|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Stupid christian questions - what's this eucharist thing all about
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's a great deal of difference between "This is my body" and "I am a piece of bread".
Well, as you assert. I don't think there is any material difference at all.
At the level of representation and reminder, which is far less complex than the level of eucharistic anamnesis -
"This is a statue of Winston Churchill."
"Winston Churchill is a lump of stone."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
That is essentially irrelevant, and I suspect you know it.
The point is that there are 'I am' phrases throughout the scriptures that everyone takes to be poetic/symbolic/narrative. There is this one occasion where the sacramentalists insist that when Jesus said 'this bread is my body' he meant it literally (which would presumably make him guilty of eating himself).
You can only really assert that there is a difference from a position that says there is a difference between these phrases. I am sure to you it is plainly obvious, to me it is not.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sticking a nose in--
The difference is that the other statements all come in contexts that make it clear a simile/metaphor is intended. Like, preaching and teaching, with a bunch of parables, metaphors, etc. all swimming around. But when someone just pops out with "This is my body" with no linguistic play going on in the vicinity, AND he's been known to say odder supernatural things (and turn up right, like the times he predicted his own resurrection), well, you can't really blame his hearers for taking him literally.
I figure that if Jesus rolls his eyes at me on the Last Day and asks me why I was such a putz as to take him literally, I'm going to have a pretty good case against him ("Well, Lord, you keep going on about our lack of faith, and the one time you get it you complain? come on now!").
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
That is essentially irrelevant, and I suspect you know it.
The point is that there are 'I am' phrases throughout the scriptures that everyone takes to be poetic/symbolic/narrative. There is this one occasion where the sacramentalists insist that when Jesus said 'this bread is my body' he meant it literally (which would presumably make him guilty of eating himself).
You can only really assert that there is a difference from a position that says there is a difference between these phrases. I am sure to you it is plainly obvious, to me it is not.
But Jesus wasn't making an "I am" statement, He was making a "this is me" statement.
There's a difference between saying "I am the door" and "This door is me."
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Since many (Protestant) charistmatics reject the whole idea of the early church, that's bound to be their exegesis.
"reject the whole idea of the early church"?
Not sure what that's meant to mean. They certainly believe the early church existed!
If anything its the other way round. They are often committed to imitating the early church. That's whey they spend so much time reading Paul and Acts and so on, and trying to base their church life on what they see there. Most of them seem to think that their church practices are more like those of the early church than the more Catholic ones are.
Its a bit liek the Protestant Reformers. They thought that the Catholic Church had accumulated too many man-made traditions that covered up and obscured what was given to the eApostles and the earliest churches by Jersus. So they wanted to go "back to basics", throw away some of the traditions and get back to Jesus and the Apostles, as described in the New Testament.
Lots of the recent charismatics thought the same thing as well. The Protestant churches had themselves accumulated too much tradtion, too much man-made baggage, just as the Catholics had earlier. They wanted to chuck that out, have a spring-cleaning, and restore the Church to what it should have been all along, what it perhaps was right at the begining.
That's one reason for their worship practices. As they saw it their worship, based around songs directly addressed to God, and around the "gifts of the Spirit", was about recognising that in worship we are in the presences of Almighty God, we are in a sense in heaven participating in the worship of the angels, standing along side them, before the throne of God, in the eternal spoiritual heavenly temple (just look at the words of their songs).
To them a Cathoilic or Anglican or Orthodox Eucharist would seem like a lot of overcomplex ritual that was getting in the way of the believer's direct connection to God, it would have seemed as if it demanded that the worshippers go through human mediators and speak man-made words and repeat man-made actions - things which they found unhelpful, unneccesary at best, actually harmful at worst, putting a barrier between the worshipers and their Lord.
So far from rejecting the early church they thought they were restoring life of the early church, getting back to basics, practising the presence of God, enjoying the real presence of Christ in worship. If Jesus is among us, if the Spirit is in us, if the Father inhabits our worship, why do we need complex man-made rituals to make him really present? He's already here!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
Well yes Ken, that's a good analysis of how many Charismatic and Evangelical Churches look at the 1stC Church and their relationship to it.
