The Physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

[GDL]

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.

I pretty much understood that & it's not the first time I've heard it. And I find it interesting how you corelate it specifically to scholars and professors seemingly once again suggesting you're in some league some of us may not be able to follow. Goes quite well with your "trust me" I know Greek statement, which was a very weak response to my post which at least was sufficient to get us started in the Text.

You originally said "memorialist". These labels don't just remain in the scholarly or seminary realm. They filter down to students and find their way out into general discussions just like you've accomplished here on a public forum. Then they get used to categorize, minimize and even denigrate those who disagree with the theology. They also get used in the scholarly and seminary realms and become more than a "term of art" just as they do outside those realms.

 

[The Liturgist]

I pretty much understood that & it's not the first time I've heard it. And I find it interesting how you corelate it specifically to scholars and professors seemingly once again suggesting you're in some league some of us may not be able to follow. Goes quite well with your "trust me" I know Greek statement, which was a very weak response to my post which at least was sufficient to get us started in the Text.

You originally said "memorialist". These labels don't just remain in the scholarly or seminary realm. They filter down to students and find their way out into general discussions just like you've accomplished here on a public forum. Then they get used to categorize, minimize and even denigrate those who disagree with the theology. They also get used in the scholarly and seminary realms and become more than a "term of art" just as they do outside those realms.

To be clear, I am not an academic elitist; it is my desire on Christian Forums to make what I have been blessed to study common knowledge. This is in part because some seminaries, particularly those associated with the liberal mainline protestant churches such as the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Episcopal Church (with the notable exception of Nashotah House), among others, have become shockingly liberal and are the place where several of the unpopular doctrines which I believe are unscriptural, and which are certainly contrary to the tradition of the entire church, such as the rejection of marriage being exclusively between one man and one woman (which had been a Christian doctrine from the beginning), originated. Conversely, some traditional seminaries, such as the aforementioned Nashotah House, Holy Trinity Jordanville, St. Vladimir’s, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, St. Tikhon’s Monastery, St. Joseph of Arimathea, and the seminaries of the FSSP and ICKSP, have become leading voices of traditional Christianity, and my goal is to disseminate the work of those seminaries, not all of which by ant means adhere to the doctrine of the physical presence (most SBC churches, for example, are either Memorialist or Zwinglian when it comes to Eucharistic theology; this is not firmly defined in the SBC just as Calvinism vs. Arminianism vs. other soteriologies, is not firmly defined, in contrast to, say, the General Baptists or the Particular Baptists of English origin; I include this seminary however because I regard Dr. Albert Mohler the foremost moral theologian with an international audience in our time, after the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the repose of Dr. James Kennedy and Pope John Paul II.

However one need not attend seminary in order to obtain the theological knowledge they provide (although the formation they provide clergy, and the training in pastoral care, chaplaincy, and in liturgical churches, how to do the liturgy, is valuable. Even then one does not need a seminary, for example, most Coptic priests have degrees in engineering or other secular fields, and spend an intense forty days at a monastery undergoing formation and liturgical training (although increasingly, some do to to seminaries). Also, other traditional denominations like ROCOR do not require a seminary education, despite ROCOR having an excellent seminary at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville; indeed, online courses are offered by Holy Trinity, and the Continuing Anglican seminary of St. Joseph of Arimathea (in the traditionalist Anglican Province of Christ the King, which operates conservative high church Anglican parishes throughout the California and the Southwest, and which in 1994, rescued, restored and reopened a beautiful old Anglican church in the Northern California town of Chico, that the Episcopal Church had sold to a Chinese restaurant, and which consistently gets better attendance than the large, and in my opinion, ugly, church that replaced it). ROCOR, through Holy Trinity, has online training for candidates for both the Diaconate and Priesthood.

I also did not claim that the adjective Memorialist and the noun Memorialism are used exclusively in the Ivory Tower of Academia, on the contrary, these are confessional positions of some churches and some Christians describe themselves as such, for example, some Baptists.

However, the fact remains it has a specific meaning in Sacramental Theology, pertaining to both the Eucharist and Baptism. Likewise, Zwingli is remembered chiefly for his sacramental theology, wherein Holy Communion and Baptism are symbols or signs, pointing to an underlying grace. This is in contrast to Calvinism, which is known for being an entire system, as expounded in Calvin’s Institutes, and even more broadly in Church Dogmatics by Karl Barth, however, within Calvinism there is a specific sacramental theology originating with John Calvin himself, that being that our Lord is spiritually present (and as I stated in the OP, I can accept this, although I strongly prefer and believe in the Real Presence).

