Thread: Is it wrong to say that the Eucharist "is" Christ? 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=023178
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
For those of us who believe in transubstantiation or something very similar, what is the difference between saying that the consecrated elements are the "Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity" of Christ and saying that they "are" Christ? I am a Roman Catholic and occasionally hear a priest ad lib at the invitation to communion, saying "This is Jesus..." instead of "Behold the Lamb of God..." but I notice that the theological formularies of the RCC are pretty careful in avoiding saying the exact words that the Eucharist (by which I mean the consecrated elements) "is" Jesus. In addition, although Jesus is God, I have not seen any doctrinal statement that the Eucharist "is" God. Finally, although Eucharistic Adoration is encouraged in the RCC, and "Adoration" is basically worship, something that is reserved only to God, the Church seems to be careful in saying that people should "adore" the exposed Sacrament rather than saying they should "worship" it. Can someone who likes to split hairs please help me understand the reasoning behind this distinction?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
One of the things that worried me about the (recently superseded) translation of the Roman rite was the invitation 'This is the Lamb of God...' That seems too blunt and materialistic, especially if the priest is holding up a piece of bread at the time. On the other hand, the C of E's bowdlerisation to 'Jesus is the Lamb of God...' seems to create a disjunction between the sacrament and the presence of Jesus. I don't know what the new version of the RR says, but as a good Anglican (and therefore not averse to tweaking the liturgy on occasion) I've taken to saying 'Behold the Lamb of God...'

In other words, Jesus is present, but not in a literal way, rather to the eye of faith. 'Behold' might be a slight archaism but I can live with that better than theological crudity or inaccuracy.
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
From the standpoint of doctrines of transubstantiation or consubstantiation, I'm not sure there's any real difference. The bread and the wine become, in some sense or another, the real Body and Blood of Christ. I suppose that the Eucharist is not explicitly the Soul of Christ, to the extent that the gospel anticipates such a distinction. But the sacramental theology of the Eucharist is that Jesus really is there... so how could it be wrong to say that the Eucharist is Christ?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Good question, Stonespring! I'm not sure that my answer will help, but I'll have a go. Obviously, my blathering below is all premised on a Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.

Let's start with the Church's encouragement to adore the Eucharist. As you rightly say, adoration is full-blown worship - due to God alone. If, then, the Church enjoins us to adore the Most Blessed Sacrament, she is telling us that we can (should) worship It. So It is truly God.

But of course, though the MBS is the Body, Blood, Soul, Humanity and Divinity of God the Son, He is not limited in His presence - He is truly present in His risen, ascended and glorified body always "at the right hand of the Father". He is present with us in all sorts of ways and, being God, is also everywhere else.

But His presence in the Eucharist is a mysterious, miraculous phenomenon in which the Church explicitly teaches us that His presence is guaranteed, unambiguous and tangible in a very specific sense. It is, in fact, an extraordinary continuation of His Incarnation - His physical presence amongst us. Being psycho-somatic wholes, that's an astoundingly close presence of being with us.

Does this make sense?

In His Name,
CB
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I think that to use "is" without expansion or qualification is insufficient, even if it's technically correct according to your theology. I'm sure I remember Thomas Merton somewhere making a distinction between Christ's "natural", "sacramental" and "spiritual" presence - his natural presence being enthroned at the Father's right hand, his sacramental presence in the Eucharist, and his spiritual presence in the Church (as the Body of Christ). I think this is the sort of thing you have to attach to that wriggly little "is" if you want to communicate something meaningful by it.

[cross posted]

[ 19. June 2012, 20:35: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
From a Lutheran perspective, the Eucharist is truly Christ. And it's also truly bread and wine. We don't overthink the paradox. Your mileage may vary.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Never before I was in the CofE, in other churches, was I told/heard that the bread and blood were all "Jesus", and it still amazes me that in various churches that is said and believed by many people.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
To the OP: not in the sham, counterfeit, schismatic, heretic, invincibly ignorant holy communions I participate in, surely ?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
"This is Christ" is one of those statements that is going to die the death of a thousand qualifications if you are to keep visitors, newcomers, the uncatechized, etc. from getting really, REALLY confused. And so I wouldn't use it. I think Christian charity requires us not to confuse the hell out of our neighbors, at least anymore than absolutely necessary.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
I was not referring specifically to what words should be said in Liturgy, but whether, in talking about the Eucharist, if someone believes that the consecrated elements are the "Body, Blood, Soul, Humanity, and Divinity of Christ" whether or not it is incorrect to say that they "are" Christ/Jesus/God. I understand that from an ecumenical or catechetical point of view this can be confusing. I also understand that even if such terminology as "The Eucharist is Christ" is correct (I am not sure if it is), it is theologically blunt.

