The Physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

[The Liturgist]

Following in the path of the Holy Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran churches, and High Church Anglicans that our Lord is not merely spiritually present in the Eucharist, as John Calvin taught (and he was half right - the Calvinist position represents what I regard as the minimum acceptable Eucharistic theology for ecumenical purposes), but that He is physically present, so that when we partake of the Eucharist, we truly partake of His precious body and blood, in a sacred mystery that is beyond human comprehension (hence the problems with the transubstantiation theory of St. Thomas Aquinas and the “in, with and under” theory of Blessed Martin Luther), and when we partake of the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord, because our Lord is fully human and fully divine, his humanity and divinity hypostatically united without change, confusion, separation or division, and thus communicatio idiomatum applies, we partake zoetically from both natures. Thus we become, as St. Peter wrote, Partakers of the Divine Nature.

While I can accept to a certain extent the idea that our Lord is only physically present, as this Calvinist view, while contradicting the Early Church Fathers, does not completely contradict Sacred Scripture, I regard the Zwinglian and Memorialist doctrines as scripturally unjustifiable.

If, as Zwingli proposed, the sacraments were mere outward signs of an inward grace, our Lord would have said “This bread is a symbol of my body, which is broken for you and for many, for the remission of sins,” and likewise, “This wine is a symbol of my blood of the New Covenant”, and He would not have alienated most of his followers in John chapter 6 by declaring that the only way to obtain salvation is to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and if these were mere symbols, or a memorial, he could have prevented the temporary alienation of his followers by saying as much.

Memorialism furthermore rests on a misunderstanding based on the use of the English word “remembrance.” The Greek word Anamnesis is closer to recapitulation, but even that fails. I think an ideal English translation would just use the original Greek word, as that would provide more accuracy. Anamnesis literally means “put yourself in this moment” and reflects the belief of the Early Church, the Orthodox, and many High Church Anglicans that we participate in the One Baptism of Christ in the Jordan during Baptism, and in the Eucharist, we participate in the Last Supper, in communion with Our Lord, the eleven faithful disciples, and every Christian who has ever received the Eucharist. In other words, “I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins” means both that we are to be baptized only once if our baptism was valid, and also there has only ever been one Baptism with the Holy Spirit, and we participate in that. Likewise, there has only been one Eucharist, and as oft as we celebrate Holy Communion, we do so in anamnesis of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, offering Himself proactively as a sacrifice for the remission of sins and life everlasting, in anticipation of His passion and resurrection.

Here is a video by Hank Haanegraaf, the Bible Answers Man, which thoroughly discusses this subject:

I would enjoy the input of my friends @chevyontheriver @dzheremi @Pavel Mosko @prodromos @Ignatius the Kiwi @ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch @hedrick and @Shane R

 

[Mark Quayle]

If, as Zwingli proposed, the sacraments were mere outward signs of an inward grace, our Lord would have said “This bread is a symbol of my body, which is broken for you and for many, for the remission of sins,” and likewise, “This wine is a symbol of my blood of the New Covenant”, and He would not have alienated most of his followers in John chapter 6 by declaring that the only way to obtain salvation is to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and if these were mere symbols, or a memorial, he could have prevented the temporary alienation of his followers by saying as much.

Good morning, Liturgist! I want you to know, that since joining CF I've had quite a lot of expansion in my worldview, without sacrificing anything basic. Nor, in fact have my conclusions based on Scripture, experience and reason changed, but I have had affirmation of what I suspected all along —that there is both more and less to the facts than what I have concluded in most subjects. You, as much as anyone here, and maybe more than anyone here, have been instrumental in that.

Years ago, particularly before I began to realize the facts resembling Reformed Theology, I had just about nothing but disrespect for what I guess I can call a liturgical worldview. Of course there were some things I have always admired, (eg, the humble self-view and submission of the disciple to those in authority), but because of you and others on this site I am beginning to see value where I hadn't before. Among the areas that I am still developing is this question of the elements in the Communion. (It hasn't been long that I hadn't even heard of the term, Eucharist!) Naturally, I have my own opinions, but I realize now that there is more to think about here than just what I thought I knew. That leaves me with no need to defend any view, but just to be as logical and biblical as I can. And so, (and because I'm not permitted to debate here) I'm without a dog in this fight, but, at least to some degree, I may have an objective ability to comment.

