Thread: Explaining the Eucharist 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=026747
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
One of my sons was quite perturbed, when young, that we were going up to the altar to drink blood (he was listening to the words of the priest and coming to a quite understandable conclusion). How do people explain what is happening during the Eucharist - to their children / congregation / interested enquirers? After all, it's a pretty strange thing to encounter for the first time.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Is it really practical to revisit 2000 years of debate over the nature of the Eucharist? Your child is not the first one to be a bit startled by the thought, according to John's gospel. But John saw no reason to explain any further how it is that "(Jesus') body is true food and his blood true drink".
When my children were young I took a Reformed view of this, and so did not believe there was any miraculous change in the nature of the elements. Broadly, there are three views:
The memorialist view, is that the elements represent the body and blood, and the Eucharist is a ritual remembrance.
The Calvinist view is that the wine truly is the blood of Christ but becomes so only by faith, so that an unbeliever that eats a consecrated host has in no way partaken of anything but bread or wine.
The catholic view is that the elements are miraculously transformed so they become the body and blood of Christ whether you believe it or not. So both believers and unbelievers partake of the body and blood, and for the unbeliever this is viewed as seriously detrimental.
The real question to me is whether you believe in the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics tend to prefer the tern Real Presence, but Calvinist would strenuously affirm the real presence, but limit it to believers.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
There's time for deep theological analysis, but what my son was actually doing was picking up on the words the priest was saying during the administration: 'This is my body', 'This is my blood'. How you explain that what he was hearing wasn't something really scary, to a 3 year old, is something quite different. Or, for that matter, to a first time church attender with no previous Christian background.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Yes - the first eucharist I ever attended had a priest in a fiddleback chasuble with his back to us making lots of arm movements while saying the words of institution very quietly.
I thought he wad cutting his wrists.
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
At school I found myself discussing this issue with a Jewish boy. After some puzzlement he said nervously, "I hope they don't eat this bread..."
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
To be honest, I can't see how one can explain this to a three year old....well, I couldn't to any three year old that I've ever taken to church anyway.
Three year olds are everso literal.....
( Just read Alefric's "Sermon on the Sacrifice of Easter Day" and it seems that it had to be explained simply 1,000 years ago as well)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Does "it's ok because it's Jesus" not suffice for a 3 year old?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Does "it's ok because it's Jesus" not suffice for a 3 year old?
Yes, I think this is very good indeed. I must say, I hadn't been able to come up with anything that wasn't overly complex or theologically laden in one direction or another. Further, we can't really expect a three year old to get his/her head around any properly understood theory of atonement, which is the basic context for understanding the meaning of the Eucharist.
As to what one might say to an interested non-Christian, I think the beginning of such a discussion might well eschew specific Eucharistic theologies and instead start with a profession that we believe that in receiving the consecrated Bread and Wine of the Eucharist we are receiving the Presence of the Risen Christ, and united with him and with all Christians living and departed. It is not the flesh and blood of a corpse that we profess to eat, but the being of the risen and ascended cosmic Christ who makes himself present to us in the Eucharist.
The foregoing is an attempt to find a via media to convey a common Christian understanding that can be congruent with the full range of the transubstantiationist-memorialist continuum.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Can you take the three-year-old up with you to have a look? Then you can say something like, "I know it sounds gross, but it's not--come and see" and it may be reassuring.
With an older child (who can handle analogies) I said, "It's kind of what happened when you were inside my tummy--before you were born you got everything you needed from my body and blood--that's how you ate, that's how you lived. It's how mommies take care of their unborn babies when there's no food inside there."
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
That's an interesting analogy, Lamb Chopped. It might have to be explained gently, but I can see there's mileage in that, especially for slightly older children.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Are there Sunday School teachers on here who've come across material which tries to explain what goes on, in an easy to understand way? Or do people make up their own / avoid the situation? Presumably those who prepare young children, aged 6 or 7, for First Communion will have thought through the subject?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I agree that seeing is very important, that and explaining it beforehand. I was thinking that my daughter wasn't upset because I'd explained beforehand, but until I read Lamb Chopped's response, I hadn't even thought about the fact that in many churches a 3 year old probably wouldn't be able to see the elements. My daughter could see that in whatever way the bread was a body, it wasn't in the gross way. And I'm sure she didn't understand, but I'd explained that it became God, and that it was a way to get closer to God like in baptism--which was recent enough for her to remember, and I knew had meant something to her--and now Jesus-bread is her favorite part of the service. (Not such a fan of the wine though, always tries to forget to kiss the cup, if no one reminds her. I presume even the edge tastes a bit like the strong wine we use.*
*Above all applies to the non-UMC church we go to. Unfortunately we just dunk at the UMC church I go to, and it's not taken as seriously, so it's not as big a deal to her either
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I remember our shock when our then 3 y.o. was going round to his toys and offering them a drink of blood, until we realised he was rehearsing what he saw at the communion rail. While I don't want to put people off, I also don't want wholly to sanitise the notion that our life flows from Jesus' death.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The real question to me is whether you believe in the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics tend to prefer the tern Real Presence, but Calvinist would strenuously affirm the real presence, but limit it to believers.
