your discussion about “two or three gathered in His name”. Or something.

I’m not really not interested in engaging with that. Waste somebody else’s time, please.

I would say that understanding Christ's words is never a waste of time wouldn't you?I'm not interested in dragging you anywhere as your distrust of me suggests. Perhaps in the interest of not breaking the great commandment you should favor a Spirit that would consider I might have something significant to contribute on this thread.

 

[Philip_B]

I fully accept the Scriptures and the words of Jesus Himself when He said ……...
"Do this in REMEMBERACE of Me".

Mark 14:22-25
While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’

Matthew 26:26-29
While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’

Luke 22:14-23
When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!’ Then they began to ask one another which one of them it could be who would do this.​

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.​

The Greek word anamnesis is rendered in most translations as remembrance. It is specific to Luke's account of the Institution narrative, and not used in the other synoptic accounts. The greek word was used to describe what happened at the passover meal in Judaism. In that meal there was a recounting of the great saving acts of God in bringing the Hebrews out of Egypt and into the promised land. The great words at the end of the traditional account were 'tonight we have come out of Egypt'. The force is a good deal more than thinking back, and has much more to do with making that salvation history live in the present moment.

It is, in my opinion, way too narrow to assume that Real Presence and Transubstantiation are the same thing, when for many people in the East and in the Anglican world they would see a real difference. Physical is not the only way to be real, and indeed sometimes the physical is but a pale reflection of reality. The physicality of the Cross is defeat and loss, whereas the reality of the Cross is victory and gain.

 

[childeye 2]

He is with them but in a non-corporeal sense. He cares, supports, loves them and will not abandon them...but this is a different kind of presence.

Thanks for the response. Yes the term "presence" being expressed by the Christ indicates that he is truly and actually present where people gather in his Name indicating in remembrance of him. Moreover Paul described the same unity of Christ in the breaking of bread as all partakers being a piece of a greater whole recognized as the body of Christ.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for the response. Yes the term "presence" being expressed by the Christ indicates that he is truly and actually present where people gather in his Name. Moreover Paul described the same unity of Christ in the breaking of bread as all partakers being a piece of a greater whole recognized as the body of Christ.

That's fine as far as it goes. However, with the sacred meal, Christ himself established a meaning that was different from that of his abiding presence in the spiritual sense; and we have the Bible record of that event to judge by.

We have to go by it, which is what has always been done by Christians with the celebration of the Eucharist/Lords Supper/Communion.

 

[childeye 2]

Mark 14:22-25
While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’

Matthew 26:26-29
While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’

Luke 22:14-23
When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!’ Then they began to ask one another which one of them it could be who would do this.​

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.​

The Greek word anamnesis is rendered in most translations as remembrance. It is specific to Luke's account of the Institution narrative, and not used in the other synoptic accounts. The greek word was used to describe what happened at the passover meal in Judaism. In that meal there was a recounting of the great saving acts of God in bringing the Hebrews out of Egypt and into the promised land. The great words at the end of the traditional account were 'tonight we have come out of Egypt'. The force is a good deal more than thinking back, and has much more to do with making that salvation history live in the present moment.

It is, in my opinion, way too narrow to assume that Real Presence and Transubstantiation are the same thing, when for many people in the East and in the Anglican world they would see a real difference. Physical is not the only way to be real, and indeed sometimes the physical is but a pale reflection of reality. The physicality of the Cross is defeat and loss, whereas the reality of the Cross is victory and gain.

I believe there is a difference between the real presence and transubstantiation. I see politics at play over who owns the interpretations and defines the terms.

 

[childeye 2]

That's fine as far as it goes. However, with the sacred meal, Christ himself established a meaning that was different from that of his abiding presence in the spiritual sense; and we have the Bible record of that event to judge by.

We have to go by it, which is what has always been done by Christians with the celebration of the Eucharist/Lords Supper/Communion.

I think the scriptures are clear, the meal commemorates his sacrificial death. We are all one body of many pieces of a greater whole in Christ.

 

[Albion]

I believe there is a difference between the real presence and transubstantiation. I see politics at play over who owns the interpretations and defines the terms.