I have seen, many times, similar arguments as I see you positing above, if I may rephrase: If he (it, they, God, the author, etc) had meant it was only symbolic (or whatever the question is) he "would have said" (or "it would have been written thus") 'this is a symbol of', and not 'this is' (or whatever applies to the subject at hand). My favorite one like this is what I was told as a kid —the subject escapes me at the moment— but a Bible teacher told me that if such and such was true, (it being so important if true), that God would have said so outright.

But "this is" is often symbolic. The fact that it isn't written the way we would expect doesn't necessarily deny the validity of the notion. While I see reason to agree with you in this particular instance, I also see reason to disagree with you here. For example, some may say, "This is poetic language", and others would respond, "But it isn't a poetic scene, so why assume poetic language?"

Anyway, there's my comment. (Ha! This is kind of fun, not having a dog in the fight! I ought to do this more often!)

Good talking with you again. God be with you, brother.

 

[public hermit]

While I can accept to a certain extent the idea that our Lord is only physically present, as this Calvinist view, while contradicting the Early Church Fathers, does not completely contradict Sacred Scripture

Can you clarify the Reformed/Calvinist view? My understanding is that Christ is not physically present since the physical body of Christ is at "the right hand of the Father." But in partaking, the Spirit unites the participant with Christ in heaven. The Spirit, who is not bound by time and space, can transcend the barrier and bring spiritual unity, but Christ is definitely not physically present. Unlike Luther, Calvin did not believe the ascended Christ is ubiquitous.

I'm not a fan of that position, mind you, but I'm fairly confident that is it.

 

[com7fy8]

we partake zoetically from both natures.

So, Jesus does say >

"'Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.'" (John 6:54)

Now what matters is what Jesus really means.

With this, He says >

"he who feeds on Me will live because of Me" > in John 6:57.

So, I see that Jesus does mean that in us we need to feed on Jesus . . . in us. And what is guaranteed to happen if we live because of Jesus in us?

Jesus in our character makes us gentle and humble with "rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:28-30)

Jesus Christ is almighty. And His love is almighty to cast out fear >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in 1 John 4:18)

And the peace of Jesus in us is almighty > if we pray the way God's word means > Philippians 4:6-7 > "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus," our Apostle Paul does say, in Philippians 4:6-7.

So, this is basic of how Jesus in us affects us, while we are feeding on Him.

So, if someone's Eucharist really is Jesus or contains Jesus and ministers God's own grace, this will get the Biblical results of feeding on Jesus . . . including how God's peace is almighty to guard our "minds", our Apostle Paul does say.

 

[The Liturgist]

Can you clarify the Reformed/Calvinist view? My understanding is that Christ is not physically present since the physical body of Christ is at "the right hand of the Father." But in partaking, the Spirit unites the participant with Christ in heaven. The Spirit, who is not bound by time and space, can transcend the barrier and bring spiritual unity, but Christ is definitely not physically present. Unlike Luther, Calvin did not believe the ascended Christ is ubiquitous.

I'm not a fan of that position, mind you, but I'm fairly confident that is it.

My understanding is that Calvin believed Christ was spiritually but not physically present in the Eucharist.

 

[The Liturgist]

So, Jesus does say >

"'Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.'" (John 6:54)

Now what matters is what Jesus really means.

With this, He says >

"he who feeds on Me will live because of Me" > in John 6:57.

So, I see that Jesus does mean that in us we need to feed on Jesus . . . in us. And what is guaranteed to happen if we live because of Jesus in us?

Jesus in our character makes us gentle and humble with "rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:28-30)

Jesus Christ is almighty. And His love is almighty to cast out fear >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in 1 John 4:18)

And the peace of Jesus in us is almighty > if we pray the way God's word means > Philippians 4:6-7 > "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus," our Apostle Paul does say, in Philippians 4:6-7.

So, this is basic of how Jesus in us affects us, while we are feeding on Him.

So, if someone's Eucharist really is Jesus or contains Jesus and ministers God's own grace, this will get the Biblical results of feeding on Jesus . . . including how God's peace is almighty to guard our "minds", our Apostle Paul does say.

That seems reasonable to me.