The term "real presence" is of Lutheran provenance, I think. Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament without accepting the annihilation of the accidents. In other words, he believed that Christ's body and blood were present in and under the bread and the wine. Whereas the Roman Catholic view is that the elements stop being bread and wine when they become the body and the blood.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Zwinglian (Memorialist): no presence, just bread and wine
Calvinist: spiritual presence, still bread and wine
Cranmerian (Anglican): real body and blood received by faith, still bread and wine
Lutheran: real presence, still bread and wine
Catholic: transubstantiated, not bread and wine anymore
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Lutherans will say that the real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not dependent on the belief of the receiver. Grace is still being imparted to even the unbeliever.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Chorister:
How you explain it to a three year old depends rather on what you believe and on what he already has been told. For many Christians it would be obvious to say that it represents it.
But if that's not your conviction, it would be dishonest.
So I don't think you can divorce the explanation from the underlying theology.
Nor did I imagine you wanted to keep the discussion to the level of a three year old child.
In which case maybe you should try Hell.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
When I first took communion (as an adult) I had picked up on 'do this in remembrance of me' and had no problem at all. The various theological interpretations came much later.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The real question to me is whether you believe in the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics tend to prefer the tern Real Presence, but Calvinist would strenuously affirm the real presence, but limit it to believers.
The term "real presence" is of Lutheran provenance, I think. Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament without accepting the annihilation of the accidents. In other words, he believed that Christ's body and blood were present in and under the bread and the wine. Whereas the Roman Catholic view is that the elements stop being bread and wine when they become the body and the blood.
Nope
Calvinist, Look up Mercerberg for Calvinism with this as a particular emphasis. Calvin insisted that at communion we were fed on the Body and Blood of our Lord but it is a spiritual feast, that happens in heaven to which the Holy Spirit takes us during communion. I have spent rather long on it recently.
Jengie
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lutherans will say that the real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not dependent on the belief of the receiver. Grace is still being imparted to even the unbeliever.
Yep. That's why I would place it next in line to Roman Catholicism.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Except that, if I've understood IngoB on other threads correctly, the RCs believe that if you're not in a state of grace, receiving the elements will curse you rather than bless you?
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lutherans will say that the real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not dependent on the belief of the receiver. Grace is still being imparted to even the unbeliever.
Wesleyans believe the same. Additionally, we believe what Daronmedway said of Anglicans: "real body and blood received by faith, still bread and wine."
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then,as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lutherans will say that the real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not dependent on the belief of the receiver. Grace is still being imparted to even the unbeliever.
Though if you can call it grace, when it has such bad effects on the one who receives it without faith...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
So I don't think you can divorce the explanation from the underlying theology.
Nor did I imagine you wanted to keep the discussion to the level of a three year old child.
I was interested in how we should explain it to people of any age coming to the Eucharist (or awareness of the Eucharist) for the first time. Is launching into the different understandings of the Eucharist using theological terms really the best way?!
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Well, yes it is, because different Christians will want to tell their kids very different things. I wouldn't want my kids to be taught Zwinglianism or Roman Catholicism. I'd stretch to Lutheranism and I'd tolerate Calvinism but I personally prefer Cranmerian Receptionism. And that's what I teach my kids. I guess what's more interesting is how I teach my kids Anglican Eucharistic theology, and I'll post on that later.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then, as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.
'And eats and drinks judgement on themselves'. Gerasu, that isn't some weird belief peculiar to the RCC. As far as I am aware, every Christian church in Christendom follows St Paul and believes this.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And the Lord's body is?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
To paraphrase Augustine:
In the Eucharist, the Body of Christ (The Church as the Redeemed People of God) feeds on the Body of Christ (The Eucharist) to become the Body of Christ (The Church in Mission and Witness)
That has been the best explanation I have learned in seminary.
[ 14. February 2014, 23:05: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then, as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.
'And eats and drinks judgement on themselves'. Gerasu, that isn't some weird belief peculiar to the RCC. As far as I am aware, every Christian church in Christendom follows St Paul and believes this.
Though Paul talks about 'discerning the body' - in context not the 'body' in the sacrament but in the community - the rich arrived first and ate all the food so that slaves who arrived late, because of their duties, had little.
So the damnation might not be about the sacrament but about the way we treat the poor.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then, as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.
'And eats and drinks judgement on themselves'. Gerasu, that isn't some weird belief peculiar to the RCC. As far as I am aware, every Christian church in Christendom follows St Paul and believes this.
Though Paul talks about 'discerning the body' - in context not the 'body' in the sacrament but in the community - the rich arrived first and ate all the food so that slaves who arrived late, because of their duties, had little.
So the damnation might not be about the sacrament but about the way we treat the poor.
More both/and not either/or, leo. Though the issue of the context of exploitation at the table is rarely explored.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
The philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe wrote a brief essay on transubstantiation that took its starting point from exactly this question: how do you explain what is going on in the eucharist to a small child?
She, of course, presumes a Catholic view of the eucharist.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
She also assumes a very bright child.