However, when RC's are criticized for "worshipping" the elevated, reserved, or exposed Sacrament, I wonder whether it would not be appropriate to respond, "Why yes, we do worship the Sacrament. What's wrong with that?" However, the very careful terminology used by the Church (adore vs. worship, Body and Blood of Christ vs. "Christ") seems to suggest that using such blunt wording might be spiritually damaging, even for people who have little need for or interest in deep theological speculation. Why would the Church think so?
 
Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :
 
Maybe it’s like saying Jesus is God and the Father is God. But Jesus is not the Father.

The statement that the Blessed Sacrament is the Body of Jesus is quite true. But it does not exhaust the truth. It’s like holding the Atlantic Ocean in a bucket.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
We Lutherans have a further complication, as we admit that the bread and wine are still there, while at the same time Jesus' body and blood are too. So the logistics of worshipping something that both is and isn't worshippable get rather annoying. Better to just "take, eat" as we were told to, and leave the puzzle for a rainy day.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
The Catholic Encyclopedia is, as usual, instructive on the matter, if insufferably wordy.

The beautiful hymn by Thomas Aquinas, Adoro te devote latens Deitas (I adore you devoutly, hidden Godhead), is a wonderful statement of the doctrine. To quote just a bit:

Quae sub his figuris vere latitas (Who beneath these appearances are truly hidden)

and

Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur (Sight, touch, taste deceive us in respect to you)

In other words -- it looks like bread and wine, it feels like bread and wine, it tastes like bread and wine, but it isn't bread and wine -- it's the Body and Blood of our Savior.

I also find it interesting that Aquinas used the word Deitas, which is usually translated Godhead, thus implying that the Eucharist is indeed God.
 
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :
 
I'm an Anglican too and admittedly from the Catholic 'wing' of the Church but my faith is scripturally based.

Our Lord said that, in the Last Supper, the bread was His Body, not like His body or representative, or similar or anything less. The instruction then is to 'do this in anamnesis of me'.
'Remembrance of me' is a poor, weak, thin translation of the word which is much more than a remembrance or memorial service, but a continuing and present act.

So when the Celebrant says that this IS the Body of Christ, I may not understand, may not have any conception with my own limited, human capacity HOW this could be, but I believe the words of Christ because His track record has been remarkably consistent to date!
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
From an Orthodox POV we make a distinction between God in his transcendent nature (who can never be known) and God in his imminent energies who certainly can be ... and here of course, he can even be eaten. Now the energies "are" God. They are NOT created. So, when Christ is transfigured on the mount it is not just his countenance that is radiant with UNCREATED light ... but his clothing as well. In other words, when the energies of God are manifest there are real physical changes in the CREATED order of things. Now apply this to the Blessed Sacrament / Holy Mysteries.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
For some reason I can't quite fathom, I feel rather uncomfortable with the RC 'Benediction' or 'Exposition' thing - I've seen it done several times now - whereas I still have some Protestant heebie-geebies (but on a lesser scale) when the Orthodox parade around the congregation with the Eucharistic 'gifts' and people bow towards them.

I don't know why that should be ...

Unless it's an inveterate anti-Papalism I don't know why I should feel more squeamish about one rather than the other - because effectively they seem to be doing the same thing. The only difference is the exposure length as it were ... or am I missing something?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Yes, you are missing the fact that Protestantism has a problem generally with any aspect of immanentism and more especially when this concerns physical objects.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB] For some reason I can't quite fathom, I feel rather uncomfortable with the RC 'Benediction' or 'Exposition' thing - I've seen it done several times now - whereas I still have some Protestant heebie-geebies (but on a lesser scale) when the Orthodox parade around the congregation with the Eucharistic 'gifts' and people bow towards them.
Well look at this way.

If God is present everywhere, we should be genuflecting at every moment, every place. The entire creation is God's throne and dwelling place.

