|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Stupid christian questions - what's this eucharist thing all about
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
This may well be the wrong forum for it (in which case I'm sure I'll get redirected appropriately or to the bin)...
So I thought I vaguely understood Christianity. Obviously we were in complete disagreement on some key points, but I knew roughly what it was about.
However after talking to a few friends recently I find this Eucharist thing is very important, but also very unclear. And seems to trigger wildly differing explanations depending who you ask.
Obviously I can read wikipedia but, err... why's it so important? What's it all about? Is there a better web page?
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
Well, according to Catholics, Orthodox and some ultra-high Anglicans, it's an act of cannibalism, but protestants generally regard it as simply a memorial of Christ's sacrifice for us. There are shades of opinion between those two positions, but I'm no theologian, so someone else will have to go into the details.
Welcome aboard, btw.
[ 05. June 2012, 17:13: Message edited by: Steve H ]
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I've moved from memorial to mystery where I invincibly ignorantly remain ... for now.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Well, this isn't a highly theologically perfected reply but I'll have a go.
Communion (Eucharist if you like) for me is at the heart of Christian worship. It belongs there because on a simple level it was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. It also reminds us of much of what makes Christianity more than just another nice moral system in so much as we're reminded of Jesus' death on the cross. I feel that it also serves as a means of binding the community of the faithful together.
Personally, as someone who has come back to Church after a long time away, it's a highly intimate and personal encounter with God. It's me coming face to face with him and taking him physically into me. I see this as both a literal and symbolic act on my part as I believe in the real presence.
I have realised I have a very sacramental approach to Christianity and it's not one that everyone needs to share for their opinion to be valid, but it's my two cents at any rate.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Nothing, it isn't about anything. One misunderstanding extrapolated and misinterpreted for 2000 years.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mstevens:
Is there a better web page?
Its called St John's Gospel.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice Macrina. What I should have said.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by mstevens:
Is there a better web page?
Its called St John's Gospel.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
It provides hospital chaplains with an excuse to wake sleeping, desperately ill patients, since chaplains can not do so to give them an enema or injection or to take their temperature.
Also, it preserves one's soul to eternal life, amd is a remembrance of Christ's death until we feast with Him in glory.
And it unites the Christian community, on both sides of the grave.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I now wish that, from the day I was confirmed, I had kept a "eucharistic diary", recording all the various aspects of this experience that had struck me at various times over the years.
The idea that it were a "misunderstanding" maintained for two thousand years has very little precedent. Unless, of course, The Lone Ranger rejects the entire Christian faith, I am curious what primary sources he can cite to dispute the received testimony as to what was said and done in the upper room. When and where did this misunderstanding arise?
According to Msgr. M. Francis Mannion in an article that I've linked many times before, The Church and the City, the Eucharistic liturgy is central to the church's mission of bringing about the Kingdom of God. Every great city has a ceremony that epitomizes it, during which it is more itself than at any other time. For the church as the heavenly city, this ceremony is the Eucharist. It is a focus of that other holy trinity, the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, wherewith the church presents her answer to the tendency of our earthly cities to take after Rameses (the city of cruelty and slavery), or Babel (the city of confusion and lies), or Philistia (the city of ugliness and squalor).
Thanks to scientific data, we can now appreciate more objectively than ever before the life-sustaining power of gratitude. To the extent that this was at least an intuitive insight earlier (as I don't doubt), the church is certainly no stranger to it. From the start, she has never forgotten or neglected Eucharist=thanksgiving. Given this tradition, perhaps her survival for almost two millenia, longer than any other Western institution, becomes a little more understandable.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Steve H, you really need to get out more, because your description of the Eucharist is not only insulting to many, if not most, of your fellow Christians here but also inaccurate. And answering what I trust is an honest question from a sincere seeker in a flip and disrespectful way? Really? Is that the best you can do here to help someone?