I think Komensky might have been referring to the 3rd and 4th century though... whole different story there! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
The point is that there are 'I am' phrases throughout the scriptures that everyone takes to be poetic/symbolic/narrative. There is this one occasion where the sacramentalists insist that when Jesus said 'this bread is my body' he meant it literally
I don't know, I take "I am the resurrection and the life" fairly literally.
Actually I don't think there is a binary "poetic/symbolic/narrative/not really true" category vs "literally true".
"I am the good shepherd" is not literally true in the sense of being a shepherd of actual sheep (although I dare say he looks after them in a sense as well), but is literally true in the sense of being our actual shepherd.
"I am the resurrection" isn't true in the sense of Jesus having identity with an abstract noun, but I take as literally true in the sense of relating to a real and literal event, which we hope may be extended to us as a real and literal event.
Hence sacramentalists don't actually believe the bread is in fact identical with Jesus' physical body, but do take it some more literal on the continuum than memorialists.
(By the way we still don't know how you can be confident that the bible accurately records Jesus' words on this matter in the first place).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
There's a difference between saying "I am the door" and "This door is me."
Thank you for bringing this up. Some argue that the words of institution are purely metaphorical, just as in John 10:1-7, "I am the door of the sheep" is purely metaphorical.
Not so fast. One is tempted to ask for the objector's core dump on the subject of Palestinian sheepfolds. It probably does not include the important fact that they had no door or gate, other than the shepherd's own body, when he lay down across the opening at night. It may be metaphorical for Christ to describe Himself as a shepherd; but for a shepherd to describe himself as a door would be very literal: a door that would keep the sheep safely in and various marauders out, and bear the brunt of an attack.
When we go on to consider the Eucharistic context of this imagery, it becomes all the more illuminating: not only does the Good Shepherd do this, but the Eucharist is one way that He does.
And it involves His Body in a palpable way.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
That is essentially irrelevant, and I suspect you know it.
The point is that there are 'I am' phrases throughout the scriptures that everyone takes to be poetic/symbolic/narrative. There is this one occasion where the sacramentalists insist that when Jesus said 'this bread is my body' he meant it literally (which would presumably make him guilty of eating himself).
The "I am" phrases are found mostly in the fourth Gospel, which (as I'm sure you know) lacks an institution narrative.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Since many (Protestant) charistmatics reject the whole idea of the early church, that's bound to be their exegesis.
"reject the whole idea of the early church"?
Not sure what that's meant to mean. They certainly believe the early church existed!
If anything its the other way round. They are often committed to imitating the early church. That's whey they spend so much time reading Paul and Acts and so on, and trying to base their church life on what they see there. Most of them seem to think that their church practices are more like those of the early church than the more Catholic ones are.
But Ken, where this falls down is that our canon relies on a consensus of the Church c. mid-4th century as to what Scripture is.
I really don't see a way we can validate that particular decision of the 4th-century Church while rejecting the rest of its theology.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[But Ken, where this falls down is that our canon relies on a consensus of the Church c. mid-4th century as to what Scripture is.
I really don't see a way we can validate that particular decision of the 4th-century Church while rejecting the rest of its theology.
Take that up with Terry Virgo! What I wrote was at least partly my memories of his preaching in the 1970s and early 1980s when he was trying to persuade us Anglicans to come out and join his church. As I carried on in the CofE it obviously didn't entirely work with me.
Though its not entirely unreasonable to suppose that inspired Scripture existed before anyone sat down and wrote a list of it. Such a list is only needed when there is soubt about the matter - so if you had a very idealistic notion of the early church you might think that the legalistic promulgation of the canon of Scripture (and other doctrinal statements) is a sign that things had fallen off from their original state!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Another distinction at least from the Church's view is that "This is my body" and "This is my blood" has never been interpreted to mean that all bread or all wine is like the body and blood of Christ. It's only in the context of Christian community, that this is mentioned.
So, if I go to a store and pick up a loaf and say "This is the body of Christ", I might well make a metaphorical statement there. But it has no actual sacramental validity. As in, it is only in the context of the Christian community, that consecration occurs.