I know full well that little children understand a lot - but in simple terms - as I know from conversations with boat boys/girls when acting as thurifer - but the article linked to is way beyond most children.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then, as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.
'And eats and drinks judgement on themselves'. Gerasu, that isn't some weird belief peculiar to the RCC. As far as I am aware, every Christian church in Christendom follows St Paul and believes this.
Though Paul talks about 'discerning the body' - in context not the 'body' in the sacrament but in the community - the rich arrived first and ate all the food so that slaves who arrived late, because of their duties, had little.
So the damnation might not be about the sacrament but about the way we treat the poor.
More both/and not either/or, leo. Though the issue of the context of exploitation at the table is rarely explored.
When it is, the Vatican inhibit such discussion e.g. Tissa Balasuriya's 'The Eucharist and Human Liberation.'
Do you have any particular authority for the both/and?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
So I don't think you can divorce the explanation from the underlying theology.
Nor did I imagine you wanted to keep the discussion to the level of a three year old child.
I was interested in how we should explain it to people of any age coming to the Eucharist (or awareness of the Eucharist) for the first time. Is launching into the different understandings of the Eucharist using theological terms really the best way?!
No--i'd simply retell the narrative to start with (adding that "do this" is why we do this) and then wait for the person to ask questions, if any. The mere story might be enough to satisfy curiosity--don't want to overwhelm people, like the child who asked "where did i come from?" And got a detailed explanation of sex and childbirth, when the answer he really wanted was "Los Angeles."
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Do you have any particular authority for the both/and?
The Holy Spirit?
[code]
[ 15. February 2014, 16:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Do you have any particular authority for the both/and?
The Holy Spirit?
[code]
Through which of Her inspired writings?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
She also assumes a very bright child....
I agree. I found that paper quite difficult to follow. I suppose if your mother was Elizabeth Anscombe, you would not be as other three year olds.
Tangent alert
None of my business by the way but I'd question the curious assertion on that website by Dr M C Gormally, whoever he or she is, that they have copyright in the paper. It may be that he or she has legitimately acquired it in some way that isn't there disclosed, but unless so, Elizabeth Anscombe died in 2001. The natural assumption is that copyright is live and belongs to her and her executors on her behalf until the end of 2071!
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
With the disclaimer that children's ministry is not my thing, and I assume that there are age-appropriate teaching materials put out by various church bodies' publishing houses that I'm sure do a fine job of explaining the Eucharist to small children...I think you could describe the Last Supper -- Jesus had a special meal of bread and wine with his friends, and told them to keep having the same meal in his name -- and then say something like, "We believe that when we share this meal with one another Jesus is part of it in a very real, special way that helps us and reminds us that someday all of his friends will be together with him. It's hard to explain, and when grownups try to do it they sometimes use words and word-pictures that are hard to understand even for other grownups; but you don't have to understand it to believe that Jesus is with us in the bread and wine, is happy that we're here together in his name and is going to be with us all week long." Or something like that. Adults really overthink the theology, not only for themselves but for small children. Remember -- they're the ones Jesus notes as "getting" him more than the smart, sophisticated adults.
Ever since I've been an adult children have been welcome at the altar from babe-in-arms age, and they get to see the elements up close and personal from the get-go. (Also, in most churches of my acquaintance these days kids are generally invited to come closer to the altar during the Eucharistic portion of the service, the better to see what's happening.) But I still agree with Lamb Chopped that it's a good idea to give small children some tangible/textural experience of the Communion elements before they actually communicate...not only to reassure them that God can come to us in very ordinary, earthy means but also to avoid incidents like the tot at one service I attended who, per his parents' request, received a wafer, even though it soon became obvious that this was something new for him, and promptly exclaimed, "YUCK. I DON'T LIKE IT."
*In defense of the pastor involved: Because First Communion age varies wildly from local congregation to local congregation, and from child to child, pastors and Eucharistic servers are at the mercy of parents' direction, or in this case misdirection, when visiting families come through the Communion line, when it comes to offering Communion to small children. In my previous church we had a three-year-old communicant whose matter-of-fact understanding about "getting Jesus," and enthusiasm for same, was about as perfect an example of receiving the sacrament "worthily" as any pastor or theologian could want; on the other hand we had teens (let alone adults) who at least to an observer didn't seem to be taking the whole thing either seriously or joyfully at all. Part of the problem is explaining, and re-explaining, how we do Communion week after week to visitors, no matter how tedious this seems to regular church folks; and part of it is re-reminding the regular church folks of the gravity of the sacrament -- that this isn't like taking food samples at a supermarket or doing a runway walk or playing Simon Says.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
None of my business by the way but I'd question the curious assertion on that website by Dr M C Gormally, whoever he or she is, that they have copyright in the paper. It may be that he or she has legitimately acquired it in some way that isn't there disclosed, but unless so, Elizabeth Anscombe died in 2001. The natural assumption is that copyright is live and belongs to her and her executors on her behalf until the end of 2071!
Dr Gormally, otherwise known by her maiden name Mary Geach, is Elizabeth Anscombe's daughter and literary executor..