You appear to be in agreement with Philip_B on that point about there being a difference.

But at the same time, I do not think that there is any reason to say there is much disagreement generally about the meaning of these two terms--not unless we are talking about people whose variety of Christianity simply doesn't utilize them.

 

[Albion]

I think the scriptures are clear, the meal commemorates his sacrificial death.

Just about everyone of almost every Christian church believes that much about the sacrament!

The issue here has concerned the additional belief called the Real Presence.

 

[Major1]

Mark 14:22-25
While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’

Matthew 26:26-29
While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’

Luke 22:14-23
When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!’ Then they began to ask one another which one of them it could be who would do this.​

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.​

The Greek word anamnesis is rendered in most translations as remembrance. It is specific to Luke's account of the Institution narrative, and not used in the other synoptic accounts. The greek word was used to describe what happened at the passover meal in Judaism. In that meal there was a recounting of the great saving acts of God in bringing the Hebrews out of Egypt and into the promised land. The great words at the end of the traditional account were 'tonight we have come out of Egypt'. The force is a good deal more than thinking back, and has much more to do with making that salvation history live in the present moment.

It is, in my opinion, way too narrow to assume that Real Presence and Transubstantiation are the same thing, when for many people in the East and in the Anglican world they would see a real difference. Physical is not the only way to be real, and indeed sometimes the physical is but a pale reflection of reality. The physicality of the Cross is defeat and loss, whereas the reality of the Cross is victory and gain.

Excellent information.

I really do not have an argument either way. I am only posting what I have learned from others.

Christopher Nowak, Seminarian at Roman Catholic Church said...……...
"Both ‘transubstantiation’ and ‘the Real Presence’ refer to the same mystery: the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Real Presence is a theological term to refer to the reality that occurs in the Mass. Transubstantiation is a philosophical term that expresses an understanding of how that reality occurs, via the change in substance without a corresponding change in accidents."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-transubstantiation-and-Real-Presence

That is what I have stated as well on a couple of occasions.

 

[Major1]

So is Jesus really present where two or three are gathered in his Name?.... "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

CONTEXT!

The “two or three” he’s talking about are not the faithful few who showed up at this week’s prayer meeting. They are the authorized leadership of the church, who have witnessed a sinner cause offense to another member of the community and fail to turn from it. Just as their decision to bind or loose (to either retain or remove membership in the community) will be recognized in heaven, so Jesus’ authoritative presence is with them to enact said decision.

 

[Major1]

The essence of Christ is actually made present in the elements that are consumed at Holy Communion, as opposed to the bread and wine being only symbolic of Christs body and blood or something else.

You used the word...."Essence". I have always used the word or thought of “spiritual presence” concerning the Lord’s Supper.

By that I mean that Jesus is spiritually (but not physically) present at the Communion service.

The view can perhaps best be seen in distinction from other views regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

Martin Luther held to a position called consubstantiation; that is, the body and blood are physically present with the elements. The elements do not change, and the body and blood cannot be recognized by taste, but in some real, physical way the body and blood of Christ are present.

Most Protestants today hold to the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The elements do not change or become the body and blood of the Lord in any way. The elements are symbols of His body and blood. While Jesus did say, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” it was in the context of a Passover meal in which every element had a symbolic meaning. It would have been entirely out of context for the disciples to suddenly interpret these two items literally—especially since Jesus had not yet been crucified.
What is the spiritual presence view of the Lord’s Supper?

 

[Major1]

I study semantics. The terms are only as valid as the sentiments they exist to represent. Where two or more are gathered in my Name there am I also. This could be said to infer a real presence. Who invented the phrase real presence? Has it been altered from it's original intention to mean something else?

In regards to John 6:26-70.
I believe Jesus knew who believed and who did not. He knew that the carnal mind discerns differently than the spiritual mind. I believe that he wanted to get rid of a crowd that only followed him to fill their own stomachs.

So some will say that those who were offended at the thought of eating flesh and blood followed Jesus no longer. Others will say that those who mistakenly believed Jesus was talking about literally eating his flesh and blood followed Jesus no longer. The apostles said it was a hard teaching for them to hear. In response Jesus said, It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus is saying that the power that quickens unto life are in his words, which means to me that the revelation of his Person as the son of God is really what matters. When partaking of bread and wine, I am cognizant that He came and suffered torture and death for our sake. Hence I do it in memory of him.