Because of that, we can speak that there is a very real change that occurs from bread being bought at the store to its distribution among Christians in the context of the Eucharistic service. Saying that the Institution narrative is mere metaphor.
Maybe a better analogy is with marriage. I'm tempted to ask Mudfrog if his denomination doesn't believe in marriage, after all if all life is sacramental, then there is no spiritual difference between a couple before marriage and a couple after marriage.
Putting aside the legal changes of marriage, we can say that there is no visible changes that occurs in marriage. Presumably the couple already love each other, so marriage doesn't create love. We could say that marriage is a way for the community to "recognize" that love but to me, that is a weak argument. I recognize a loving couple when they walk hand-in-hand down the street. I certainly don't need a full-blown liturgy to figure out if two people love each other. And there are couples who would say the same thing, that they don't need a wedding to express their love.
The sacramental argument is to me an argument for God's active grace. A sacramentalist would never deny that all life is sacramental, that all life is a means of God's grace. However, I would argue that God's active grace is transformative, that things change because of God's loving presence. So the bread that Christians break together and the wine that they share, become through the grace of God, the means in which Christians commune with their Lord. In marriage, God's supernatural grace is given to the couple so that they become joined together.
There is a change when grace occurs. How that change happens remains a mystery.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I find the whole concept of "sacrament" fascinating and even the secular world is sacramental in many ways.
Let's take the example of the recent Diamond Jubilee celebrations (and those who are republicans or generally dislike the monarchy, please bear with me, because it's just an example which applies to other institutions and secular arrangements). As I write this I have spread in front of me a double page photo of the crowd on the Mall on the last day of the Jubilee holiday. It's a sea of humanity dominated by one single overwhelming symbol: the Union Flag.
Now I would say the use of this flag is "sacramental". If we just wanted to be reminded that we are British and we are celebrating something to do with our country, why not just hold up posters with patriotic slogans on them, or just display maps of the country or whatever (or just pictures of the Queen)? Of course, this would be banal and absurd. The symbol of the Union Flag goes beyond just "reminding" us which country we are in and which culture we are celebrating. It's a symbol that seems to almost incarnate the country itself and when we wrap ourselves in the flag - especially as a large group of compatriots, are we not creating a kind of unity? Hence the power of the flag in commemorations and especially military funerals. Can it really be true that a Union Flag draped over the coffin of a soldier is just there as a glorified identity tag? It's sacramental, meaning (as I see it) that it is a powerful symbol that ministers something intangible but important. It cannot simply be reduced to the intellectual. One naturally feels that life would be so much poorer without this kind of powerful and meaningful symbolism.
It is not surprising therefore that some countries - like the USA - have a strict flag code, because they understand this issue. When an enemy of the USA burns the Stars and Stripes, they are not just burning a reminder that the USA happens to exist, but it's surely more "personal" and one could say "sacrilegious". It's as if the nation itself is "incarnated" in some way in the flag.
Now I think in a very crude way, the eucharist is (in one respect) like the unifying "flag" of the Church. Of course, it is much, much more than that, and I certainly believe in the Real Presence and that we are partaking of Christ's body and blood in a spiritual sense. But it is something tangible and simple (like a flag) that we rally round and through which we affirm and celebrate our unity. And this practical unity is not based on an eloquent preacher, a dynamic worship leader, an august religious institution, "correct" theology, but on "Christ crucified". That is why the eucharist is so extremely important, and I regard it as the central act of Christian worship. It humbles us all. There cannot be (or certainly should not be) any posturing around the table of the Lord, as there can be in other aspects of Christian worship.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let's take the example of the recent Diamond Jubilee celebrations ...
It is not surprising therefore that some countries - like the USA - have a strict flag code, because they understand this issue.
Actually, because they don't have a Queen. The symbol - analagous to a sacrament - of the nature of a monarchy is the monarch. Other systems have to give that role to an inanimate object, such as a flag or a constitution.
(It's one of the reasons I'm a monarchist: I'd far rather have a human being as our symbol of what our nationhood means, than a bit of coloured cloth or some fine words).
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Protestants don't believe that marriage is a sacrament.