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
Never mind explaining it to children... I've never really had it satisfactorily explained to me either - or probably it's that the explanations have been ok but I haven't been able to understand or appreciate them properly. I've never been comfortable with the Eucharist, communion, breaking of bread, whatever name it's called in the denomination I'm part of. I've taken wafers at the altar rail. I've been with people who consider it fine to do with coffee and digestive biscuit if that's all you've got and others who think the whole point is that you go out of your way to get the proper elements. I've been part of house church/fellowship meetings where everyone has a chunk of bread and romps around the room giving a piece to whoever they want to say "hi" to. The Baptist church I'm part of passes the bread along the rows with a muttered "The body of Christ broken for you."
I always find it a difficult service/meeting to cope with.
I am personally unconvinced that when Jesus shared that last Passover meal with his friends he intended to establish a ritual for everyone to be following in the ways we all do to this day, any more than I think when he outlined how we should pray he intended us to be repeating The Lord's Prayer down the millennia.
So - interesting thread.
Nen - who must be missing something.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
She also assumes a very bright child.
I know full well that little children understand a lot - but in simple terms - as I know from conversations with boat boys/girls when acting as thurifer - but the article linked to is way beyond most children.
Anscombe was the mother of seven, so I suspect she was speaking from experience. But her point is not that what she says in her article is how you should explain the Eucharist to children, but rather that how we teach a child what the Eucharist is -- by focusing on what actually is said and done in the liturgy itself -- is also how we should set about explaining the Eucharist to adults.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
her point is not that what she says in her article is how you should explain the Eucharist to children, but rather that how we teach a child what the Eucharist is -- by focusing on what actually is said and done in the liturgy itself -- is also how we should set about explaining the Eucharist to adults.
It seems very odd to me to start with transubstantiation (or any other theory about how exactly Christ is present in the Eucharist).
I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.
Then I'd add the inferences that the canonical writers draw directly from it: that it's a form of worship, that it should express fellowship with other Christians, that it is both an expression of and part of our Christian discipleship, and that it is a serious business: taking it lightly, or worse, contemptuously, is a serious sin.
Then the explanation of why it's so serious a matter, and similarly, why it's so important fits in: it's an encounter with Jesus. Of course the churches disagree about how that encounter works, so the explanation (if it is to be properly educational) should include both "what I believe about it" and "what other Christians think". But I wouldn't even begin to tackle this level of explanation without first having done the groundwork of setting out the historical events that the Eucharist symbolises, and the role it should have in the life of a believer.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Except that, if I've understood IngoB on other threads correctly, the RCs believe that if you're not in a state of grace, receiving the elements will curse you rather than bless you?
Which is also the traditional Lutheran position. Or rather that it can curse you (which is also the RC position). A grave sin needs sufficient knowledge to be deadly.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It seems very odd to me to start with transubstantiation (or any other theory about how exactly Christ is present in the Eucharist).
I don’t find that odd at all. That just means that she takes as her starting point (her understanding of) Christ’s claim that “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Why should the meal be the natural starting point?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.
And who says all Christians agree about that? What is a memorial, for instance?
And from your text you assume that what Christ commanded to keep doing (“do this in remembrance of me” and “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”) refers to the meal. But you won’t find that in Scripture. What Christ commanded to be done was what he did (i.e. to take bread/wine, give thanks/bless, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is a natural outcome of this, of course, but the remembrance refers to doing what Christ did, and not to the meal.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.
And who says all Christians agree about that? What is a memorial, for instance?
Obviously not all Christians agree that it is only a memorial, but it clearly is a memorial-- the only dispute is whether it is something more than that.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
And from your text you assume that what Christ commanded to keep doing (“do this in remembrance of me” and “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”) refers to the meal. But you won’t find that in Scripture. What Christ commanded to be done was what he did (i.e. to take bread/wine, give thanks/bless, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is a natural outcome of this, of course, but the remembrance refers to doing what Christ did, and not to the meal.
Huh? I'm not following you at all here. I keep trying to respond but I honestly cannot even figure out what you are arguing for or against here.
quote:
1Cor. 11:23-26 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes
The text seems to be very clear here in drawing a connection between the thing that is to be remembered (the Lord's death) and the thing that is causing us to remember it (eating the bread and drinking the cup). Now, again, whether there is something more to it than just that is obviously a matter of great debate. But the fact that, at the very minimum, the bread & wine are bringing the atonement to mind would seem both obvious as well as a universally held Christian belief.
What am I missing?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
That just means that she takes as her starting point (her understanding of) Christ’s claim that “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Why should the meal be the natural starting point?
Two reasons: Firstly, because an assertion of transubstantiation is an extraordinary claim. It is simply not true (on a catholic viewpoint or any other viewpoint I am aware of) that saying the words “this is my body” of a thing transforms it into something else, or makes it an object for worship, outside the context of the Eucharist. And therefore, it seems to me, that transubstantiation can't be properly understood other than in that context. Anscombe's explanation to a child would, it seems to me, make it appear quite possible for anyone to say “this is my body” and produce a worshipable presentation of Jesus, or, come to that, say the same words with any other historical figure in mind and claim to then have a piece of their flesh. Since transubstantiation doesn't work like that, starting with 'how transubstantiation works' produces an odd and false impression.