Dear OP: You are right to note that, while most Christians celebrate the Eucharist one way or the other (citing Jesus' modeling of it during the Last Supper and his instruction to "Do this"), different Christians have a different understanding of what is going on during the Eucharist.
Christians in the broad catholic tradition of Christianity -- Christians who affirm the ancient faith statements of the early Church, whose worship preserves the pattern of the ancient church, who respect the development of theological concepts in the early Church -- Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, many if not most Anglicans, Lutherans, I'll include Presbyterians and at least some of the Methodists I know -- understand Christ to be present in the Eucharist in a real, mystical way. Even among these groups the definition of the Real Presence is different; while RC's believe that in consecration the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the physical body and blood of Christ, the Orthodox and Lutheranglipalian branches of the small-c catholic churches, while still affirming Christ's physical presence in the Eucharist, are hesitant to get too technical about HOW Christ is present; no matter what their terminology (in my Lutheran tradition we say that Christ is "in, with and under" the bread and wine, which in turn still maintain their bread-ness and wine-ness;-)), they chalk it up to a Divine Mystery that we simply trust and celebrate. The Presbies go perhaps a step away from a physical Real Presence and maintain that Jesus is present in the Eucharist in a spiritual, but nonetheless very real, way. In Real Presence churches the Eucharist is seen as a means of grace -- a means by which believers receive forgiveness, spiritual strength, the peace of God's immediate presence and, in sharing this meal together, a "foretaste of the Feast to come" with God and all God's people in the realized Reign of God.
(Since this is a Cliff Notes version of comparative Eucharistic theologies, I will freely admit that this is a very simple, non-nuanced explanation, so if any members of the aforementioned faith traditions want to flesh out, so to speak, their understanding of the Eucharist, feel free.)
For other Christians who trace their history to the radical end of the Reformation -- the "Let's throw it all out and start over" Reformers, versus the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" Reformers -- the Eucharist (a term most of them would be loathe to use) is a memorial meal, one that Christians are called to observe by Jesus himself. They do not understand Christ to be present in the Eucharistic elements. Since I'm not of that school of thought I can't speak to what spiritual benefits if any they believe they receive when they communicate other than a sense of fellowship with like-minded believers and, again, anticipation of the Great Feast.
So there's that.
There's also the question of who is allowed to communicate in which church. In some faith traditions any baptized Christian is welcome to communicate. In some faith traditions the Eucharist is reserved for persons who are considered members in good standing of their particular tradition or in some cases even individual faith community. "Closed" Communion churches base their exclusivism on Pauline instructions to the early Church about the Eucharist, and the idea that people who communicate "unworthily" for whatever reason are actually doing spiritual harm to themselves. In "close" Communion churches, where only good-standing members of that individual congregation are invited to participate, the emphasis (at least as I understand it) is on drawing a clear line between those deemed to be in God's grace versus out of grace; that it would be unseemly to invite a "notorious sinner" to partake in this special event in the life of the faith community, and that a visitor, whose spiritual life is unknown to the pastor and congregation, is ipso facto suspect in terms of "worthiness," and is thus also excluded.
(Again, I'm being very general here, and also operating from the perspective of an outsider, so anyone in a "close Communion" church who can provide a better description of the hows and whys of your Communion services is welcome to do so.)
I hope this gives you a bit of an overview of how different Christians may understand the Eucharist. As you can see, as with most things Christian there is no "one size fits all" answer.