Many, in fact, don't believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament either; it's an ordinance.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is a sacrament.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Protestants don't believe that marriage is a sacrament.
Many, in fact, don't believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament either; it's an ordinance.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is a sacrament.
Since there is no word corresponding to "sacrament" in the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament, that is hardly surprising.
The word "sacrament" is a Latin derivative.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
There's nothing in the Bible to say it's an ordinance, whatever that is. Sounds too legalistic to be in the realm of grace.
But I do know what Jesus said in Saint John 6:26-70
which Christians have ever taken from time immemorial as refering to the Mass.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Protestants don't believe that marriage is a sacrament.
Many, in fact, don't believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament either; it's an ordinance.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is a sacrament.
Since there is no word corresponding to "sacrament" in the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament, that is hardly surprising.
The word "sacrament" is a Latin derivative.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
Yes I did.
The word used in the Vulgate -'sacramentum' - is the Latin word used to translate 'mysterion - mystery (as in mystery of faith).
According to Paul the mystery of faith is 'Christ in you.'
We don't need bread and wine for that.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
There's nothing in the Bible to say it's an ordinance, whatever that is. Sounds too legalistic to be in the realm of grace.
But I do know what Jesus said in Saint John 6:26-70
which Christians have ever taken from time immemorial as refering to the Mass.
No they haven't.
What did Jesus mean by it?
What did the disciples take it to mean on that hillside in AD32?
What did the crowds who turned away think about it?
You can be sure they didn't consider a Latin Mass!
You really need to think about John 6 using the mind of a 1st century Jew, not a 16th century Italian Catholic.
[ 07. June 2012, 22:28: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
There's nothing in the Bible to say it's an ordinance, whatever that is. Sounds too legalistic to be in the realm of grace.
But I do know what Jesus said in Saint John 6:26-70
which Christians have ever taken from time immemorial as refering to the Mass.
An ordinance is an authoritative command.
"Do this" is such a command, as is 'this is my commandment, that ye love one another.'
The question regarding that first ordinance 'do this' must be 'Do what?'
[ 07. June 2012, 22:31: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Protestants don't believe that marriage is a sacrament.
Many, in fact, don't believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament either; it's an ordinance.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is a sacrament.
Since there is no word corresponding to "sacrament" in the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament, that is hardly surprising.
The word "sacrament" is a Latin derivative.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
Yes I did.
The word used in the Vulgate -'sacramentum' - is the Latin word used to translate 'mysterion - mystery (as in mystery of faith).
According to Paul the mystery of faith is 'Christ in you.'
We don't need bread and wine for that.
Not wishing to be overly argumentative in Purgatory, but your logic strikes me a bit like suggesting that online versions of the Bible have no value, since the word "computer" is not found in the Old or New Testament.
Or that Google maps of Northwestern America have no value, since Google is not mentioned in the records of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Second time in living memory I heartily agree with Silver Faux. But when a chap is right, dammit, he's right.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
The word Trinity doesn't exist in the Bible either. But giving the word itself a bye, there is no one place in the Bible that even says flatly: "God is one God, but also exists in three persons, the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit". The concept is put together by examination and meditation of many parts in the Bible. A case can be made for a memorialist view of communion, after all there are a lot of metaphors in scripture. But the case has also been made for Real Presence. One can take Christ's words totally literally here, that in the communion supper we partake of the Son's living being "whenever we do this in remembrance of me". Again it's one of those things we can discuss until we're blue in the face, but people will choose the concept that seems most persuasive to them and usually choose a denomination that reflects that in worship.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You really need to think about John 6 using the mind of a 1st century Jew, not a 16th century Italian Catholic.
No: you need to think about it using the mind of a 21st century whatever-you-are. Or has the Holy Spirit done nothing for us in 2000 years?
As to your other comment on the command "Do this," and your response, "Do what?" - again, I disagree. When Jesus says "Do this," the only legitimate response is, "Yes, Lord."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
No: you need to think about it using the mind of a 21st century whatever-you-are. Or has the Holy Spirit done nothing for us in 2000 years?