 

[The Liturgist]

Good morning, Liturgist! I want you to know, that since joining CF I've had quite a lot of expansion in my worldview, without sacrificing anything basic. Nor, in fact have my conclusions based on Scripture, experience and reason changed, but I have had affirmation of what I suspected all along —that there is both more and less to the facts than what I have concluded in most subjects. You, as much as anyone here, and maybe more than anyone here, have been instrumental in that.

Years ago, particularly before I began to realize the facts resembling Reformed Theology, I had just about nothing but disrespect for what I guess I can call a liturgical worldview. Of course there were some things I have always admired, (eg, the humble self-view and submission of the disciple to those in authority), but because of you and others on this site I am beginning to see value where I hadn't before. Among the areas that I am still developing is this question of the elements in the Communion. (It hasn't been long that I hadn't even heard of the term, Eucharist!) Naturally, I have my own opinions, but I realize now that there is more to think about here than just what I thought I knew. That leaves me with no need to defend any view, but just to be as logical and biblical as I can. And so, (and because I'm not permitted to debate here) I'm without a dog in this fight, but, at least to some degree, I may have an objective ability to comment.

I have seen, many times, similar arguments as I see you positing above, if I may rephrase: If he (it, they, God, the author, etc) had meant it was only symbolic (or whatever the question is) he "would have said" (or "it would have been written thus") 'this is a symbol of', and not 'this is' (or whatever applies to the subject at hand). My favorite one like this is what I was told as a kid —the subject escapes me at the moment— but a Bible teacher told me that if such and such was true, (it being so important if true), that God would have said so outright.

But "this is" is often symbolic. The fact that it isn't written the way we would expect doesn't necessarily deny the validity of the notion. While I see reason to agree with you in this particular instance, I also see reason to disagree with you here. For example, some may say, "This is poetic language", and others would respond, "But it isn't a poetic scene, so why assume poetic language?"

Anyway, there's my comment. (Ha! This is kind of fun, not having a dog in the fight! I ought to do this more often!)

Good talking with you again. God be with you, brother.

I always enjoy talking with you, too, my brother. And regarding liturgical worship, Calvinist churches on the Continent, in the Dutch Reformed and Swiss Reformed traditions, were historically liturgical, and the Presbyterians of Scotland, after initially rejecting liturgical worship, adopted it, as did the Presbyterian Church USA, and other Presbyterian bodies. Indeed, there is a High Church Presbyterian liturgical movement from the 19th century called Mercersburg Theology, and an even more high church movement akin to Anglo-Catholicism, called Scoto-Catholicism.

One of the most beautiful liturgical service books, which I use in my parish books, is a Congregational liturgical book, Devotional Services for Public Worship by Rev. John Hunter of the King’s Weigh House, which was the largest Congregational church in the UK until the residential population mostly left the Square Mile of the City of London after WWII, and the area became dominated by finance and law firms. Curiously, The City of Westminster, which is the largest and most populous borough of London and home to the majority of tourist attractions such as Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Trafalgar Square, Covent Garden, Westminster Abbey, etc.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Good morning, Liturgist! I want you to know, that since joining CF I've had quite a lot of expansion in my worldview, without sacrificing anything basic. Nor, in fact have my conclusions based on Scripture, experience and reason changed, but I have had affirmation of what I suspected all along —that there is both more and less to the facts than what I have concluded in most subjects. You, as much as anyone here, and maybe more than anyone here, have been instrumental in that.

Years ago, particularly before I began to realize the facts resembling Reformed Theology, I had just about nothing but disrespect for what I guess I can call a liturgical worldview. Of course there were some things I have always admired, (eg, the humble self-view and submission of the disciple to those in authority), but because of you and others on this site I am beginning to see value where I hadn't before. Among the areas that I am still developing is this question of the elements in the Communion. (It hasn't been long that I hadn't even heard of the term, Eucharist!) Naturally, I have my own opinions, but I realize now that there is more to think about here than just what I thought I knew. That leaves me with no need to defend any view, but just to be as logical and biblical as I can. And so, (and because I'm not permitted to debate here) I'm without a dog in this fight, but, at least to some degree, I may have an objective ability to comment.

I have seen, many times, similar arguments as I see you positing above, if I may rephrase: If he (it, they, God, the author, etc) had meant it was only symbolic (or whatever the question is) he "would have said" (or "it would have been written thus") 'this is a symbol of', and not 'this is' (or whatever applies to the subject at hand). My favorite one like this is what I was told as a kid —the subject escapes me at the moment— but a Bible teacher told me that if such and such was true, (it being so important if true), that God would have said so outright.