Whereas starting with the historical context, building on that the personal and devotional context, and getting to the point where we can say that something unusual and special is going on, gives the basis for saying precisely what we believe that special thing to be.
Second reason is that it is natural to describe what something is and what it is for, before giving a technical account of how it words. If you were asked to explain a motor car, you'd start with the basic principle of transportation, go on to set out key components like engine, wheels, controls and seats, and then say something about how cars are driven and perhaps the legal and safety aspects of that. Giving an explanation of the chemical propertties of petrol that make the whole thing go is way down the list (if you ever get to it), because though it is of vital importance, you don't actually need to know that to use a car, and knowing it (and nothing else) gets you really no closer to knowing what a car does than you did before.
quote:
And who says all Christians agree about that? What is a memorial, for instance?
A memorial is something which symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates a historical event. What Christian group is there that does not think the Eucharist symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates something about the life of Jesus?
quote:
And from your text you assume that what Christ commanded to keep doing (“do this in remembrance of me” and “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”) refers to the meal. But you won’t find that in Scripture. What Christ commanded to be done was what he did (i.e. to take bread/wine, give thanks/bless, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is a natural outcome of this, of course, but the remembrance refers to doing what Christ did, and not to the meal.
That seems to be addressing some question about what the essential features of the physical act of Eucharistic celebration are, which isn't something I commented on at all. I'm happy to assume that most churches are obeying the 'do this' command as far as this is concerned.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The real question to me is whether you believe in the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics tend to prefer the tern Real Presence, but Calvinist would strenuously affirm the real presence, but limit it to believers.
The term "real presence" is of Lutheran provenance, I think. Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament without accepting the annihilation of the accidents. In other words, he believed that Christ's body and blood were present in and under the bread and the wine. Whereas the Roman Catholic view is that the elements stop being bread and wine when they become the body and the blood.
Nope
Calvinist, Look up Mercerberg for Calvinism with this as a particular emphasis. Calvin insisted that at communion we were fed on the Body and Blood of our Lord but it is a spiritual feast, that happens in heaven to which the Holy Spirit takes us during communion. I have spent rather long on it recently.
Jengie
I think you're wrong on this Jengie. The two positions I've summarised are the Lutheran position (Real Presence without Annihilation) and the Catholic (Annihilation & Transubstantiation).
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Two reasons: Firstly, because an assertion of transubstantiation is an extraordinary claim. It is simply not true (on a catholic viewpoint or any other viewpoint I am aware of) that saying the words “this is my body” of a thing transforms it into something else, or makes it an object for worship, outside the context of the Eucharist.
And? My point is that transubstantiation is the Catholic understanding of why Christ could say “this is my body.” I see no reason why the meal would be any more of a natural starting point than the real presence (however contrued).
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Second reason is that it is natural to describe what something is and what it is for, before giving a technical account of how it words.
Which is the point of the doctrine of transubstantiation. It doesn’t explain anything, or show how it is done. It is merely a term denoting that the elements have changed.
But my point is that it is not self-evidently obvious that the meal is a more natural starting point. One could also say that the meal is a natural ending point – it is the response to what the Eucharist is.
Note that I am not defending the Catholic position here. I am merely pointing out that the meal isn’t necessarily a more natural starting point than the real presence. And your insistence on the memorial doesn’t quite work either, as we see below.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously not all Christians agree that it is only a memorial, but it clearly is a memorial-- the only dispute is whether it is something more than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A memorial is something which symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates a historical event. What Christian group is there that does not think the Eucharist symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates something about the life of Jesus?
But if you ask a Jew what a memorial is, and he will say that it is a sacrifice. As a Zwinglian what a memorial is, and you will get a whole different answer. For a Jew a memorial was more than a commemoration of an historical event.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The text seems to be very clear here in drawing a connection between the thing that is to be remembered (the Lord's death) and the thing that is causing us to remember it (eating the bread and drinking the cup).
Then you aren’t following the text. Christ says “this is my body which is given for you … this is my blood … do this in remembrance of me.” He didn’t say “remember my death.” What we see in the text is that we are to ‘do the bread’ and ‘do the wine’ which means to do what Christ did with these elements (take bread and wine, give thanks, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is the response to this, but the ‘memorial’ doesn’t refer to the meal. The meal is the response to the ‘memorial.’
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I think it prudent to steer away from Thomist explanation's of the transformation of the elements in the Eucharist when trying to answer questions coming from a non-Christian perspective. These provide only a false clarity IMO, and the meaning of the philosophical categories involved isn't immediately clear to the modern mind and certainly not to the common meaning of the terms involved; indeed perhaps that has always been true. It seems better to assert the proposition that the elements do in fact change in the Eucharist to become the Body and Blood of Christ - the full being of the Risen Christ in his glorified humanity and his eternal divinity, and that this happens according to Our Lord's own word, pronounced by a duly ordained minister (presbyter or bishop) acting on behalf of the Church.