The church has claimed all kinds of insights are from the Holy Spirit. For @mudfrog to claim that your insight is not from the Holy Spirit is nothing particularly spectacular - in the same way you reject all sorts of counter claims that people make for Spirit-led insight.
quote:
As to your other comment on the command "Do this," and your response, "Do what?" - again, I disagree. When Jesus says "Do this," the only legitimate response is, "Yes, Lord."
Don't talk drivel. You're seriously telling me that if you heard the voice of God telling you to take your son to a mountaintop to be sacrificed. then your only legitimate response would be 'yes Lord'?
There are many serious and legitimate questions to be asked, including - who was he talking to, is he talking to us (in the 21 century at all), what was he telling them to do, how was he telling them to do it, for what purpose, and so forth.
To deny that these things are 'legitimate' is to suggest that your beliefs are so self-evident and clearly Spirit-led to trump any other argument and thinking.
Bullshit.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
You might also disagree with what Jesus says! I suppose that would be considered illegitimate by some, or not 'true Christian'™.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Bullshit.
Peace be with you too, Friend.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
To deny that these things are 'legitimate' is to suggest that your beliefs are so self-evident and clearly Spirit-led to trump any other argument and thinking.
May I point out that you have quite frequently dismissed other arguments as "irrelevant" on this thread without an awful lot of supporting discussion.
I think that your view that the bible accurately reports Jesus and his words but not other material about the early church, and that the church was erroneous in developing the eucharist but not in compiling a record of Jesus words needs some more "argument and thinking" to go with it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@mdijon, I don't think a discussion of scripture is relevant to this discussion. Of course you are free to make up any-old-crap you think I believe in.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@mdijon, I don't think a discussion of scripture is relevant to this discussion. Of course you are free to make up any-old-crap you think I believe in.
As portrayed by you in this discussion, your take on the eucharist and sacraments in general is based on whether there is a 'commandment of Jesus' which mandates them, and you are adamant in one post that you don't hold the scriptures as normative.
How then is a discussion of scripture irrelevant to your views?
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Mudfrog, I suspect Mama Thomas was referring to the Eucharist more generally rather than the Latin Mass specifically.
In which case, there is still a point to be made. Even if one takes a memorialist stand-point it's still incontrovertible that the eucharist formed part of the earliest Christian worship. Whether it was originally celebrated in the context of a shared meal or whether it was done in a form that later evolved into the ceremonies we associate with the RCs, the Orthodox and the upper reaches of Anglicanism - it was still celebrated.
I don't think that non-sacramentalist or informally sacramentalist Christians such as the Salvation Army would dispute that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@mdijon, I don't think a discussion of scripture is relevant to this discussion. Of course you are free to make up any-old-crap you think I believe in.
My reasoning is along the lines AberVicar point out.
If I've wrongly distilled your views, maybe you could discuss so that I understand how irrelevant my line of reasoning is. But without any such discussion it's difficult for me to change my mind.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
you are adamant in one post that you don't hold the scriptures as normative.
How then is a discussion of scripture irrelevant to your views?
Or if the scriptures are not normative, then what is?
At least in this part of the world, Quakers and Episcopalians get along remarkably well, perhaps because we share a love of peace and quiet. But as much as I like and respect the Friends, I could never be one. As C.S. Lewis described the situation, religions are like soups, thick or thin. That of the Friends would have to be among the thinnest. Others feel a need for sustenance that sticks to one's ribs a little more.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Well, I don't think it is relevant because I take the words of Jesus as described in the gospels as accurate. If I didn't, then I wouldn't need to find a way to try to understand the text as I could just dismiss it as inaccurate.
As I said before, the argument is not over what Jesus said, but what it meant.
I don't believe this 'commandment of Jesus' was one which should be applied to all believers from that day to this.
@mdijon, I am in no sense attempting to change your mind. I am very happy for you all to continue on in error ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
@Alogon, I suspect you've not actually read Fox, otherwise you would not be able to say such things. The modern Quaker movement is a pale reflection of the intelligence and Christ-centred writings of George Fox to the extent that I am sure he would not regard them as religious compatriots. He clearly did not regard the vast majority of the Church as having anything to do with true Christianity.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well, I don't think it is relevant because I take the words of Jesus as described in the gospels as accurate.