In venerating the Holy Sacrament, I am acknowledging both in word and through praxis, that God is present in the consecrated bread and wine. While God dwells in all things, most of the time, I lose sight of the fact whether in the busy hustle-bustle of life or due to my own self-centredness. However, in eucharistic veneration, I at least, for a moment put those things aside and truly adore the living God.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Yes, you are missing the fact that Protestantism has a problem generally with any aspect of immanentism and more especially when this concerns physical objects.
It need not be a 'problem'; just a different approach. One can have alternative perspectives on immanentism and relationship to religious physical objects without it being a 'problem' of any sort whatsoever. It is perfectly fine for someone to have a perspective on faith which does not include, require or respond positively to 'benediction', 'exposition' etc.

Why human beings differ in their responses, or relation to religious custom is another question; and neither need the response to the why be 'because there's a problem there'. It might be. But it doesn't necessarily follow at all.

[ 20. June 2012, 12:51: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
So Anselmina, please give me an example where a Protestant denomination teaches its adherents that it is proper or even desirable to venerate a physical object as grace bearing.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Aside from the Bible itself?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I must say that I have not see many Protestants kissing the Bible ... at least taught by their denomination so to do ... but I would be delighted to find out if they did.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
For those of us who believe in transubstantiation or something very similar, what is the difference between saying that the consecrated elements are the "Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity" of Christ and saying that they "are" Christ? I am a Roman Catholic...
I see no difference, but then I am a convert: I became RC in the year 2000. I am spending a lot of time at church mid-week: every Wednesday I go to my local parish (the RC cathedral that is about a seven-minute drive from here) for silent prayer before the monstrance in a side chapel at 5 AM. I also study good books on the faith, such as an autobiography of the pope while I am there. I then follow that with early mass at 6:15. The side chapel is now open 24 hours a day with one or more people always there praying. This seems to be a highlight in my week which is otherwise empty when I have no employment as schools are closed for the summer.

(I think this is a good use of my time: I often awake at 3 or 4 and accomplish nothing but posting on the Ship and reading newspapers.)
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
So Anselmina, please give me an example where a Protestant denomination teaches its adherents that it is proper or even desirable to venerate a physical object as grace bearing.
I've obviously been obscure. I'm saying that if someone doesn't want to, isn't taught to, or feels nothing positive in venerating an object, they shouldn't necessarily regard it as a 'problem' they have feel guilty about or have to get over.

As an ex-Anglican I know you'll know that Anglicanism - largely - teaches its members to be reverent to the holy communion elements, and the blessed water in a font. There are also traditional ways of disposing reverently of Bibles and prayer books that many people prefer to observe. And in some forms of Anglican churchmanship, though obviously not all, some people happily genuflect, reverence, and venerate according to whatever the service is.

But I imagine that the protestant customs with regard to how sacred things are treated varies hugely according to custom and tradition.

I note Gamaliel describes himself as 'broadly evangelical' (thereabouts!), so I would tend to see his personal discomfort with what he describes in his post as rather natural - certainly not a 'problem'.

I accept, of course, that if one were an Orthodox Christian or someone of a Catholic or high-ish tradition, it might well be a problem in that context.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, yes, Anselmina.

I didn't mention the Protestant tendency to be squeamish about such things explicitly as I felt it would be implicit from my background - as Fr Gregory knows very well, both from the Ship and from real life.

My point, really, wasn't so much about why Protestants from the 'lower' end of the spectrum might have difficulties with this sort of thing but to observe that, for whatever reason, I feel less uncomfortable with the Orthodox way of doing this sort of thing than with the RC.

I can understand it intellectually, I don't have any issue about Sir Kevin or anyone else spending some time in front of a monstrance - it's just that the idea of going and doing such a thing myself feels very, very uncomfortable.

That said, I've long since overcome my squeamishness about icons and I'll happily incorporate them into my personal devotions.

I'm not saying I'm 'right' nor making any value judgements about anyone's spirituality ... I'm just trying to explore why certain practices and terminology appear somehow more 'acceptable' to me than others ... it's a gut thing ...

There could be a simple answer. I've attended more Orthodox services than RC ones (not that I have an issue about attending RC ones) so perhaps it's just a case of greater familiarity ... or maybe it is some built-in aversion to Popery (cue Paisley voice: 'It.is.an.abomination!!!')
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I really enjoyed your post, Gamaliel. Having grown up in the plainest of the plain kind of church (at least for Anglicanism), I find I can relate to a lot of what you've written.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
[Hot and Hormonal]

You say you've left the Anglicans, Anselmina. I thought you were a Church of Ireland priest ...