That's a starting point, of course. One can proceed on to aspects of ecclesiology and specific Eucharistic theology if this is called for, but the critical thing is to assert the essential faith of the Church.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I've always appreciated the Orthodox affirmation of what happens at the Eucharist -- namely that it's a "Divine Mystery." I actually prefer that to the rather tortured Lutheran definition of Real Presence "in, with and under," etc...which I think was a response in kind to the equally tortured explanations of transubstantiation.
I wanted to respond, though, to the comment about Jesus not intending to establish a sacrament/ritual.
First of all -- and I don't mean this to be snarky -- it's always important to tease out one's emotional reactions to Scripture from an actual attempt to read/interpret it, to avoid an eisegenic reading. In other words, if Holy Communion is an awkward and confusing point in the service for someone for whatever reason, that person should be careful about reading his/her negative reactions back into the texts describing the Last Supper, or into a doctrinal declaration: "Well, I suspect Jesus didn't really institute a ritual for the his community of followers," "People must have made that bit up later," etc. (And just in the interests of full disclosure, I've certainly read back my own prejudices into texts that would be more convenient for me to discount.)
Secondly: While it's true that a gospel is a different genre of writing than a work of journalism, I would submit that the record of Scripture, which reflects the remembered experience of Jesus' original followers, does indeed indicate that Jesus at some point did institute Holy Communion as a central ritual gathering point, if you will, of the faithful. And that is also consistent with his use of food/meals as focal points both for demonstrating the power of God and for demonstrating divine generosity and inclusion. Jesus sharing meals with the ritually "unclean"; Jesus blessing and serving food; Jesus' presence creating an abundance of food; Jesus' use of "banquet" imagery in his parables about the Kingdom; all images and ideas that swirl into the imagery of the Eucharist.
[ 17. February 2014, 14:06: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The text seems to be very clear here in drawing a connection between the thing that is to be remembered (the Lord's death) and the thing that is causing us to remember it (eating the bread and drinking the cup).
Then you aren’t following the text. Christ says “this is my body which is given for you … this is my blood … do this in remembrance of me.” He didn’t say “remember my death.” What we see in the text is that we are to ‘do the bread’ and ‘do the wine’ which means to do what Christ did with these elements (take bread and wine, give thanks, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is the response to this, but the ‘memorial’ doesn’t refer to the meal. The meal is the response to the ‘memorial.’
The next line draws the connection with Jesus death "when you do this you proclaim my death until I come again". At the very least, it would seem that the meal is an occasion to create a memory for others.
I'm still completely at sea re: what your point is here and what you are laboring so hard to communicate. Perhaps it's clearer to others but I haven't got a clue what you are suggesting here-- or why.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously not all Christians agree that it is only a memorial, but it clearly is a memorial-- the only dispute is whether it is something more than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A memorial is something which symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates a historical event. What Christian group is there that does not think the Eucharist symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates something about the life of Jesus?
But if you ask a Jew what a memorial is, and he will say that it is a sacrifice. As a Zwinglian what a memorial is, and you will get a whole different answer. For a Jew a memorial was more than a commemoration of an historical event.
For a Zwinglian it is also more than just "commemoration", fwiw.
But again, the point (not just my point, but the original point we're both responding to) was that "memorial" was a minimal aspect-- a "lowest common denominator" understanding that all Christians agree on. Everyone has agreed that for many it is much more than that. Your "Jewish" understanding of memorial would be an example of "more than" that would also subsume and include any "lesser" Zwinglian understandings of the memorial.
[ 17. February 2014, 14:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I was involved in preparing children for their first communion a couple of months ago and said something like, 'Some people believe that the bread and wine actually change into....That is what i believe; others.....'
The age-range was 5-12 because it is the first time we have admitted children before confirmation so it was en masse, pun intended.
I observe, as I administer each week, that these children look and behave a lot more reverently than some of us who have been communicants fore decades.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Having been attending church since about a week old and therefore never having had to be introduced to the Eucharist as a new event, I find it very hard to put myself in the shoes of one who is brought up short by the shock of seeing churchgoers taking part in what must appear to be a very strange event indeed.
I did like the approach of one church, which produced a Eucharist booklet, with the words of the Mass on the RH page, with pictures and illustrations on the LH page. So anyone attending the service for the first time would be able to see and read (or have read to them, if very young) why the priest up the front is doing all those strange things. They can do this without the embarrassment of having to ask someone to tell them, or remaining in ignorance.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The two positions I've summarised are the Lutheran position (Real Presence without Annihilation) and the Catholic (Annihilation & Transubstantiation).
Not to be picky, but it is not the Catholic position that the bread and wine are annihilated and replaced; rather, they are converted into the body and blood of Christ. Or at least so this guy thought.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm still completely at sea re: what your point is here and what you are laboring so hard to communicate. Perhaps it's clearer to others but I haven't got a clue what you are suggesting here-- or why.
I am challenging three interrelated claims you have made: (1) that the meal is the obvious natural starting point when talking about the Eucharist; (2) that the memorial is a clear cut thing that everyone agrees on; and (3) that the memorial refers to the meal.