 

[GDL]

To be clear, I am not an academic elitist; it is my desire on Christian Forums to make what I have been blessed to study common knowledge. This is in part because some seminaries, particularly those associated with the liberal mainline protestant churches such as the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Episcopal Church (with the notable exception of Nashotah House), among others, have become shockingly liberal and are the place where several of the unpopular doctrines which I believe are unscriptural, and which are certainly contrary to the tradition of the entire church, such as the rejection of marriage being exclusively between one man and one woman (which had been a Christian doctrine from the beginning), originated. Conversely, some traditional seminaries, such as the aforementioned Nashotah House, Holy Trinity Jordanville, St. Vladimir’s, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, St. Tikhon’s Monastery, St. Joseph of Arimathea, and the seminaries of the FSSP and ICKSP, have become leading voices of traditional Christianity, and my goal is to disseminate the work of those seminaries, not all of which by ant means adhere to the doctrine of the physical presence (most SBC churches, for example, are either Memorialist or Zwinglian when it comes to Eucharistic theology; this is not firmly defined in the SBC just as Calvinism vs. Arminianism vs. other soteriologies, is not firmly defined, in contrast to, say, the General Baptists or the Particular Baptists of English origin; I include this seminary however because I regard Dr. Albert Mohler the foremost moral theologian with an international audience in our time, after the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the repose of Dr. James Kennedy and Pope John Paul II.

However one need not attend seminary in order to obtain the theological knowledge they provide (although the formation they provide clergy, and the training in pastoral care, chaplaincy, and in liturgical churches, how to do the liturgy, is valuable. Even then one does not need a seminary, for example, most Coptic priests have degrees in engineering or other secular fields, and spend an intense forty days at a monastery undergoing formation and liturgical training (although increasingly, some do to to seminaries). Also, other traditional denominations like ROCOR do not require a seminary education, despite ROCOR having an excellent seminary at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville; indeed, online courses are offered by Holy Trinity, and the Continuing Anglican seminary of St. Joseph of Arimathea (in the traditionalist Anglican Province of Christ the King, which operates conservative high church Anglican parishes throughout the California and the Southwest, and which in 1994, rescued, restored and reopened a beautiful old Anglican church in the Northern California town of Chico, that the Episcopal Church had sold to a Chinese restaurant, and which consistently gets better attendance than the large, and in my opinion, ugly, church that replaced it). ROCOR, through Holy Trinity, has online training for candidates for both the Diaconate and Priesthood.

I also did not claim that the adjective Memorialist and the noun Memorialism are used exclusively in the Ivory Tower of Academia, on the contrary, these are confessional positions of some churches and some Christians describe themselves as such, for example, some Baptists.

However, the fact remains it has a specific meaning in Sacramental Theology, pertaining to both the Eucharist and Baptism. Likewise, Zwingli is remembered chiefly for his sacramental theology, wherein Holy Communion and Baptism are symbols or signs, pointing to an underlying grace. This is in contrast to Calvinism, which is known for being an entire system, as expounded in Calvin’s Institutes, and even more broadly in Church Dogmatics by Karl Barth, however, within Calvinism there is a specific sacramental theology originating with John Calvin himself, that being that our Lord is spiritually present (and as I stated in the OP, I can accept this, although I strongly prefer and believe in the Real Presence).

I appreciate the detail. Now that we have all of this behind us, I'll just say this: When anything Scripture is discussed, I prefer to analyze and discuss Scripture. It seemed to me that this was how this thread began. You took a position on a word used in Scripture. It interested me so I did a quick review of the word and its usage in Scripture and posted it in response. With respect to you, I've seen nothing that resolves the titled point of your thread.

We both know there is disagreement on many, many theological points and extensive denominational separation. For me personally, the matter needs to be resolved using our Text. Whether the debate is about Memorialism or any other ism or issue, scholarly research can tell us many things about tradition, history, Scripture, historical debates about Scripture and so on. If I'm very interested in a topic, I'm open to reading such research along with looking at the matter in the text of Scripture. Investigating such research normally ends in the matter being unresolved unless one chooses a favorite or a preference as you note, whether that favorite is a person or persons, denomination, theological camp, what we feel or sense, etc.

It will be the Word that judges us. My preference is to learn from Him, and my preference is to consider input from those who do in-depth exegetical analysis of our Text and take their best shot at why, where and how some tradition began among men.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What something is or appears to us sensually and what something means. Can be very different. We seem to have come to think of 'substance" in purely what something is or appears to us sensually. But "substance" can just as readily be applied to meaning. as in the substance of an argument or idea. In Eucharist the meaning of the species changes.