But "this is" is often symbolic. The fact that it isn't written the way we would expect doesn't necessarily deny the validity of the notion. While I see reason to agree with you in this particular instance, I also see reason to disagree with you here. For example, some may say, "This is poetic language", and others would respond, "But it isn't a poetic scene, so why assume poetic language?"

Anyway, there's my comment. (Ha! This is kind of fun, not having a dog in the fight! I ought to do this more often!)

Good talking with you again. God be with you, brother.

The "real" physical and spiritual presence was historically never in question until the radical reformation and the influence of the beginnings of the "rational" age of enlightenment. Unfortunately, all three factions became politicized, and I believe the memorialist view came about as both a logical attempt to explain what is truly a mystery and article of faith and as a political position at odds with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church's counter argument was Aquinas's application of pagan Aristotelian logic to develop the dogma of "transubstantiation, also forsaking the mystery and the faith of acceptance. Today, only the Eastern Churches and Confessional Lutherans continue to embrace the idea of a Mystery who's truth is only realized through faith, but is not conditional on that faith.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The "real" physical and spiritual presence was historically never in question until the radical reformation and the influence of the beginnings of the "rational" age of enlightenment. Unfortunately, all three factions became politicized, and I believe the memorialist view came about as both a logical attempt to explain what is truly a mystery and article of faith and as a political position at odds with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church's counter argument was Aquinas's application of pagan Aristotelian logic to develop the dogma of "transubstantiation, also forsaking the mystery and the faith of acceptance. Today, only the Eastern Churches and Confessional Lutherans continue to embrace the idea of a Mystery who's truth is only realized through faith, but is not conditional on that faith.

Thanks

 

[GDL]

Memorialism furthermore rests on a misunderstanding based on the use of the English word “remembrance.” The Greek word Anamnesis is closer to recapitulation, but even that fails. I think an ideal English translation would just use the original Greek word, as that would provide more accuracy. Anamnesis literally means “put yourself in this moment” and reflects the belief of the Early Church, the Orthodox, and many High Church Anglicans that we participate in the One Baptism of Christ in the Jordan during Baptism, and in the Eucharist, we participate in the Last Supper, in communion with Our Lord, the eleven faithful disciples, and every Christian who has ever received the Eucharist. In other words, “I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins” means both that we are to be baptized only once if our baptism was valid, and also there has only ever been one Baptism with the Holy Spirit, and we participate in that. Likewise, there has only been one Eucharist, and as oft as we celebrate Holy Communion, we do so in anamnesis of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, offering Himself proactively as a sacrifice for the remission of sins and life everlasting, in anticipation of His passion and resurrection.

I watched the video. As a side note, the last 5 minutes or so re Salvation is something that all should watch and understand. It astounds me how many will argue about it being a process and having a scope that few consider.

Re: anamnesis: Was it covered in the video? I carefully made brief jumps through parts and did not hear this covered. Where are you getting the meaning you offer?

I see the word used in the following verses:

NKJ Lev. 24:7 "And you shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, an offering made by fire to the LORD.

NKJ Num. 10:10 "Also in the day of your gladness, in your appointed feasts, and at the beginning of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be a memorial for you before your God: I am the LORD your God."

NKJ Ps. 38:1 <A Psalm of David. To bring to remembrance.> O LORD, do not rebuke me in Your wrath, Nor chasten me in Your hot displeasure!

NKJ Ps. 70:1 <To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. To bring to remembrance.> Make haste, O God, to deliver me! Make haste to help me, O LORD!

NKJ Lk. 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

NKJ 1 Cor. 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

NKJ 1 Cor. 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

NKJ Heb. 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.

Both the Greek and the Hebrew seem to mean a memorial, a reminder. Even putting ourselves in the moment can simply mean to remember.

In John 6 where Jesus speaks of eating His flesh & drinking His blood, it is in the context of believing the words that He speaks and that His Father is teaching for men's hearing and learning. Jesus also says the words that He speaks are spirit and life.

In the 1 Corinthians 11 verses Jesus says eating the bread and drinking the cup proclaim His death until He comes - so His death through resurrection and return of the resurrected Christ.