Yet you said earlier, in reply to Anglican Brat, that you don't take the Scriptures to be inerrant.
Anglican Brat and Irish Lord have already raised the issue where you seem to be at odds with yourself, and that is: given that the words of Jesus in the Gospels were only finally agreed after a couple of centuries, and given that the same Church which agreed the authenticity of the words of Jesus had already settled on its Eucharistic practice, what moves you to accept the former as accurate and the latter as mistaken?
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't believe this 'commandment of Jesus' was one which should be applied to all believers from that day to this.
In a sense, neither do I. He wasn't talking to the crowds of listeners in the Sermon on the Mount, but to a chosen group. The church sees the Last Supper, among other things, as the inauguration of the sacred priesthood.
quote:
I suspect you've not actually read Fox, ... He clearly did not regard the vast majority of the Church as having anything to do with true Christianity.
No, I must confess I haven't gotten to him yet--still working on the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ars longa, vita brevis. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Anyway, since Our Lord said, "Lo, I am with you always," a writer claiming that he is the first one to get it right after however many centuries sounds a little too arrogant to trust.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@mdijon, I am in no sense attempting to change your mind. I am very happy for you all to continue on in error
I was trying to discuss your position. I thought it was illogical. If you don't care to respond that's of course fine and legal between consenting adults, but it does in my mind devalue the discussion overall if you want to assert things but not deal with the assumptions that might underlie the assertions.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Anglican Brat and Irish Lord have already raised the issue where you seem to be at odds with yourself, and that is: given that the words of Jesus in the Gospels were only finally agreed after a couple of centuries, and given that the same Church which agreed the authenticity of the words of Jesus had already settled on its Eucharistic practice, what moves you to accept the former as accurate and the latter as mistaken?
I believe the words of Jesus recorded in scripture are accurate because they conform to the message I get from the Holy Spirit, the calm voice within.
I suspect that isn't going to be good enough for you, but there it is.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I was trying to discuss your position. I thought it was illogical. If you don't care to respond that's of course fine and legal between consenting adults, but it does in my mind devalue the discussion overall if you want to assert things but not deal with the assumptions that might underlie the assertions.
Fair enough, I think the other positions argued here are illogical. It isn't so much that I don't want to respond as much as I think the questions you are asking are irrelevant.
It simply doesn't matter to me who put the bible together. The fact is that the calm voice of God within tells me that the words of Jesus recorded in scripture are accurate.
How do I know that the scriptures are accurate? I don't, nor care. God can use anything and anyone he chooses, a lot of the time he seems to use the Christian scriptures - whether or not they are flawed.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Anglican Brat and Irish Lord have already raised the issue where you seem to be at odds with yourself, and that is: given that the words of Jesus in the Gospels were only finally agreed after a couple of centuries, ...
What? I don't think so!
You make it sound like the Gospels were written 'a couple of centuries' after the event.
The words of Jesus in the Gospels were agreed on during the time of the Apostles. The fact that Matthew and Luke used Mark's written words strongly suggests that they both saw the recorded words of Christ he wrote down as authoritative.
The council merely confirmed the authentic writings, discarding the dubious second rate ones, thus leaving the canon.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
It simply doesn't matter to me who put the bible together.
Although you say it doesn't matter, if the people who did it are the same people who you think got it so wrong regarding Jesus' intentions (or lack of them) for the eucharist, shouldn't it start to matter to you?
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
The fact is that the calm voice of God within tells me that the words of Jesus recorded in scripture are accurate.
So in essence you have an arbitrary personal basis for regarding parts of scripture as accurate despite regarding other parts of it as inaccurate.
Didn't you use the phrase "wishful thinking" earlier?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Anglican Brat and Irish Lord have already raised the issue where you seem to be at odds with yourself, and that is: given that the words of Jesus in the Gospels were only finally agreed after a couple of centuries, ...
The council merely confirmed the authentic writings, discarding the dubious second rate ones, thus leaving the canon.