[ 05. June 2012, 20:00: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
To add to LutheranChick's post, from the perspective of someone with one take (of many, doubtless) on the non-Real Presence side of the Eucharist table (i.e. from a tradition that is quite clear that the bread and wine are just that, bread and wine, but act in a symbolic way):
- there'd be a greater tendency to use the term Communion or Lord's Supper rather than Eucharist
- it's still seen as both a 'sacrament' and a 'means of grace' (or at least, it is at the church where I worship) although those terms themselves are loaded with shades of meaning and interpretation
- as to spiritual benefits/what goes on/why do it, in the tradition I'm most familiar with it comes down to (in no particular order):
a) obedience - to the instruction from Jesus recorded in the gospels
b) remembrance - of the cross, and the resurrection, and all that surrounds it (sin, need for forgiveness, grace, restored relationship etc.)
c) anticipation - of Jesus' return
d) reflection/personal confession
e) tangible symbolic reminder of our individual and corporate relationship to God/each other (we are, for better or worse a "little cuppy" fellowship, so eat the bread as we receive, but drink the wine all together)
And probably a load more besides, that's just the outline off the top of my head at bed time ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Thanks LutheranChik. It isn't "Let's all have a go at Steve H" Day, so I won't add to his woes...
What I would add is that I see the Eucharist as a partaking in the one Passion of Christ - so it is not "another" sacrifice added onto the finished work of Christ, but a partaking in that once for all event. This is where the idea of "eternity" comes in, where we "transcend" time and are in the presence of the whole company of heaven, and saints in glory - yet at the same time present in Christ's Passion.
We do eat Christs body, and drink His blood, which is what he told us we must do - but it is a living body, not a dead body - we thereby become the body of Christ, Jesus being the head.
I need to add that this isn't official Orthodox doctrine, it is just my thoughts.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I've moved from memorial to mystery where I invincibly ignorantly remain ... for now.
As with much of what you write, that's my story too, Martin.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Here is a discussion of a Church of England statement about the nature of the Eucharist.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Nothing, it isn't about anything. One misunderstanding extrapolated and misinterpreted for 2000 years.
I might quite possibly totally agree with you here
--------------------
"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 Silver Faux:
It provides hospital chaplains with an excuse to wake sleeping, desperately ill patients, since chaplains can not do so to give them an enema or injection or to take their temperature.
Also, it preserves one's soul to eternal life, amd is a remembrance of Christ's death until we feast with Him in glory.
And it unites the Christian community, on both sides of the grave.
Most of which has no basis in the Gospels or the Epistles.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the Eucharist is a foreshadowing of the eschatalogical (end times - heavenly ) banquet as described in scripture.
quote:
The Lord’s Supper, as we have seen, looks forward to the coming Messianic Banquet in the kingdom. In fact, it anticipates and prefigures that banquet and is therefore intended to foreshadow it. In that sense the Lord’s Supper epitomizes the biblical pattern of "promise and fulfilment"—the already and the not yet. The most obvious ramification of this principle is that the Lord’s Supper itself should take the form of a banquet. The biblical imagery associated with the eschatological banquet is one of celebration and abundance of food (Isa 25:6-8; Matt 22:4; Luke 15:22-32; Rev 19:9); and indeed, this is just what we find in the apostolic practice of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:46)
Not a bad explanation here.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
No-one has quoted Dix's Purple Passage yet. Where have all the Anglo-Catholics got to?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It's a gift of love from God in human flesh, Jesus Christ. Precisely how it works is a bit mysterious, though from the zillions of answers above you can see a few of the emphases. I think all those good things are right, and add one more, which is very minor in comparison but still not to be sneezed at. This is God's way of touching and blessing the whole human being, not just our spiritualnature but also our physical nature. Whichis a great comfort to those like myself who grasp love best through touch, not words.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Agreeing with much of what is said above (including some contradictory elements), I take comfort from CS Lewis' quote;
quote:
The command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand
So in response to one of the narrower aspects of the OP, "why's it so important?", the answer for me is simply that it was a command and it is now part of the Christian life.
I also want to recognise Mudfrog's tradition's right to interpret the command very non-literally.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Agreeing with much of what is said above (including some contradictory elements), I take comfort from CS Lewis' quote;
quote:
The command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand
So in response to one of the narrower aspects of the OP, "why's it so important?", the answer for me is simply that it was a command and it is now part of the Christian life.