It's easy to say there are mysteries in all of this and I'm sure there are in many things. I'm not seeing the mystery being the anamnesis. The use in Hebrews 10:3 would seem to be an argument against taking this concept too far.

 

[The Liturgist]

I watched the video. As a side note, the last 5 minutes or so re Salvation is something that all should watch and understand. It astounds me how many will argue about it being a process and having a scope that few consider.

Re: anamnesis: Was it covered in the video? I carefully made brief jumps through parts and did not hear this covered. Where are you getting the meaning you offer?

I see the word used in the following verses:

NKJ Lev. 24:7 "And you shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, an offering made by fire to the LORD.

NKJ Num. 10:10 "Also in the day of your gladness, in your appointed feasts, and at the beginning of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be a memorial for you before your God: I am the LORD your God."

NKJ Ps. 38:1 <A Psalm of David. To bring to remembrance.> O LORD, do not rebuke me in Your wrath, Nor chasten me in Your hot displeasure!

NKJ Ps. 70:1 <To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. To bring to remembrance.> Make haste, O God, to deliver me! Make haste to help me, O LORD!

NKJ Lk. 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

NKJ 1 Cor. 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

NKJ 1 Cor. 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

NKJ Heb. 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.

Both the Greek and the Hebrew seem to mean a memorial, a reminder. Even putting ourselves in the moment can simply mean to remember.

In John 6 where Jesus speaks of eating His flesh & drinking His blood, it is in the context of believing the words that He speaks and that His Father is teaching for men's hearing and learning. Jesus also says the words that He speaks are spirit and life.

In the 1 Corinthians 11 verses Jesus says eating the bread and drinking the cup proclaim His death until He comes - so His death through resurrection and return of the resurrected Christ.

It's easy to say there are mysteries in all of this and I'm sure there are in many things. I'm not seeing the mystery being the anamnesis. The use in Hebrews 10:3 would seem to be an argument against taking this concept too far.

Anamnesis is not covered in that video, rather, in addition to my knowledge of Greek I have heard Fr. John Behr cover it. I believe it is in The Shocking Truth of Orthodoxy, or a video he did on the Eucharist. I could dig it up but it would be better frankly to take my word for it, since memorialism is refuted by John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:27-34.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I watched the video. As a side note, the last 5 minutes or so re Salvation is something that all should watch and understand. It astounds me how many will argue about it being a process and having a scope that few consider.

Re: anamnesis: Was it covered in the video? I carefully made brief jumps through parts and did not hear this covered. Where are you getting the meaning you offer?

I see the word used in the following verses:

NKJ Lev. 24:7 "And you shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, an offering made by fire to the LORD.

NKJ Num. 10:10 "Also in the day of your gladness, in your appointed feasts, and at the beginning of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be a memorial for you before your God: I am the LORD your God."

NKJ Ps. 38:1 <A Psalm of David. To bring to remembrance.> O LORD, do not rebuke me in Your wrath, Nor chasten me in Your hot displeasure!

NKJ Ps. 70:1 <To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. To bring to remembrance.> Make haste, O God, to deliver me! Make haste to help me, O LORD!

NKJ Lk. 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

NKJ 1 Cor. 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

NKJ 1 Cor. 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

NKJ Heb. 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.

Both the Greek and the Hebrew seem to mean a memorial, a reminder. Even putting ourselves in the moment can simply mean to remember.

In John 6 where Jesus speaks of eating His flesh & drinking His blood, it is in the context of believing the words that He speaks and that His Father is teaching for men's hearing and learning. Jesus also says the words that He speaks are spirit and life.

In the 1 Corinthians 11 verses Jesus says eating the bread and drinking the cup proclaim His death until He comes - so His death through resurrection and return of the resurrected Christ.

It's easy to say there are mysteries in all of this and I'm sure there are in many things. I'm not seeing the mystery being the anamnesis. The use in Hebrews 10:3 would seem to be an argument against taking this concept too far.

Never would any believer in the real presense, Catholic, Lutheran or otherwise, ever dispute that there is always a memorial element attached to the Eucharist; rather, we hold that it is far more than just a memorial.

 

[GDL]

Anamnesis is not covered in that video, rather, in addition to my knowledge of Greek I have heard Fr. John Behr cover it. I believe it is in The Shocking Truth of Orthodoxy, or a video he did on the Eucharist. I could dig it up but it would be better frankly to take my word for it, since memorialism is refuted by John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:27-34.

