Thread: Stupid christian questions - what's this eucharist thing all about Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023130
Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on
:
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?
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I've moved from memorial to mystery where I invincibly ignorantly remain ... for now.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Nothing, it isn't about anything. One misunderstanding extrapolated and misinterpreted for 2000 years.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mstevens:
Is there a better web page?
Its called St John's Gospel.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nice Macrina. What I should have said.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
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)
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on
:
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.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
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.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
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)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
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.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
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.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Here is a discussion of a Church of England statement about the nature of the Eucharist.
Moo
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
No-one has quoted Dix's Purple Passage yet. Where have all the Anglo-Catholics got to?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
[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 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
alone we are grape and grain
together sheaf and vine
falling as dust and rain
rising as bread and wine
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
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.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
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?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on
:
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
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
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)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
@Anglican_Brat - that which you describe as Holy Spirit led doctrinal development, I consider to be very largely wishful thinking.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Irrelevant, we are talking about the Eucharist.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
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.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
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!
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
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?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Then how do you know that Pentecost happened? Or that Jesus said anything worth taking notice of in the first place rather than simply grew up as a myth in latter years?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
I accept the preposition that the words of Jesus are recorded accurately. I'm not sure about anything else.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
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.
With respect, how can you trust that which comes from within you? How do you "test the spirits to see if they are of God"?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Well, it is a problem, Mark.
With respect to you, I tend to wrestle with the problem rather than throwing the toys out of the cart and joining a rival church with a rival claim to authority.
Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on
:
I'm still reading, and this is all very educational
There's so much response it's hard to reply to anyone specifically, but thanks for all the effort.
I suspect it only really makes sense if you're one of you, but I think I have a slightly less vague idea.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
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.
But not every doctrinal development is of the Holy Spirit - unless you are saying the Church is infallible.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Another point I would make is that there are no two denominations that agree what the eucharist means - which rather suggests that outside the Roman Catholic Church (Which tragically believes it's the only true Church) there is indeed no agreement or acceptance of what those early 2nd century people believed.
Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Another point I would make is that there are no two denominations that agree what the eucharist means - which rather suggests that outside the Roman Catholic Church (Which tragically believes it's the only true Church) there is indeed no agreement or acceptance of what those early 2nd century people believed.
Part of my initial confusion came from the fact that two people going to the same church at the same time failed to agree.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
mstevens, that's a sadly not uncommon occurance on many topics!
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
mstevens, that's a sadly not uncommon occurance on many topics!
When we're talking about a holy mystery, it's not necessarily sad at all.
An interesting footnote in a two-volume theological treatise I saw a few years back: "the reformers" (including Calvin) were not comfortable with the Roman Catholics focus upon the consecrated elements. This was not too much for them, he wrote, but too little. The Real Presence of Christ should fill the church and pervade the people.
Who would want to deny that desideratum?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
Part of my initial confusion came from the fact that two people going to the same church at the same time failed to agree.
Part of that can be due to traditions where there is a continuum of thought about what the Eucharist means. Part of my SOF education over the years has been learning that Anglicans do not all agree about sacramental theology -- you have RC and Calvinist and Lutheran-ish schools of thought all within the Anglican umbrella. We Lutherans, on the other hand, despite having a reputation for being contentious and stubborn within our various church bodies, have a much more uniform understanding of what's going on during the Eucharist. (Our differences of opinion on this subject are focused on who is invited to partake -- some of us practice open Communion, while others do not.)
Another element is poor catechesis -- church talk for poor religious education -- within our own faith communities. Especially these days when churchgoing is a kind of consumerist free-for-all, one really can't assume that two people who attend the same church have the same degree of knowledge about the beliefs and practices of that church. Truth be told, even in my homogenous childhood church where everyone's family had been going there for ages and where we had not just one but multiple years of rigorous after-school religious instruction...I sat next to classmates who heard and read all the same things I did, who participated to one degree or the other in all the class discussions, who did the same homework, yet who by confirmation time had only the vaguest idea of the most basic concepts in Christian theology and Lutheran practice. Even today I'll experience "good church folk" who are shocked to (re?)learn some basic element that's been part of every confirmation class since the git-go: "I never knew that!" How can you not know that?