Can you slip a knife in there for me? I can't find a chink wide enough.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Anglican Brat and Irish Lord have already raised the issue where you seem to be at odds with yourself, and that is: given that the words of Jesus in the Gospels were only finally agreed after a couple of centuries, ...
What? I don't think so!
You make it sound like the Gospels were written 'a couple of centuries' after the event.
Unfortunately that is not (even if stretched) the meaning of the words what I wrote...
Oh - and a PS: which council are you referring to?
[ 08. June 2012, 17:28: Message edited by: AberVicar ]
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
[QB] quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I was trying to discuss your position. I thought it was illogical. If you don't care to respond that's of course fine and legal between consenting adults, but it does in my mind devalue the discussion overall if you want to assert things but not deal with the assumptions that might underlie the assertions.
Fair enough, I think the other positions argued here are illogical. It isn't so much that I don't want to respond as much as I think the questions you are asking are irrelevant.
It simply doesn't matter to me who put the bible together. The fact is that the calm voice of God within tells me that the words of Jesus recorded in scripture are accurate.
How exactly do you discern the "calm voice of God" and your own voice?
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I would guess the voice that barks "Irrelevant!" and "Bullshit!" when questioned is less likely to be the still calm voice of the Lord.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I think this thread has really boiled down to questions about authoritative sources.
When considering sources, we have to remember that we all live in context. As in, when we interpret Scripture, we as human beings, can't say that "This is what Scripture says" as in there is an "objective" interpretation that is divorced from our own personal interpretation. The very nature of interpretation necessitates bringing our own biases and predispositions to the text, even if it is done unconsciously. No one on earth reads Scripture "objectively".
In the same way, if one claims direct personal revelation, whether in a form of dreams for example, that person by communicating that experience, also brings their own biases and predispositions. This isn't to say that all personal revelation is inauthentic or that God can't speak through people. It's that the very nature of human interpretation means that it is filtered through our own subjectivity.
As an incarnational Christian, I sometimes think that the yearning for an inerrant Bible or an infallible Church is an implicit rejection of the Incarnation which is why I'm never completely comfortable with fundamentalist Protestants or ultra-montane Catholics. Nor am I comfortable with extreme liberals who adhere to perfect reason. People want something perfect, clean and absolutely reliable. But being human is not perfect or clean or reliable. Being human is messy. The fact that God became human, means that God enters into that messiness, enters into that utter chaos of being humanity and transforms it. God does that not by destroying chaos to give us perfection, but by entering through it.
My view, Anglican I know, is that we should continue to use our sources of authority in struggling to discern God's will. The fact that discernment is messy doesn't mean that we should discard Scripture, Tradition, or even personal revelation. But it does mean that we should be humble and wary of ascribing anything akin to "perfect infallibility" to any one source.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think this thread has really boiled down to questions about authoritative sources.
...
If you are talking about the Eucharist here I would be extremely sad. (BTW I think your post excellent.)
I think the real "proof" of the Eucharist, like the real "proof" of Christianity, is that it resurrects lives. The Orthodox, who fully back its historicity and authenticity up with sources going right back to the Early Church, which includes the New Testament, refer to it as "the medicine of immortality".
The point of the Eucharist for "incarnational Christians", such as you or I, should be that, on receiving it, Christ is reincarnated within us and we are literally "resurrected" at that time and place. Sadly, we tend to erode the good effects of this by our own stupid actions.
I can understand stout Protestants not believing in the Eucharist, because of their interpretation of the Bible and I am sure that there are other ways they can share in incarnational grace. However, by throwing out the most ancient sources of Church Tradition (which I consider the Orthodox to have best retained) which inspire our understanding of the Bible I fear they do themselves a great disservice. "Liberal Christians", who think they can reduce the majesty of Christian Revelation to what they, or their current favourite theologians, are capable of mentally comprehending, IMO fall into the same trap.
Christianity, in its essence, is incomprehensible to the wordling. That is why you have Grace. I fear we moderns severely lack the Grace to understand.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
As an incarnational Christian, I sometimes think that the yearning for an inerrant Bible or an infallible Church is an implicit rejection of the Incarnation ...
The idea that the Bible speaks with one voice could be considered an implicit rejection of incarnation, but that's not the same as saying the Bible is not inerrant.