There is a difference between the bread and wine becoming the body and blood and the body and blood becoming the bread and the wine.

I appreciate your input.

When we partake of the elements of communion today, we recognize that they are more than just symbols of something that happened a long time ago. Whenever we gather together to observe the Lord’s Supper, Christ is present with us spiritually. It is not just the memory of Him that is present; He is in the midst of the congregation. The emphasis is upon His presence within the worshiping body, not within the elements of the table. The believer communes with the Lord through the act of remembrance and worship.

First Corinthians 11:23–26:...…….
“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

 

[Albion]

You used the word...."Essence". I have always used the word or thought of “spiritual presence” concerning the Lord’s Supper.

By that I mean that Jesus is spiritually (but not physically) present at the Communion service.

The view can perhaps best be seen in distinction from other views regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

Martin Luther held to a position called consubstantiation; that is, the body and blood are physically present with the elements. The elements do not change, and the body and blood cannot be recognized by taste, but in some real, physical way the body and blood of Christ are present.

Most Protestants today hold to the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

Hard to say. You apparently ruled the Lutherans out of that for believing in a physical presence as well as spiritual one, and they constitute about 1/3 of Protestants. I would agree that many Protestants believe Christ is with them in a spiritual way when they commune, as you explained at the top, but that is a different concept, not Real Presence.

And of course many do not attach that to the sacrament/ordinance at all, simply believing that the bread and wine symbolize something and that they themselves are commemorating something by communing--what you go on to explain below.

The elements do not change or become the body and blood of the Lord in any way. The elements are symbols of His body and blood. While Jesus did say, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” it was in the context of a Passover meal in which every element had a symbolic meaning. It would have been entirely out of context for the disciples to suddenly interpret these two items literally—especially since Jesus had not yet been crucified.

So that would be the standard Baptistic approach, which is a rejection of the doctrine of Real Presence.

 

[Major1]

Deepening on how we understand these terms, you might be a believer in the Real Presence after all!


OK


Hard to say. You apparently ruled the Lutherans out of that for believing in a physical presence as well as spiritua, and they constitute about 1/3 of Protestants. I would agree that many Protestants believe Christ is with them in a spiritual way when they commune, but that is a different concept, not Real Presence. And of course many do not attach that to the sacrament/ordinance at all, simply believing that the bread and wine symbolize something and that they themselves are commemorating something by communing--what you go on to explain below.


So that would be the standard Baptistic approach, which is a rejection of the doctrine of Real Presence.

Well, I am an old Baptist you know!

 

[Albion]

Shame on me for bungling through that post. I read that line near the top too fast. By saying what you did in the part I bolded in red, you wrote yourself out of Real Presence. So that was my fault, but you were being consistent in your own beliefs.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I would say that understanding Christ's words is never a waste of time wouldn't you?

I never referred to Our Lord's words as a waste of my time.

Rather, I implied that your dialectical post was a waste of my time. And, incidentally, I was correct about that.

I'm not interested in dragging you anywhere

You could've fooled me.

Perhaps in the interest of not breaking the great commandment you should favor a Spirit that would consider I might have something significant to contribute on this thread.

If you have something of substance to contribute, please do so. And skip the dialectics.

 

[childeye 2]

CONTEXT!

The “two or three” he’s talking about are not the faithful few who showed up at this week’s prayer meeting. They are the authorized leadership of the church, who have witnessed a sinner cause offense to another member of the community and fail to turn from it. Just as their decision to bind or loose (to either retain or remove membership in the community) will be recognized in heaven, so Jesus’ authoritative presence is with them to enact said decision.

Thanks for that admonition, I stand corrected.

 

[thecolorsblend]

1).
Earlier I mentioned confusion among Catholics about the implications of Christ's Eucharistic presence, and I posed the question: Do we receive (for instance) Christ's head and arms and feet? Many today would be uncomfortable with an affirmative answer, which would savor, to them, of a grossly materialistic view of the Real Presence. Yet it is the right answer. Suppose we didn't receive those parts: then the same would have to be said of all the other parts of his body. So there'd be nothing left! We would not be receiving his body. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent says, in this sacrament are contained "… all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews….".