 

[Fervent]

Growing up in mostly baptist chuches, I was constantly reminded that communion was "just" a symbol. Through diving into the Word I have come to see this stress as a grievous mistake, as it trivializes something that is so critical to the faith. These "symbolic" acts become disposable niceties, and fail to function effectively even as symbols. While I think too much is made of Jesus saying "this is my body" and similar, since most of the time such treatments pretend metaphors don't exist, I don't believe a purely symbolic interpretation fits and is instead an innovation of the radical reformation. Whatever the functional reality is, it seems apparent to me that we must recognize that what is represented in the Eucharist is accomplished if we are to be in keeping with the historic faith.

 

[Roymond]

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

For what it's worth, Luther and almost all theologians prior to him plus the majority after would say that the Lord is not "physically" present, as that implies that under a microscope we could find human cells, Luther used such terms as "true and naturally" present. He reserved the word "physical" for the bread and the wine; though saying that when a Christian physically eats those elements in the Eucharist he also eats the Body and the Blood, he refers to that eating as "substantial" (i.e. according to the true substance), "real", "spiritual", "sacramental", and "Eucharistic". At one point he says that Christ is present in the Supper "verbally", meaning that the Real Presence is not enacted by any special power of either priest or believer but by the very verba, the words of Christ. Elsewhere he call it a "personal" presence, not as saying that Christ is personally present but that He is present "for you", i.e. for each person.

The issue of the sacramental elements as "symbol" is an interesting one. Luther avoided the word, but if he had used it his use would have been of the ancient sense of "symbol", as something which conveys that which it portrays, and thus the bread as a symbol of the Lord's Body actually conveys that Body, and the wine as a symbol of the Lord's Blood actually conveys that Blood -- and that would have been the sense in use at the time of Christ as well; the idea of a symbol as an indicator of something that is actually absent came along later.

 

[Roymond]

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.

Interestingly Zwingli and Luther were both operating on an Augustinian approach to the topic, of sign and word. But Zwingli treats a sign as no more than a signpost with no real connection to the thing to which it points, and thus holds the word separate, while Luther connects the word to the sign and thus presents the sign as filled with what the word says.

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 don't have a reference, but there are uses of the term "anamnesis" where it means "memorial sacrifice", which indicates it's not just a thing prompting some memories, it is an action that brings the power of what is "remembered".

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

I found myself a bit shocked at his statements about the Bible and the canon because he pretty much contradicted everything presented in my grad school course on the Canonization of the New Testament. There we learned that by 100 the main epistles of Paul and several Gospels were in broad circulation and by the time Athanasius issued his list the many churches via discussion between them and trading copies had mostly settled the matter already. Besides that, he and other professors insisted that the early church most certainly had a Bible -- the Septuagint.

 

[Roymond]

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.

Another way to look at it is that both Rome and the radicals insisted on trying to force the Eucharist to fit human philosophical views, while Luther and the East just let it be simply what the scriptures say.

 

[Roymond]

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.

Up to the Hebrews reference they all fit in the idea of a "memorial sacrifice". As a rabbi I knew noted, though, it isn't about us remembering things, it's about asking God to remember His promises. With that, the Hebrews reference fits in; it's saying that all the sacrifices are reminders to God of His promises since they are essentially petitions for God to set aside sin (for yet another year).

John 6 is interesting. In its context, there's nothing to indicate it's about the Eucharist, but the words Jesus chose couldn't help but be turned to that topic afterwards. I had a professor who said John just wrote it that way to firm up the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, while another said Jesus was planting references the meanings of which wouldn't unfold until after the Resurrection. The more I study it the more I am convinced of the latter.

 

[Roymond]

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.

Memorialism is refuted by the grammar! In comparisons with that sentence structure if it's a metaphor then the predicate is meant to provide illumination about the subject, so if this was metaphor then Jesus would be teaching a lesson about the nature of bread by comparing it to His body -- which would be utterly bizarre. When Jesus says "I am the Door", He is illustrating something about Himself (the subject) by the term "Door" (the predicate). This structure doesn't work in the Eucharistic words, and so it is a straightforward description of actuality: this bread is actually My Body.

The wording can run the other way on occasion, but as far as I know it only happens in poetry where structure takes second place to aesthetics.

 

[Roymond]

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.