It gets confusing.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... 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.
Well put. This is going in the quotes file.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mstevens:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Another point I would make is that there are no two denominations that agree what the eucharist means - which rather suggests that outside the Roman Catholic Church (Which tragically believes it's the only true Church) there is indeed no agreement or acceptance of what those early 2nd century people believed.
Part of my initial confusion came from the fact that two people going to the same church at the same time failed to agree.
You're looking at a many faceted jewel. The view is going to vary depending on where you stand, even within the same fellowship. That's okay.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
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.
So what, Jesus was kidding when he said the Comforter would lead us into all truth?
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
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.
So what, Jesus was kidding when he said the Comforter would lead us into all truth?
You're right Fr Weber, but the charismatics will merely argue that Jesus meant 'personal revelation'. Since many (Protestant) charistmatics reject the whole idea of the early church, that's bound to be their exegesis.
K.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I accept the preposition that the words of Jesus are recorded accurately. I'm not sure about anything else.
Why would that be? Seems an unlikely distinction to me.
Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
mstevens, that's a sadly not uncommon occurance on many topics!
I was pondering this overnight, and on further thought I'd say they were very different, but not necessarily contradictory.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I'm a fairly old-fashioned Anglican (CofE) from the catholic end of the spectrum, and that largely determines how I think of the eucharist. But I think it's a mistake to focus solely on the act of holy communion within the eucharist.
The eucharist is not only communion but leitourgia, liturgy, the public and corporate "work" of God's people. It is, as several writers have noted, the act in which the Church is most conspicuously itself: singing God's praises, proclaiming his Word and words, recounting the history of salvation and interceding for the world.
And if you want to accuse me of idealising, fine - but I would suggest that the degree to which any eucharist fails to be this is the degree to which we have misunderstood the eucharist to begin with.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
More to the point, Jesus announced his instruction that the Holy Spirit will assist them in discerning truth to all the apostles, namely to the entire apostolic community. It is important that we keep this in mind that the community discerns together on its journey through life.
While admittedly, there is no consensus on the specific mechanics of the Eucharistic mystery (The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation wasn't formally ratified until the 16th century Council of Trent), there was broad consensus among the Patristic fathers from an early age that the Real Presence of Christ is present in the eucharistic elements in a meaningful way that makes the bread and wine substantively different after consecration. There is nothing magical about it, even though I'm a stuffy traditionalist, I accept the modern eucharistic theology that the entire community ultimately celebrates the Eucharist. The Body of Christ that is the Church, feeds on the spiritual body of Christ through the bread and wine, in order to become the body of Christ in the world.
St Augustine was rumored to have said upon distributing communion, "Behold what you are, become what you receive." The Eucharist is a symbol of unity, unity among Christians sharing the bread and wine, but also unity with Christ. Not only is it a symbol, but the Sacrament creates unity within the Christian body as well as with Christ.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Are we in fact saying therefore that everything the Church believes and teaches is of the Holy Spirit? Without error? Without question?
Transubstantiation?
Celibate priests?
Baptismal regeneration?
The status of the Virgin Mary?
The Church is infallible and claims that all it teaches is Truth they have received from the Holy Spirit?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are we in fact saying therefore that everything the Church believes and teaches is of the Holy Spirit? Without error? Without question?
Transubstantiation?
Celibate priests?
Baptismal regeneration?
The status of the Virgin Mary?
The Church is infallible and claims that all it teaches is Truth they have received from the Holy Spirit?
Not exactly.
The Church always verifies its Tradition by testing it against Sacred Scripture, and also, IMHO, using its reason. Tradition is not static, it emerges in constant dialogue with Sacred Scripture.