Same goes for a church. I don't think we have a Scriptural warrant for a church that speaks with one voice, one bloke at the front saying "this is the correct doctrine, this is the official teaching of the Church. all you have to do is believe it". Church should speak with many voices, including dissenting ones. But I believe that because I believe the Bible is God's inerrant revelation, not in spite of it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
longing
Apprentice
# 17154
|
Posted
I felt at my conformation (last year at the ripe old age of 25), that, compared to my usual church congregation of about 12, it was incredible to be sharing my first communion with over 200 people who were all one with Christ. My first communion was, I think, in the awe of the moment, more remembrance than experiencing Christ's sacramental presence. However, as time has gone on I have more come to realise that Christ's sacrifice didn't just take place 2000 years ago, it in fact happens every week, every day even - his sacrifice is real, current and ongoing - the kingdom of god is still present today. I feel in some mysterious way he must be present in the bread and wine for it to be anything more than a simple gesture.
Love this hymn - thanks IngoB
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium
Down in adoration falling,
This great Sacrament we hail,
O'er ancient forms of worship
Newer rites of grace prevail;
Faith will tell us Christ is present,
When our human senses fail.
To the Everlasting Father,
And the Son who made us free
And the Spirit, God proceeding
From them Each eternally,
Be salvation, honour, blessing,
Might and endless majesty.
Amen. Alleluia.
--- St. Thomas Aquinas
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think this thread has really boiled down to questions about authoritative sources.
When considering sources, we have to remember that we all live in context. As in, when we interpret Scripture, we as human beings, can't say that "This is what Scripture says" as in there is an "objective" interpretation that is divorced from our own personal interpretation. The very nature of interpretation necessitates bringing our own biases and predispositions to the text, even if it is done unconsciously. No one on earth reads Scripture "objectively".
In the same way, if one claims direct personal revelation, whether in a form of dreams for example, that person by communicating that experience, also brings their own biases and predispositions. This isn't to say that all personal revelation is inauthentic or that God can't speak through people. It's that the very nature of human interpretation means that it is filtered through our own subjectivity.
As an incarnational Christian, I sometimes think that the yearning for an inerrant Bible or an infallible Church is an implicit rejection of the Incarnation which is why I'm never completely comfortable with fundamentalist Protestants or ultra-montane Catholics. Nor am I comfortable with extreme liberals who adhere to perfect reason. People want something perfect, clean and absolutely reliable. But being human is not perfect or clean or reliable. Being human is messy. The fact that God became human, means that God enters into that messiness, enters into that utter chaos of being humanity and transforms it. God does that not by destroying chaos to give us perfection, but by entering through it.
My view, Anglican I know, is that we should continue to use our sources of authority in struggling to discern God's will. The fact that discernment is messy doesn't mean that we should discard Scripture, Tradition, or even personal revelation. But it does mean that we should be humble and wary of ascribing anything akin to "perfect infallibility" to any one source.
This is a very interesting thread; as the OP points out, even people in the same church can differ deeply on the meaning of the Eucharist, and yet it has been central to the practice of Christianity from the beginning.
I very much like what A B says here about sources, about incarnation, about the general messiness of life, and the impossibility of certainty about a question like this.
Perhaps because I grew up as an RC, I feel there's something missing in a church that doesn't offer communion every Sunday. I'm an Anglican now but definitely prefer a parish where there is weekly communion.
What I love about the Eucharist is its mixture of the earthy and the spiritual--just like life. And the idea that Christ is present (and like C S Lewis, I don't need to understand exactly how) in such basic things as bread and wine...and that in celebrating the Eucharist we are joining with other Christians across 2,000 years and over the world.
Although of course there have been many different ways of understanding the Eucharist, and different ideas about how often it is suitable to receive it, over those 2,000 years and across the world.
And yet the basics, because they are so basic, remain:
bread, wine, remembering Jesus, repeating his words of institution, eating together, offering praise and thanksgiving, and inviting? accepting? longing for? the living presence of Jesus in the Eucharist: the idea of spiritual food.
And so all Christians have this in common.
cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