I also want to recognise Mudfrog's tradition's right to interpret the command very non-literally.
Very kind.
Perhaps I'll elaborate for those who feel I dismiss the last supper and the resulting tradition of the church
I accept literally the accounts of the passover meal Jesus celebrated, with the understanding that John is tweaking it for his purposes.
What I don't accept is the certainty that some feel that Jesus was instituting a new ritual that was binding for all time.
Neither do I accept that Jesus had in mind most of the doctrine and interpretation that grew up around it in the second century.
When Jesus said 'Do this in remembrance of me.' I want to ask, 'Do what exactly?' Was he acting out a new set of ritual actions or was he simply reinterpreting a couple of familiar sections of the established passover meal so they referred to himself?
Finally, did he really mean it to be a sacrament that conveyed eternal life?
I see a lot of reading back into Scripture beliefs and practices that are not there in order to justify the tradition - some of which owes more to mystery religion than Jesus or St Paul.
Having said all that, it is also my view that the Tradition of the Church has given it a valuable narrative and I rejoice in the provision of the sacrament for all Christians and readily acknowledge that it is indeed a means of grace - but with the proviso that grace is also readily available at all times and in all places without the need for ritual ceremony or even the bread and wine.
--------------------
"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
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
[edited to add: Welcome mstevens, and thank you for your interest in this question.]
One way I explain it is this:
Human culture begins with the hearth. As humans evolved, they shared meals, shared resources, and huddled together for warmth and safety. At these meals around the fire, they told stories. The meal around the hearth also leads to division of labor: some people hunt for the meat, some gather the fruit, some prepare the food, some build the fire. Everybody eats. These roles and stories form community.
In the liturgy, we start with what's called the "Liturgy of the Word," where we tell stories (read from the Scriptures), reflect on our experiences (the homily and the Creed), building the fire that warms us. At the Liturgy of the Table, we participate in a common meal which many people have prepared: some have donated money to provide vestments, vessels, and the elements; someone may have baked the bread at home; some have set the table - there are many different roles that make the liturgy possible. And as we share the sacred meal, we are re-formed into a new community, the Body of Christ (complete with its different roles for the common good).
In other words, it's based not only in Christ's command at a Passover meal 2000 years ago, but also in really basic human experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the Eucharist is a foreshadowing of the eschatalogical (end times - heavenly ) banquet as described in scripture.
Not just a foreshadowing or anticipation, but a prolepsis - a participation in that eschatalogical banquet!
I can imagine how bizarre the Eucharist must look to an outsider. Part of the reason, I think, is that the Sacrament is something that has to be experienced. It can't be understood in an intellectual sense - it's Mystery. That's no cop-out; it's based in very deep human experience. Think about being in love. It makes little sense intellectually (you can't really explain why you're in love at all much less why you're in love with a particular person).
I believe in the Real Presence, but I don't understand it. I know from my own experience that when I receive the Bread and Wine of Communion, I am receiving Christ in a very profound and tangible way. There's not a mystical or magical experience every time I receive - and that's part of what I love about it. It doesn't depend on my subjectivity. I may not feel it, but it doesn't matter if I feel it.
[ 06. June 2012, 08:50: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think I agree with you about the experience of fellowship around a meal - which is why we would say that all meals, all fellowship, can be sacramental. Sometimes I would guess that the ritual nature of the eucharist - in the church and removed from the 'normal' experience of life - would actually lessen the idea of shared fellowship and experience of which you speak.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
alone we are grape and grain
together sheaf and vine
falling as dust and rain
rising as bread and wine
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sometimes I would guess that the ritual nature of the eucharist - in the church and removed from the 'normal' experience of life - would actually lessen the idea of shared fellowship and experience of which you speak.
But, at the same time, gives access to those who have no family/friends and never share fellowship in other ways.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sometimes I would guess that the ritual nature of the eucharist - in the church and removed from the 'normal' experience of life - would actually lessen the idea of shared fellowship and experience of which you speak.