To borrow a favorite phrase from Dr. James Voeltz, "It is more than a memorial, but it is never less than that"

[He made this point to all his grad students with reference to the scriptures, that "they are more than ancient human literature, but they are never less than that".]

 

[GDL]

Up to the Hebrews reference they all fit in the idea of a "memorial sacrifice". As a rabbi I knew noted, though, it isn't about us remembering things, it's about asking God to remember His promises. With that, the Hebrews reference fits in; it's saying that all the sacrifices are reminders to God of His promises since they are essentially petitions for God to set aside sin (for yet another year).

John 6 is interesting. In its context, there's nothing to indicate it's about the Eucharist, but the words Jesus chose couldn't help but be turned to that topic afterwards. I had a professor who said John just wrote it that way to firm up the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, while another said Jesus was planting references the meanings of which wouldn't unfold until after the Resurrection. The more I study it the more I am convinced of the latter.

Doesn't the Hebrews 10:3 look like a reminder to the worshippers based upon 10:2 and especially the last clause?

Your latter statement about John 6 seems to have merit. I've heard similar things and John seems to have more than one meaning to be considered in many areas of his writings.

 

[The Liturgist]

Another way to look at it is that both Rome and the radicals insisted on trying to force the Eucharist to fit human philosophical views, while Luther and the East just let it be simply what the scriptures say.

I’m going to reject the idea that Transubstantiation was inherently a disaster or a doctrinal error on a par with the rejection of the real presence. Roman Catholics believe in Eucharistic miracles that require the Real Presence as much as anyone, so transubstantiation has clearly not adversely impacted their conceptual understanding of the mystery, even though the idea seems to be technically inadequete insofar as it relies on Aristotelian categories.*

*That said, I am sure one of our Roman Catholic friends can explain to me why the numerous Eucharistic miracles would not require transaccidentiation in addition to Transubstantiation. Perhaps my reading of Aristotelian accidents as understood in Scholastic-Thomistic theology “perceptual attributes” or “apparent sensory experience” is erroneous or a mischaracterization. This is a complex technical question of the sort that really requires someone well versed in the field of Scholastic Theology to address, which I am not.

 

[The Liturgist]

Another way to look at it is that both Rome and the radicals insisted on trying to force the Eucharist to fit human philosophical views, while Luther and the East just let it be simply what the scriptures say.

Also I have to say if the Romans did make a mistake in seeking to explain the Real Change, I nonetheless empathize with them for making it.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

In what sense is the Eucharist the body of Christ? In what sense is the species that was formerly "bread" no longer bread?

"Aristotle acknowledges that there are three candidates for being called substance, and that all three are substance in some sense or to some degree. First, there is matter, second, form and third, the composite of form and matter. " Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I guess the Platonic form has changed. But what is that really? The essence? So then what is the substance or essence of bread if not all the qualities that make bread bread?

I think the most important change is what it signifies.

 

[The Liturgist]

In what sense is the Eucharist the body of Christ? In what sense is the species that was formerly "bread" no longer bread?

"Aristotle acknowledges that there are three candidates for being called substance, and that all three are substance in some sense or to some degree. First, there is matter, second, form and third, the composite of form and matter. " Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I guess the Platonic form has changed. But what is that really? The essence? So then what is the substance or essence of bread if not all the qualities that make bread bread?

I think the most important change is what it signifies.

My problem is that as I see it Thomas Aquinas didn’t go far enough in saying only the substance changes, since certain Eucharistic miracles of the kind known in both Orthodox and Catholic circles, in which the Body and Blood are seen for what they really are as opposed to the perceptions of bread and wine, (which I think could almost be considered somewhat illusory) after the consecration in the anaphora. At the very least, it seems that the accidents change as well as the substance, according to God’s specific will, so that the substance becomes actually discernible to certain people whom He desires this to occur to, just as other miraculous affects such as the instantaneous relief of illness are known to occur when the Eucharist is really consecrated (which are doubtless a product of the substance).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

My problem is that as I see it Thomas Aquinas didn’t go far enough in saying only the substance changes, since certain Eucharistic miracles of the kind known in both Orthodox and Catholic circles, in which the Body and Blood are seen for what they really are as opposed to the perceptions of bread and wine, (which I think could almost be considered somewhat illusory) after the consecration in the anaphora.

My question is , "if the perceptions of bread and wine can almost be considered somewhat illusory, in what sense do they become "Body and Blood"? My answer is, "in the sense of what they mean to us." The platonic forms of some kind of transcendental yet physical substance doesn't sound practical to me.