2).
Another question noted earlier asked whether the accidents are hiding the substance from our gaze, so that their removal would be like drawing back a curtain, allowing us to see Jesus' body. If one is tempted to say yes, a moment's reflection should show that the right answer must be no. A substance can't be seen or tasted or experienced by any of the senses. To think otherwise would reduce substances to the status of accidents, thus making it impossible to see what the dogma of transubstantiation means, and inevitably leading one into bewilderment when trying to explore the teaching.

3).
A third question asked whether the bread and wine are converted into our Lord's soul and divinity. Most orthodox Catholics will instinctively answer yes, because they know well that we receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But that cannot be the answer, for it would involve the absurdity of a piece of bread becoming God. It would be converted from bread into divinity. A finite piece of matter would become the Infinite Spirit.

The Church teaches that the bread is changed into Christ's body and the wine into his blood, and that his soul and divinity become present through concomitance. He is one indivisible being, so when the bread is changed into his body, the whole Christ necessarily becomes present. But the actual transubstantiation—the changing of one substance into another—is only of his body and blood. It is the change of a material substance into another material substance.

These questions come from ….Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association
Transubstantiation and Reason

I eagerly wait your explanations.

I'm glad to see that you're citing your sources now. It is a most welcome change.

Unfortunately, this is one of those times when reading your source in its entirety would've shed considerable light on "your" questions.

As the Council of Trent says, the body is "… under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together: and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with his body and soul." [8]

What of the accidents of Christ's body? They too are there; otherwise he would not be fully present. As St. Thomas says: "… since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are really in this sacrament. [9] But the mode of their existence is conditioned by the fact that Jesus becomes present through transubstantiation. Substance is converted into substance, and the accidents, consequently, are there in the manner of substance.

Think of quantity. It is the fundamental accident, as we have noted. Normally it is the accident whereby its substance occupies a place; but the essential thing it does is to give the substance parts. And in the Eucharist all the parts of Christ's body are present and are situated relatively to each other. But because of the unique way in which the quantity is there—in the manner of substance—the parts are not spread out in relation to the surrounding place. To put it another way: substance as such is distinct from quantity, and it occupies a place only because of its quantity. But when quantity becomes present through transubstantiation it exists in the manner of substance, and therefore without actual extension.

An insidious obstacle to an understanding of the Real Presence (of course it can never be fully understood in this life) is the almost overwhelming influence of the imagination. The imagination is a picture-making power which accompanies all our thinking; but it is distinct from the intellect and it deals only with what can be seen, touched or in some way sensed. The deeper level of being, accessible to the intellect, is beyond the reach of the imagination. However, the imagination still provides images, and these easily mislead us.

For example, the statement that Jesus is in the Eucharist with all his parts may bring a picture into the imagination of a tiny body small enough to fit in the host. We know it's not like that, but the imagery can still distort one's thought, or block it, or even tempt one to discard the Real Presence in favor of a symbolical or "spiritual" presence.

Deepening Our Faith
A clearer understanding of what God, through his Church, tells us about the Eucharist, and a consideration of the objections to the doctrine, should deepen our faith. Vagueness and perplexity about it are often associated with errors lurking deep in the mind—errors which, if allowed to surface, can bring temptations against faith. A right understanding will dissipate the errors and show that reason need not be embarrassed by transubstantiation, even though it far transcends reason.

Not only that, but exploration of the doctrine makes it more real to us. We realize more clearly that the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ are as truly present as they are in heaven, or as they were when he labored in his workshop in Nazareth. While that realization is dominant, every genuflection will be a conscious act of adoration of the Incarnate God; the Consecration will always absorb our attention; we will never want to hurry out of church as soon as Mass is over.

Jesus comes to us physically because of his great love for us. Anyone who loves wants to be physically close to the one who is loved, but it is sometimes impossible. It is not impossible for God. Divine power changes bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, and he dwells physically on earth in every tabernacle, and comes physically into us in Holy Communion.