But, at the same time, gives access to those who have no family/friends and never share fellowship in other ways.
That is very true. There's a man at the Methodist church (we are sharing their building and the evening service) who told me that kneeling at the communion rail at the communion is very much being part of a family at a shared meal. It was a moving testimony and I appreciate the huge blessing he receives at that moment.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Mudfrog, what on Earth are you talking about? Perhaps you can clarify, but the Biblical basis is pretty sound.
1 Cor. 10:16-17; and just in case some thickos though that Paul meant 'some bread and some wine': 1 Cor. 11:23-27.
Moreover, your agreement with The Long Ranger that we're discussing '2000 years of misunderstanding' is off-the-charts crazy-talk. I think that nearly all of the Patristic Fathers agreed on this point and this includes Ignatius of Antioch who was appointed by St Peter himself. Another Biblical connection is found in St Clement of Rome (probably the same Clement who appears in the NT) who, unsurprisingly, echos Paul.
No less a figure than Justin Martyr makes the role of the Eucharist in the early church pretty clear:
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I accept literally the accounts of the passover meal Jesus celebrated, with the understanding that John is tweaking it for his purposes.
What I don't accept is the certainty that some feel that Jesus was instituting a new ritual that was binding for all time.
Could you expound on your thoughts on that a bit?
I'm curious, what do you think about the fact that it was at least practiced (I assume, though I may be wrong) as a ritual by at least the 1stC Corinthian church? Paul actually delivered some teaching on it to them, where he told them how to do it correctly.
I suppose that doesn't mean that it has to be a 'new ritual that is binding for all time', but it does seem to set some sort of precedent. Or no?
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I accept literally the accounts of the passover meal Jesus celebrated, with the understanding that John is tweaking it for his purposes.
What I don't accept is the certainty that some feel that Jesus was instituting a new ritual that was binding for all time.
Could you expound on your thoughts on that a bit?
I'm curious, what do you think about the fact that it was at least practiced (I assume, though I may be wrong) as a ritual by at least the 1stC Corinthian church? Paul actually delivered some teaching on it to them, where he told them how to do it correctly.
I suppose that doesn't mean that it has to be a 'new ritual that is binding for all time', but it does seem to set some sort of precedent. Or no?
It focuses on the context that Jesus was speaking in and those words 'Do this in remembrance of me.'
I believe it is more likely that Jesus was referring to the passover meal and was telling the disciples that the particular cup he took (out of the three on the table) and the particular bread he broke was to have a new meaning within the passover celebration and from then on was to be done in remembrance of him.
He didn't invent a new Christian ceremony called the eucharist.
--------------------
"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 Komensky:
Mudfrog, what on Earth are you talking about? Perhaps you can clarify, but the Biblical basis is pretty sound.
1 Cor. 10:16-17; and just in case some thickos though that Paul meant 'some bread and some wine': 1 Cor. 11:23-27.
Moreover, your agreement with The Long Ranger that we're discussing '2000 years of misunderstanding' is off-the-charts crazy-talk. I think that nearly all of the Patristic Fathers agreed on this point and this includes Ignatius of Antioch who was appointed by St Peter himself. Another Biblical connection is found in St Clement of Rome (probably the same Clement who appears in the NT) who, unsurprisingly, echos Paul.
No less a figure than Justin Martyr makes the role of the Eucharist in the early church pretty clear:
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
K.
A lot of what Paul wrote to do with matters of doctrine and church practice, was to correct abuses, misunderstandings and misreadings of Scripture, the words of Jesus and Apostolic teaching that had grown up in those first 30 years.