[Confused]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB] For some reason I can't quite fathom, I feel rather uncomfortable with the RC 'Benediction' or 'Exposition' thing - I've seen it done several times now - whereas I still have some Protestant heebie-geebies (but on a lesser scale) when the Orthodox parade around the congregation with the Eucharistic 'gifts' and people bow towards them.
Well look at this way.

If God is present everywhere, we should be genuflecting at every moment, every place. The entire creation is God's throne and dwelling place.

In venerating the Holy Sacrament, I am acknowledging both in word and through praxis, that God is present in the consecrated bread and wine. While God dwells in all things, most of the time, I lose sight of the fact whether in the busy hustle-bustle of life or due to my own self-centredness. However, in eucharistic veneration, I at least, for a moment put those things aside and truly adore the living God.
Even this low-church Presby-Pentecostal can appreciate that.


[Overused]
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
I think you'll find Gamaliel, that Anselmina refers to Father Gregory as a former Anglican, not herself.

I feel the eucharist must be Christ in a very particular sense, because in a general sense my reaction to encountering Christ would not be to want to eat him.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I kiss my bible Father Gregory and my crucifix, what does that make me ? Apart from desperate ?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[Hot and Hormonal]

You say you've left the Anglicans, Anselmina. I thought you were a Church of Ireland priest ...

[Confused]
What moonlitdoor said! I see what I've done though! Hope I didn't lead you down the wrong path, there - my Mum did warn me about that [Big Grin] !
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Not desperate Martin, just normal. Now rest y'all, don't be gonna sayin' that I think yer abnormal or nothin' coz you don't do no kissin'!
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I must say that I have not see many Protestants kissing the Bible ... at least taught by their denomination so to do ... but I would be delighted to find out if they did.
It's not that unusual. I've done so, and I doubt most/any Lutherans would bat an eye at it.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Does anyone still use the old Scholastic differentiation between "accidents" and "substance"? I always found that too trite and oversimplifying the miracle which, mysteriously, takes place.

I believe it happens but like the element of mystery involved. Like the Incarnation, really.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Most Christian believers have some understanding of a 'real presence' in the bread and wine of the communion meal. The tribalism of the Reformation period leaves many simply with the popular idea that Catholics believe that Christ is completely present in the eucharist and that Protestants don't believe this. T
his is far too simplistic but it is a relatively easy idea to digest.

The Catholic doctrine if transubstantiation is an attempt in words to explain what happens,but like the doctrine of the Trinity,the cornerstone of the Catholic faith,it is almost impossible to find words to explain it adequately.

Most mainstream Christians accept without argument the doctrine of the Trinity,but I doubt if many,myself included, could explain it.

A recent poll has shown that many Irish people,who claim to be Catholic,are unable to believe in transubstantiation.I think that it is probably more likely that they have insufficient knowledge and/or insufficient faith to understand it.

To return to Thomas of Aquin in another verse of 'Adoro te devote,latens Deitas'(Hidden Godhead,I adore thee)

Quod non capis,quod non vides
Animosa firmat fides
praeter rerum ordinem
(mind and eye whilst unperceiving
what's beyond their own conceiving
strenuous faith to them brings home)

The question is not 'is the Blessed Sacrament Christ ?' but rather 'who is Christ and how do we follow him ?'

Fracto demum Sacramento
ne vacilles,sed memento
tantum esse sub fragmento
quantum toto tegitur
(When thou the host in pieces breakest
if thou waverst,thou mistakest
for each fragment thou partakest
holds no less than does the whole)
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Does anyone still use the old Scholastic differentiation between "accidents" and "substance"? I always found that too trite and oversimplifying the miracle which, mysteriously, takes place.

I believe it happens but like the element of mystery involved. Like the Incarnation, really.
I have heard of a critique of transubstantiation in that the difficulty isn't that the bread is Christ, but that the bread stops being bread.

Consubstantiation or its polite form, Sacramental Union then is treated as analogous to the Incarnation. As both bread and the body of Christ subsist together, so do the divine and human natures subsist in the one Christ.

If I had to describe my own current eucharistic theology, Sacramental Union might be the best term.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
The TEC prayer book has these words in the Prayer of Consecration, Rite I.
quote:
And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.
I believe that when the consecrated elements are received by a believer, they are the body and blood, even though they are physically bread and wine.