If the Church ever teaches that we should sacrifice bulls to Baal, it would be wrong because Scripture says explicitly not to do that. However, Scripture never says categorically that the consecrated bread and wine are simply "bread and wine." Jesus himself states, "This is my body, this is my blood." You may interpret it metaphorically, I interpret it stronger than that. The text itself does not conclusively lend itself to either position. When that happens, I defer cautiously to the teachings of the Church as a secondary authority. The saints are my faithful brothers and sisters in Christ, and believing that I'm in communion with them still, the Saints alive in Christ, I listen to their witness as well as the witness of my living brothers and sisters today.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are we in fact saying therefore that everything the Church believes and teaches is of the Holy Spirit? Without error? Without question?
Transubstantiation?
Celibate priests?
Baptismal regeneration?
The status of the Virgin Mary?
The Church is infallible and claims that all it teaches is Truth they have received from the Holy Spirit?
Not exactly.
The Church always verifies its Tradition by testing it against Sacred Scripture, and also, IMHO, using its reason. Tradition is not static, it emerges in constant dialogue with Sacred Scripture.
If the Church ever teaches that we should sacrifice bulls to Baal, it would be wrong because Scripture says explicitly not to do that. However, Scripture never says categorically that the consecrated bread and wine are simply "bread and wine." Jesus himself states, "This is my body, this is my blood." You may interpret it metaphorically, I interpret it stronger than that. The text itself does not conclusively lend itself to either position. When that happens, I defer cautiously to the teachings of the Church as a secondary authority. The saints are my faithful brothers and sisters in Christ, and believing that I'm in communion with them still, the Saints alive in Christ, I listen to their witness as well as the witness of my living brothers and sisters today.
What about Pseudo Matthew? That was long ago revealed as a fake and some of the RC teaching that emerged from it is still in place even though the Church acknowledges that the 'gospel' is a forgery.
K.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What about Pseudo Matthew? That was long ago revealed as a fake and some of the RC teaching that emerged from it is still in place even though the Church acknowledges that the 'gospel' is a forgery.
K.
With respect, I think "questionable origins" would be better than to dismiss it as a complete forgery.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What about Pseudo Matthew? That was long ago revealed as a fake and some of the RC teaching that emerged from it is still in place even though the Church acknowledges that the 'gospel' is a forgery.
K.
With respect, I think "questionable origins" would be better than to dismiss it as a complete forgery.
I would tend to say the question of "fake" or not is irrelevant. It's not part of the canon of Scripture and never has been. It's at best a pious fiction. But even a pious fiction can become part of Tradition, which is the ever-renewing witness of every Christian individual and of the Church as a whole to the glory of God.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Jesus himself states, "This is my body, this is my blood." You may interpret it metaphorically, I interpret it stronger than that.
Presumably you also believe Jesus was made of wood (I am the door), stone (I am the way), flour (I am the bread of life) was a shepherd, and so forth.
I think your position is absurd. The fact that some historical figures agree is neither here nor there.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Jesus himself states, "This is my body, this is my blood." You may interpret it metaphorically, I interpret it stronger than that.
Presumably you also believe Jesus was made of wood (I am the door), stone (I am the way), flour (I am the bread of life) was a shepherd, and so forth.
I think your position is absurd. The fact that some historical figures agree is neither here nor there.
There's a great deal of difference between "This is my body" and "I am a piece of bread".
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
[ 07. June 2012, 14:28: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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."
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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!").
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
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."
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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!
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
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!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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).
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
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.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
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.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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!
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
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).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on
:
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?
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Second time in living memory I heartily agree with Silver Faux. But when a chap is right, dammit, he's right.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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."
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
You might also disagree with what Jesus says! I suppose that would be considered illegitimate by some, or not 'true Christian'™.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Bullshit.
Peace be with you too, Friend.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
@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.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
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?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
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?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I would guess the voice that barks "Irrelevant!" and "Bullshit!" when questioned is less likely to be the still calm voice of the Lord.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by longing (# 17154) on
:
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
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
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
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0