I believe that the more mystical interpretations of the eucharist - bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality - and even the Justin Martyr stuff - is a long way from the fellowship meal of remembrance as part of the passover, that Jesus celebrated with his friends.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Mudfrog, check your Greek. The word used for 'remembrance' here is the same one used for when God 'remembers' his covenant with Israel. The English is clumsy here. Therefore, I don't see how it can only mean 'remember' in the sense of 'think about me', any more than God remembering his convenant was along the lines of oh, yes, I nearly forgot—the Covenant, must't forget that!'.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Mudfrog, check your Greek. The word used for 'remembrance' here is the same one used for when God 'remembers' his covenant with Israel. The English is clumsy here. Therefore, I don't see how it can only mean 'remember' in the sense of 'think about me', any more than God remembering his convenant was along the lines of oh, yes, I nearly forgot—the Covenant, must't forget that!'.
K.
I agree entirely.
He was saying that whereas the cup and the bread was used 'in remembrance' of the exodus and the covenant there, it was now 'in remembrance' of him - but still as part of the passover meal.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
That's precisely my point. You haven't understood the Greek here. The word for 'remembrance' doesn't mean 'think about me'; however you slice it.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium
Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory,
of His Flesh, the mystery sing;
of the Blood, all price exceeding,
shed by our Immortal King,
destined, for the world's redemption,
from a noble Womb to spring.
Of a pure and spotless Virgin
born for us on earth below,
He, as Man, with man conversing,
stayed, the seeds of truth to sow;
then He closed in solemn order
wond'rously His Life of woe.
On the night of that Last Supper,
seated with His chosen band,
He, the Paschal Victim eating,
first fulfils the Law's command;
then as Food to His Apostles
gives Himself with His own Hand.
Word-made-Flesh, the bread of nature
by His Word to Flesh He turns;
wine into His Blood He changes;
what though sense no change discerns?
Only be the heart in earnest,
faith her lesson quickly learns.
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
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No-one has quoted Dix's Purple Passage yet. Where have all the Anglo-Catholics got to?
You called, sir?
quote:
Has ever another commandment been so obeyed...
From The Shape of the Liturgy by Dom Gregory Dix
x
AV
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
That's precisely my point. You haven't understood the Greek here. The word for 'remembrance' doesn't mean 'think about me'; however you slice it.
K.
Go on then, enlighten us.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
That's precisely my point. You haven't understood the Greek here. The word for 'remembrance' doesn't mean 'think about me'; however you slice it.
K.
Go on then, enlighten us.
The Greek term for remembrance has a connotation of "bringing something in the past to the present." The analogy is with the Passover ritual when Jewish families recite "we were enslaved in Egypt and God has delivered us."
Your own evangelical theology has an element of this. The Cross occurred 2000 years ago, yet you would argue that the effects of that event has salvific meaning today. In terms of high Eucharistic theology, it is the Mass that makes the effects of the Cross real to us. It is in this sense, that the Mass is a Sacrifice. It is a continual representation of the One Sacrifice made at Calvary, present to us in Holy Communion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I see a lot of reading back into Scripture beliefs and practices that are not there in order to justify the tradition - some of which owes more to mystery religion than Jesus or St Paul.
I know that this is meant to disparage the doctrinal traditions associated with Holy Communion by associating them with mystery religion, but presumably you're aware that it can be read the other way around as well : that mystery religions were foreshadowing the greater reality that would follow.
Pagans didn't get everything wrong. The impulse to worship, offer, and atone is an appropriate impulse, even though it's misdirected.
--------------------
"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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I can't see that there is any commandment of Jesus to continue with the formulation of words he used at the Last Supper in perpetuity. Given after Pentecost believers had God the Holy Spirit come to live within them, the injunction to 'remember' him becomes rather redundant anyway.
Codifying spiritual eating - and then liturgising and sacramentalising this tiny part of Jesus' ministry seems to me to be one of the earliest mistakes of the church.
I do not believe in sacraments, I think they are figments of believers imagination, only useful to the extent to which we enthuse them with meaning. The point at which they move beyond something we have filled with meaning and into the whole idea that they are somehow Divine sacraments in and of themselves is the point at which I cease to believe in them.