Moo

[ 21. June 2012, 12:29: Message edited by: Moo ]
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Back when I was being catechized as an adult (although I was baptized RC as a baby), a priest explained his belief that "Eucharistic miracles" of bleeding consecrated hosts, etc., were based on bad theology because although the consecrated elements were no longer bread and wine and were the Body and Blood, eating and drinking them were not cannibalism and vampirism. I still do not understand that argument. And even if we are practicing cannibalism and vampirism, why would that be wrong? It seems to me that the Eucharist resembles the horrors of human sacrifice, cannibalism, and vampirism because that is what it precisely is, but it is made holy by Christ who is priest, victim, altar, and God. I like the idea of having a religion where I eat human flesh and drink human blood, and not only that, but eat and drink God Himself (theophagy?), because so many religions and cultures seem to have human sacrifice and cannibalism either in their history or in their taboos and Christ takes that dark side of human nature and turns it on its head for the salvation of all. If we over-categorize our doctrines with disembodied philosophy (even if that philosophy and its shades of meaning are true and useful), don't we lose touch with just how carnal and sensual religious experience is?

The priest I mentioned earlier who frowned on the idea of Eucharist as cannibalism and vampirism suggested I read a book called The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation by Enrico Mazza, which I did. It is straight out of Vatican II era thinking and it was way over my head. If I understood any of it, I think it wanted to argue that the Greek philosophical notions of type and antitype were better ways to understand how the consecrated elements are the Body and Blood than the explanation given by Thomas Aquinas (although I do not he think we went as far as to say Thomas Aquinas was wrong). I think Aquinas also argued that the Eucharist was not cannibalism or vampirism but did so in a different way. Please do not ask me what types and antitypes are as I hardly understand myself! Anyway, that appears to be where he was coming from.
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
When the disciples looked at Jesus they did not, in a literal sense, see God; but they did see the incarnate God.God cannot be seen, but he revealed Himself in Jesus. In a similar, (but not analagous) way even transubstatiation does not suggest that what we see is God: what we see is bread that has been invisibly changed.Real Presence means that the Thing (latin:res) is present in the sign.
Lutherans are said to believe in Consubstantiation, but I do not believe Luther ever used that word in that sense: Consubstantial is a theological word about Christ's relation to the Godhead, and so inappropriate to the theology of the sacrament.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
To return to Thomas of Aquin in another verse of 'Adoro te devote, latens Deitas'(Hidden Godhead,I adore thee)
That's indeed Aquinas, but Lauda Sion Salvatorem, not Adoro te devote. Another of the series of beautiful hymns that Aquinas composed for the feast of Corpus Christi.

The verse immediately preceding the one you quoted is also instructive:

Dogma datur Christianis,
Quod in carnem transit panis,
Et vinum in sanguinem.

(This is what we believe as Christians: that the bread has become flesh, and the wine has become blood.)
 
Posted by Cedd (# 8436) on :
 
It is a really interesting OP.

As an Anglican I certainly believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist and more than happy to say that the elements become the body and blood of Christ. However to say that the elements actually become Christ seems to suggest a fullness or a totality of presence, as if the whole of Christ were present. This seems to blur Fr Gregory's distinction between the transcendent and the immanent - i.e. is the transcendent Christ also totally present in the immanent elements?

To take a slightly gory / prosaic tack if I were to donate a pint of blood then a part of 'me' is certainly present wherever that blood goes but it is not the whole of me, and it is certainly not the 'transcendent' conscious mind where the personality of 'me' resides.

So, I have no problem with the presence of Christ in the Eucharist but does that make them have the personhood of Jesus, in the sense of actually being Jesus?
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Miss Amanda mea culpa,mea culpa,mea maxima culpa (Sorry)
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Back when I was being catechized as an adult (although I was baptized RC as a baby), a priest explained his belief that "Eucharistic miracles" of bleeding consecrated hosts, etc., were based on bad theology because although the consecrated elements were no longer bread and wine and were the Body and Blood, eating and drinking them were not cannibalism and vampirism. I still do not understand that argument. And even if we are practicing cannibalism and vampirism, why would that be wrong? It seems to me that the Eucharist resembles the horrors of human sacrifice, cannibalism, and vampirism because that is what it precisely is, but it is made holy by Christ who is priest, victim, altar, and God.
As vampirism isn't actually a real thing, it's probably more helpful to go straight to cannibalism. When cannibals eat their victims, it's usually to demonstrate a) their superiority over the conquered victim and b) their belief that they take on the strengths of the dead victim. Also, physically, the deceased remains deceased and little, presumably, is left of them.