 

[Roymond]

Doesn't the Hebrews 10:3 look like a reminder to the worshippers based upon 10:2 and especially the last clause?

Your latter statement about John 6 seems to have merit. I've heard similar things and John seems to have more than one meaning to be considered in many areas of his writings.

I encountered a suggestion that the author of John is not the brother of James, but a different John who lived in Jerusalem. Apparently there are hints of this in early commentaries, and it does make sense of a couple of things, one being that the Gospel is heavily focused on Jerusalem and the other that the author plainly had shared discussion with Jesus that delved deeper into certain issues than Jesus did with the other disciples/apostles. That would explain why the fourth Gospel is so much different from the rest. For that matter, there is fair reason to believe that this John had at least some formal study, one aspect being how frequently he uses word plays and other forms of using a word in double meanings, something that rabbis did often as a sort of teaching tool because it made the student/hearer ask, "Which meaning is he using? or is he using both at once?" The classic example is of course John 3:16 with the word ἄνωθεν (AHN-oh then), most frequently rendered as "again", but given to whom Jesus is speaking means "from above" first of all, and in fact since the word was used by rabbis of the time as a circumlocution for "(from) heaven". As an educated Jewish leader, Nicodemus would have seen all those meanings together; it isn't that he misunderstood Jesus that he asked about entering the womb again, it was a common ploy to respond to an assertion bearing multiple meanings to take the "lowest" meaning and address it (so contrary to one of my Sunday School teachers long ago, this doesn't show Nicodemus as a simpleton but as a scholar addressing another scholar). Another is the meeting between Jesus and the woman of Samaria, where there are two instances: what is commonly translated as "living" in reference to water is the term used for "flowing" water, a fact that helps make sense of the woman's objection about the well and the word for "husband". One of my grad school professors noted that Jesus had presented her with a couple of choices, one being that He was claiming to be a magician able to conjure flowing water, another that He was a madman who thought he was a magician, and the version she opted for -- that He was a prophet. Another depicted her thought process on hearing Jesus talk about "flowing water" as, "Sure, right, you've got a river in your pocket! or maybe just a wadi". This was clearly recognized by the early church in the prescription that "living water", i.e. flowing water, be used for baptism [trivia: there may be a link here to the fact that many baptisms were performed standing in water but using a pitcher to pour water over the one being baptized, thus making it flowing water and by extension "living" water or the water of life]. The other is the use of ἀνδρὸς (an-DROS) for "husband" and at the same time in its bare literal meaning of "man". Jesus actually gets a bit earthy here when He says "You have had five men", a phrase that meant pretty much what it would today -- though translators tend to avoid the earthy meaning and translate ἀνδρὸς as "husband" (even though Jesus is clearly making the point that a husband is exactly what she doesn't have).

Whoa -- didn't mean to digress so much! At any rate, the big problem I had when I first met this suggestion was that the author of that particular article maintained that the dialogue in John was manufactured as opposed to reported, not quite employing the "Jesus the uneducated peasant" meme but definitely implying it. But IMO the evidence points pretty much the other way, that Jesus spoke Greek and John is using Jesus' own words. And while John may have had in mind that the words in the sixth chapter of his Gospel (not that it has chapters yet) definitely reflected the Eucharist from the post-Resurrection perspective I don't buy that he manufactured them, only that he decided the time was right for those particular words to be set down for all to read and that it was Jesus who used words that His church would certainly come to connect with the Supper He knew was coming.

 

[GDL]