Firstly, the major emphasis on the meal isn’t found until Luther, as Joseph A. Jungmann points out in “‘Abendmahl’ als Name der Eucharistie” (ZKTh 93, 1971): 91-94. On p.93 he says, in english: “Thus it is clear that the term ‘Supper’ was a complete innovation in the sixteenth century.” He is here referring to the name (and the major emphasis) of the action, he is not saying there were no Supper.
Secondly, the ‘memorial’ is not a ‘lowest common denominator.’ To take an obvious example. Catholics hold that the memorial is a continuation of the memorial sacrifices, while Zwinglians do not. Ask a Zwinglian what a memorial is, and you will probably get an answer that doesn’t even resemble the response you get from a Catholic. To understand what the memorial is, you first need to understand the real presence. If the real presence is not real, as Zwinglians claim, than the memorial is nothing more than a ‘get together’ where we think about Jesus and what he has done.
Thirdly, the memorial (i.e. what we understand by Christ’s commandment to “do this in remembrance of me”) doesn’t refer to the meal (in neither Luke nor Paul). It refers to the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal. If the meal is a sacrificial meal, as Catholics hold, then the memorial is the offering, while the meal is the participation in the offering. If a Zwinglian understanding is correct, then the memorial (following what Luke and Paul) would refer to the preparation of the meal; the prayers made to God, etc., but still not to the meal (if they consistently follows Luke and Paul, that is).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Thanks for your clarification. I think I see where the confusion arose.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm still completely at sea re: what your point is here and what you are laboring so hard to communicate. Perhaps it's clearer to others but I haven't got a clue what you are suggesting here-- or why.
I am challenging three interrelated claims you have made: (1) that the meal is the obvious natural starting point when talking about the Eucharist; .
Actually, that was another poster, not me.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
(3) that the memorial refers to the meal.
Again, as I said before, I'm not arguing that it does-- nor is anyone else that I'm aware of, either here or in any denominational position.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
If the real presence is not real, as Zwinglians claim, than the memorial is nothing more than a ‘get together’ where we think about Jesus and what he has done.
As a Zwinglian, I can assure you that is not the Zwinglian position, and is offensive as the mischaracterizations often made of the "high church" perspectives.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Secondly, the ‘memorial’ is not a ‘lowest common denominator.’ To take an obvious example. Catholics hold that the memorial is a continuation of the memorial sacrifices, while Zwinglians do not. Ask a Zwinglian what a memorial is, and you will probably get an answer that doesn’t even resemble the response you get from a Catholic. To understand what the memorial is, you first need to understand the real presence. If the real presence is not real, as Zwinglians claim, than the memorial is nothing more than a ‘get together’ where we think about Jesus and what he has done.
Setting aside the mischaracterization of the Zwinglian position, I still think you've got a "lowest common denominator". Obviously, again, the Zwinglian view is not the same as the Catholic (or Lutheran or Orthodox or even Reformed) view. But I am not aware of anything within the Zwinglian view that would not be included or subsumed in those other views, other than (obviously) the "just" or "only" aspect of the memorial. Yes, we are using terms differently, and yes we are both misunderstanding each other's position (an old song). But unless I am really missing something there is nothing in the Zwinglian pov that is not subsumed within the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Reformed positions.
That may or may not mean that beginning with that lowest common denominator is a good starting point-- again, that was not my argument, but another's. My own practice is more like leo's-- starting with a brief and simple and hopefully accurate/respectful overview of several positions, followed by the one favored within my own particular faith tradition.
[ 17. February 2014, 23:04: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
K-Mann quote:
Thirdly, the memorial (i.e. what we understand by Christ’s commandment to “do this in remembrance of me”) doesn’t refer to the meal (in neither Luke nor Paul). It refers to the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal.
It's not at all clear to me how "this" refers to "the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal." It makes more sense to me that "this" is rather specific, referring to parts of the annual Passover meal.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
In answer to Chorister's original question. Last Sunday we had a breaking of bread/Lord's supper before we shared our common meal and explained to the children that we were doing this as a way to remember what Jesus did for us. We explained that the bread (or grape juice in their case) came from the tradition of the Last Supper and that they were not literally the body and blood of Jesus.
I find it interesting that I come from a tradition that would be described pejoratively as literalist, but on the Lord's Supper the positions in faith traditions on literalism seem to be switched.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, we are using terms differently, and yes we are both misunderstanding each other's position (an old song). But unless I am really missing something there is nothing in the Zwinglian pov that is not subsumed within the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Reformed positions.
But then it becomes extremely impractical to use those terms as ‘lowest common denominators,’ because they are used so differently. The view of what the real presence is will colour how you see the memorial.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
K-Mann quote:
Thirdly, the memorial (i.e. what we understand by Christ’s commandment to “do this in remembrance of me”) doesn’t refer to the meal (in neither Luke nor Paul). It refers to the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal.
It's not at all clear to me how "this" refers to "the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal." It makes more sense to me that "this" is rather specific, referring to parts of the annual Passover meal.