I don't believe Christ was inviting his disciples to do either of those things when he offered his blood and body as food and drink.

Rather than a death ritual requiring the annihilation and disappearance of a victim through consumption, Christ gives us spiritually from his own unending life. He is a victim in the sense of someone who was killed; but he is also the Risen conqueror, and it is through his conquering power that those who 'partake' of him, share in his strength. We take him 'into' us, but by doing so he is in no way diminished, as would obviously be the case in cannibalism.

I believe that the bread and wine, blessed, is Christ's body and blood - but I believe this holy food is 'spiritual' nourishment.

Cannibalism is a rite of destruction and death; holy communion is pretty much the complete opposite.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The TEC prayer book has these words in the Prayer of Consecration, Rite I.
quote:
And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.
I believe that when the consecrated elements are received by a believer, they are the body and blood, even though they are physically bread and wine.

Moo
Note, however, that in no part of this canon are the elements equated with the Body & Blood of Christ; what the prayer says is that we partake of the Body & Blood of Christ when we (following divine command) receive the elements. Some have concluded that the Eucharistic theology of the BCP is therefore a kind of virtualism.

I wonder, though, whether it isn't just comprehensive caginess; a refusal to come down in favor of any particular theory while at the same time rejecting memorialism and transubstantiation.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Some have concluded that the Eucharistic theology of the BCP is therefore a kind of virtualism.

I wonder, though, whether it isn't just comprehensive caginess; a refusal to come down in favor of any particular theory while at the same time rejecting memorialism and transubstantiation.
Well, that accords with Cranmer's 'neither fish nor fowl' vaccilations about the elements.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Back when I was being catechized as an adult (although I was baptized RC as a baby), a priest explained his belief that "Eucharistic miracles" of bleeding consecrated hosts, etc., were based on bad theology because although the consecrated elements were no longer bread and wine and were the Body and Blood, eating and drinking them were not cannibalism and vampirism. I still do not understand that argument. And even if we are practicing cannibalism and vampirism, why would that be wrong? It seems to me that the Eucharist resembles the horrors of human sacrifice, cannibalism, and vampirism because that is what it precisely is, but it is made holy by Christ who is priest, victim, altar, and God.
As vampirism isn't actually a real thing, it's probably more helpful to go straight to cannibalism. When cannibals eat their victims, it's usually to demonstrate a) their superiority over the conquered victim and b) their belief that they take on the strengths of the dead victim. Also, physically, the deceased remains deceased and little, presumably, is left of them.

I don't believe Christ was inviting his disciples to do either of those things when he offered his blood and body as food and drink.

Rather than a death ritual requiring the annihilation and disappearance of a victim through consumption, Christ gives us spiritually from his own unending life. He is a victim in the sense of someone who was killed; but he is also the Risen conqueror, and it is through his conquering power that those who 'partake' of him, share in his strength. We take him 'into' us, but by doing so he is in no way diminished, as would obviously be the case in cannibalism.

I believe that the bread and wine, blessed, is Christ's body and blood - but I believe this holy food is 'spiritual' nourishment.

Cannibalism is a rite of destruction and death; holy communion is pretty much the complete opposite.
[Overused]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
From a Lutheran perspective, the Eucharist is truly Christ. And it's also truly bread and wine. We don't overthink the paradox. Your mileage may vary.
This Anglican would agree,

His were the hands that brake it;
His was the word that spake it;
And what his Word doth make it;
That I believe and take it!

PD
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
From a Lutheran perspective, the Eucharist is truly Christ. And it's also truly bread and wine. We don't overthink the paradox. Your mileage may vary.
This Anglican would agree,

His were the hands that brake it;
His was the word that spake it;
And what his Word doth make it;
That I believe and take it!

PD
Slight tangent, but this is the third version of this pious rhyme I've seen. The other two with which I'm familiar are: "It was the Lord who spake it/He took the bread and brake it/And what His Word doth make it...", and alternatively "It was the Word that spake it/He took the bread and brake it/And what that Word doth make it..."

Some version of the above is often attributed to Elizabeth I. Is there any evidence that she came up with this formula as opposed to it being a popular pious formulation of the time? Any ascription as to some alternative authorship? And any indication as to which of the three versions (or some other variant) might be the original?

FWIW, the saying pretty much encapsulates my own view of the Eucharist, and is of course congruent with Luther's straightforward view of the Real Presence.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0