Thank you but I'll respectfully decline your suggestion and disagree with your assertion re John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. If you'd like to explain your assertions, I'll be happy to consider your input. I'm well able to keep up with your analysis of the Greek.

 

[GDL]

Never would any believer in the real presense, Catholic, Lutheran or otherwise, ever dispute that there is always a memorial element attached to the Eucharist; rather, we hold that it is far more than just a memorial.

My comments left room for consideration of it being more than a memorial. My comments were specifically directed at the Greek word under consideration. Simply put, inserting meaning into a word that may or may not be there is eisegesis and not to be done. So, either we make the case for the meaning of the word, or we make the case in another way, or we remain fixed on our traditions no matter what the Word says.

FWIW, I'd be cautious of making absolutes statements like "Never would any believer". Simply put, you can't know that.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you but I'll respectfully decline your suggestion and disagree with your assertion re John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. If you'd like to explain your assertions, I'll be happy to consider your input. I'm well able to keep up with your analysis of the Greek.

Forgive me, but I believe it is impossible to persuade someone who holds a particular deeply held conviction to change their mind through argumentation, and furthermore I believe in religious freedom and support the right of memorialists to hold to their view, even though I disagree with it. Out of an abundance of respect for your time as well as a shortage of my own, since we don’t appear agree on enough basic points for mutually edifying dialogue, I think it best that we delay such dialogue until if and when our interests in the subject become more closely aligned.

 

[The Liturgist]

Never would any believer in the real presense, Catholic, Lutheran or otherwise, ever dispute that there is always a memorial element attached to the Eucharist; rather, we hold that it is far more than just a memorial.

Indeed, particularly since the text of every anaphora I have read, which by this time probably includes all of them that have been translated into English, mentions the memorial element, either in the Words of Institution or in a subsequent prayer, and also sometimes in the Institution Narrative before the Words of Institution or the Epiklesis.

 

[GDL]

Forgive me, but I believe it is impossible to persuade someone who holds a particular deeply held conviction to change their mind through argumentation, and furthermore I believe in religious freedom and support the right of memorialists to hold to their view, even though I disagree with it. Out of an abundance of respect for your time as well as a shortage of my own, since we don’t appear agree on enough basic points for mutually edifying dialogue, I think it best that we delay such dialogue until if and when our interests in the subject become more closely aligned.

Sure, but no forgiveness needed. But you are misreading me. I hold no deeply held conviction on this matter either way and normally leave myself open to input concerning our Text. I just don't accept things without studying them myself. Also, when I see labeling like "memorialists" and the many similar labels covering various areas of theology, I normally begin to take my leave. There are so many variations within a theme that such categorical generalizations are virtually meaningless in the end.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

My comments left room for consideration of it being more than a memorial. My comments were specifically directed at the Greek word under consideration. Simply put, inserting meaning into a word that may or may not be there is eisegesis and not to be done. So, either we make the case for the meaning of the word, or we make the case in another way, or we remain fixed on our traditions no matter what the Word says.

FWIW, I'd be cautious of making absolutes statements like "Never would any believer". Simply put, you can't know that.

I stand by what I wrote; and you left out the "qualifier" which is "in the real presence", changing the meaning; much the way the radical reformation treats Scripture I might add.

 

[The Liturgist]

Sure, but no forgiveness needed. But you are misreading me. I hold no deeply held conviction on this matter either way and normally leave myself open to input concerning our Text. I just don't accept things without studying them myself. Also, when I see labeling like "memorialists" and the many similar labels covering various areas of theology, I normally begin to take my leave. There are so many variations within a theme that such categorical generalizations are virtually meaningless in the end.

Memorialism is a term of art used by scholars of theology and seminary professors, including those who profess a Memorialist interpretation, who insist the Eucharist is purely a memorial, an act performed because our Lord commanded it as a way of remembering His sacrifice.

 

[GDL]

I stand by what I wrote; and you left out the "qualifier" which is "in the real presence", changing the meaning; much the way the radical reformation treats Scripture I might add.

"Qualifier" doesn't matter. As soon as you state that you know what every believer would or would not say, you're making statements you cannot know. In itself it disqualifies your argument.