That isn't to suggest that it is entirely pointless and useless though - as a mark of recognition with other believers with which we look and sound very different, having some commonality is a very useful thing. As with all the other sacraments too, we use them in partly useful ways but frequently use language about them which is entirely unscriptural and illogical.
I'm sorry this is a minority view and I'm sorry if that is offensive to others, but that is what I believe.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
I don't go with the "redefining elements of Passover" interpretation, mainly because the Last Supper took place the day before Passover. Christ was killed on Passover, as the sacrificial Lamb. The Last Supper was a simple meal taken on tue Day of Preparation.
I also struggle with the idea that JC was giving us a new ritual by which we may receive grace. I interpret his words as saying "Remember my new covenant with you, each time you meet together to eat and drink". An assumption that it would be the norm for Christians to eat nornal meals together (and perhaps in our individualistic cultures we should think more about this), not just a token morsel.
And yet, through the act of faith that is played out whenever I take the bread and wine, I do believe I am brought closer to God. I am saying "I need this sacrifice, so that I might live spiritually, in the same way I need to eat and drink so that I might live physically".
But I'm a free Evangelical, so I can pretty much make it up as I go along.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
I can't see that there is any commandment of Jesus to continue with the formulation of words he used at the Last Supper in perpetuity. Given after Pentecost believers had God the Holy Spirit come to live within them, the injunction to 'remember' him becomes rather redundant anyway.
But the fact that the Holy Spirit is present in the Church suggests doctrinal development. No one denies that the more complicated doctrines of the Real Presence emerged well after the first century. However, if the Holy Spirit is always present in the church, then the Church is always continually discerning new truths along the way. Scripture is not a strait jacket, it was never meant to restrict the Church in its ability to determine doctrine.
--------------------
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@Anglican_Brat - that which you describe as Holy Spirit led doctrinal development, I consider to be very largely wishful thinking.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Anglican_Brat - that which you describe as Holy Spirit led doctrinal development, I consider to be very largely wishful thinking.
Was it wishful thinking when the Church canonized the Sacred Scriptures that you are reading right now in your Bibles in the 4th century?
--------------------
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Irrelevant, we are talking about the Eucharist.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Anglican_Brat - that which you describe as Holy Spirit led doctrinal development, I consider to be very largely wishful thinking.
Was it wishful thinking when the Church canonized the Sacred Scriptures that you are reading right now in your Bibles in the 4th century?
I don't think so.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium
Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory,
of His Flesh, the mystery sing;
of the Blood, all price exceeding,
shed by our Immortal King,
destined, for the world's redemption,
from a noble Womb to spring.
Of a pure and spotless Virgin
born for us on earth below,
He, as Man, with man conversing,
stayed, the seeds of truth to sow;
then He closed in solemn order
wond'rously His Life of woe.
On the night of that Last Supper,
seated with His chosen band,
He, the Paschal Victim eating,
first fulfils the Law's command;
then as Food to His Apostles
gives Himself with His own Hand.
Word-made-Flesh, the bread of nature
by His Word to Flesh He turns;
wine into His Blood He changes;
what though sense no change discerns?
Only be the heart in earnest,
faith her lesson quickly learns.
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
Absolutely - and all ready to celebrate the same tomorrow!
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Irrelevant, we are talking about the Eucharist.
I think his point is that if you trust the leading of the Spirit (through the Church) to canonize scripture, why not to establish the Eucharist?
--------------------
"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:
Irrelevant, we are talking about the Eucharist.
Not when the basis you have for determining anything about Christianity is the scripture. If you find that the church was so error-ridden when it instituted the Eucharist, it is interesting that you believe the accuracy of the bible so whole-heartedly.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
It is irrelevant because I don't hold the scriptures in the inerrant way you're suggesting.
I am a Quaker after Fox. God lives within not in a book.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