I encountered a suggestion that the author of John is not the brother of James, but a different John who lived in Jerusalem. Apparently there are hints of this in early commentaries, and it does make sense of a couple of things, one being that the Gospel is heavily focused on Jerusalem and the other that the author plainly had shared discussion with Jesus that delved deeper into certain issues than Jesus did with the other disciples/apostles. That would explain why the fourth Gospel is so much different from the rest. For that matter, there is fair reason to believe that this John had at least some formal study, one aspect being how frequently he uses word plays and other forms of using a word in double meanings, something that rabbis did often as a sort of teaching tool because it made the student/hearer ask, "Which meaning is he using? or is he using both at once?" The classic example is of course John 3:16 with the word ἄνωθεν (AHN-oh then), most frequently rendered as "again", but given to whom Jesus is speaking means "from above" first of all, and in fact since the word was used by rabbis of the time as a circumlocution for "(from) heaven". As an educated Jewish leader, Nicodemus would have seen all those meanings together; it isn't that he misunderstood Jesus that he asked about entering the womb again, it was a common ploy to respond to an assertion bearing multiple meanings to take the "lowest" meaning and address it (so contrary to one of my Sunday School teachers long ago, this doesn't show Nicodemus as a simpleton but as a scholar addressing another scholar). Another is the meeting between Jesus and the woman of Samaria, where there are two instances: what is commonly translated as "living" in reference to water is the term used for "flowing" water, a fact that helps make sense of the woman's objection about the well and the word for "husband". One of my grad school professors noted that Jesus had presented her with a couple of choices, one being that He was claiming to be a magician able to conjure flowing water, another that He was a madman who thought he was a magician, and the version she opted for -- that He was a prophet. Another depicted her thought process on hearing Jesus talk about "flowing water" as, "Sure, right, you've got a river in your pocket! or maybe just a wadi". This was clearly recognized by the early church in the prescription that "living water", i.e. flowing water, be used for baptism [trivia: there may be a link here to the fact that many baptisms were performed standing in water but using a pitcher to pour water over the one being baptized, thus making it flowing water and by extension "living" water or the water of life]. The other is the use of ἀνδρὸς (an-DROS) for "husband" and at the same time in its bare literal meaning of "man". Jesus actually gets a bit earthy here when He says "You have had five men", a phrase that meant pretty much what it would today -- though translators tend to avoid the earthy meaning and translate ἀνδρὸς as "husband" (even though Jesus is clearly making the point that a husband is exactly what she doesn't have).

Whoa -- didn't mean to digress so much! At any rate, the big problem I had when I first met this suggestion was that the author of that particular article maintained that the dialogue in John was manufactured as opposed to reported, not quite employing the "Jesus the uneducated peasant" meme but definitely implying it. But IMO the evidence points pretty much the other way, that Jesus spoke Greek and John is using Jesus' own words. And while John may have had in mind that the words in the sixth chapter of his Gospel (not that it has chapters yet) definitely reflected the Eucharist from the post-Resurrection perspective I don't buy that he manufactured them, only that he decided the time was right for those particular words to be set down for all to read and that it was Jesus who used words that His church would certainly come to connect with the Supper He knew was coming.

Good digressing! One of the benefits of being in the Greek is realizing some of the things you mention, including how translators normally working in teams with a goal towards publishing for large audiences will soften things. I for one enjoy the unedited realities of seeing how God really views things and how writers like John bring out levels of thought. Also, as you note, the Hebrew background of so much in the Text is just another layer of seeing the Truth of what's there.

Good stuff! Thanks!

 

[Roymond]

Doesn't the Hebrews 10:3 look like a reminder to the worshippers based upon 10:2 and especially the last clause?

Just to have the text handy:

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder [ἀνάμνησις] of sins every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

"Would no longer have any consciousness of sins" is a bit of a puzzling phrase even when the Greek is considered: συνείδησιν (syn-EY-day-sin) is almost universally rendered as "conscience" everywhere in the New Testament, except in this verse. Here the generally accepted meaning hearkens back to more classical Greek, where συνείδησιν meant awareness, consciousness, knowledge, information, even communication -- an interpretation not unfitting given how much closer to classical the prose of Hebrews is. It's hard to imagine that "consciousness" here means "awareness" or "knowledge" since when we are forgiven and absolved we most certainly don't lose our memory of those sins we confessed.
At any rate, yes, the ἀνάμνησις here includes a reminder to the worshippers, But that doesn't preclude this being a memorial sacrifice, since in order for us to remind God of His promises we must first remember them ourselves. The interesting thing is that the 'memorial' part of things isn't a separate sacrifice/action but is part of the regular sacrifices -- a point that has implications as far as the concept of the "sacrifice of the Mass", i.e. the Eucharist as sacrifice: on the one hand it is a memorial sacrifice wherein we call on God to remember His promises, and on the other hand it is a sacrifice offered to God, not anew, but as a piece of the sacrifice on the Cross, that event reaching across time and space to us just as it reached back in time to the disciples in the Upper Room-- one sacrifice, made now two millennia past, binding the church together as one altar, one table.
[That latter is a concept picked up by a mystic in the middle ages who (as I heard the story) interrupted a group of fellow monks who were counting up how many altars there were within a day's travel: the mystic cut in and said the counting was wrong, that there is just one altar because there is just one sacrifice, just one Body and just one Blood, just one Sacrament -- and so there was just one altar in the entire world, no matter how much it might look to humans that there are many. Modern Christians don't think that way, and I consider that a great loss.]