'Since we do not know how they celebrated the Passover meal in Jesus’ day, we cannot use that as a starting point. The Passover Seder as we know it dates to the Middle Ages. What we do know, however, is what we see in the text. The emphasis on what Jesus did is quite clear in the most English translations, and even clearer in the Greek text. St. Paul writes (1Cor 11:23-25, my translation) that Jesus “took bread and having given thanks he broke it and said, ‘This [gr. τοῦτο] is my body which is for you; do this [gr. τοῦτο] for my remembrance.’ Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This [gr. τοῦτο] cup is the new covenant in mu blood; do this [gr. τοῦτο], as often as you drink of it, for my remembrance’.”
What we see is that Jesus did seven things, which he then commanded to be done for his remembrance. He (1) took bread; (2) gave thanks; (3) broke the bread; (4) distributed the bread, saying some words; (5) took wine; (6) gave thanks; and (7) distributed the wine. Later this was shortened down to four parts, where the priest (1) took bread and wine; (2) gave thanks; (3) broke the bread; and (4) distributed the bread and wine. See for instance Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (New ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic 2005): 48-50. These seven or four things is the memorial. The meal is the response to the memorial, but the meal is not the memorial itself, at least not in Paul.
Also note that the emphasis on the drinking, the meal context (“as often as you drink of it”), is a parenthetical remark. The text doesn’t say that the memorial is in eating and drinking, but that this is the normal context. We could illustrate this by saying that the Cross is the equivalent of the memorial, while the acceptance of salvation is the equivalent of the meal. Both are very important, but they are distinct.
But the main thing that interests me is that we do not find any major emphasis on the meal until Luther, as Joseph A. Jungmann points out in “‘Abendmahl’ als Name der Eucharistie” (ZKTh 93, 1971): 91-94. On p.93 he says, in english: “Thus it is clear that the term ‘Supper’ was a complete innovation in the sixteenth century.” Before that, the main focus was on the eucharistia – the Eucharistic prayer or thanksgiving, which was seen in sacrificial terms (primarily a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving). See Joseph Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius 1986): 36-39, and two postscripts on pp.50-60.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I am challenging three interrelated claims you have made:
I think you mean me rather than cliffdweller.
quote:
(1) that the meal is the obvious natural starting point when talking about the Eucharist;
Yes, that's my point (although I didn't use 'meal' in contradistinction to 'memorial' as you seem to be doing).
I think it is the natural starting point to begin with the historical institution of the practice, and the associations (ritual meal to Last Supper / ritual meal as instituted at Last Supper to the death of Jesus) which are made in scripture and acknowledged by essentially the whole Christian church.
Why? In addition to the reasons already given, because that is relatively simple, comprehensible and uncontroversial. Whereas transubstantiation is an extraordinary and unintuitive claim which is widely disputed, and (IMHO) defensible only if you have laid the groundwork in showing that the celebration in which it is said to occur is so important a part of the worship of the church, and of such personal significance in the Christian life, that the extraordinary claims made about it are both appropriate and credible in that historical and devotional context.
With respect to Elizabeth Anscombe (who, as a Catholic might well be taking it for granted that this groundwork has already been done) the starting point in her essay ("He is saying Jesus' words that change the bread into Jesus' body") reads to me like a description of a magic spell, absent the context of the faith in which those words are said. I could only take them seriously after assimilating the significance of Jesus, the atonement, the call to discipleship, and the specialness of the Eucharist in the Christian life. Only when I have those ideas settled could I even give a fair hearing to transubstantiation as a doctrine.
quote:
(2) that the memorial is a clear cut thing that everyone agrees on;
That isn't exactly what I said, and cliffdweller has explained what I meant better than I did.
I'll try it without 'memorial' as this seems to be a buzzword into which you are reading connotations I do not intend: what I meant was this - "practically all Christians associate the ritual event of the Eucharist with what Jesus did at the historical event of the Last Supper, and interpret both events as including some sort of reference to Jesus' death and the spiritual significance thereof".
Obviously they then go on to disagree about all sorts of other stuff. The bit that they agree on, being simple and uncontroversial, is a good starting point for explaining the different positions that the various groups then take.
quote:
(3) that the memorial refers to the meal.
I didn't say that at all. You seem to be drawing a distinction here that I never made and also don't care about.
I don't mind what bits of the historical event you think the "do this" command essentially refers to. Whatever the true answer, I am quite happy to assume that your church (whichever one it is) is getting that part right, and doing the thing Jesus told us to do.
[ 18. February 2014, 15:25: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Having been attending church since about a week old and therefore never having had to be introduced to the Eucharist as a new event, I find it very hard to put myself in the shoes of one who is brought up short by the shock of seeing churchgoers taking part in what must appear to be a very strange event indeed.
I did like the approach of one church, which produced a Eucharist booklet, with the words of the Mass on the RH page, with pictures and illustrations on the LH page. So anyone attending the service for the first time would be able to see and read (or have read to them, if very young) why the priest up the front is doing all those strange things. They can do this without the embarrassment of having to ask someone to tell them, or remaining in ignorance.
Changing the subject slightly, I strongly suspect churches could really help newcomers by providing a "How to church" guide explaining the practical side (turn up on sunday, go here, do this, watch out for the surprising whatever... I'm a bit vague on the details myself as I don't). Perhaps some do although I haven't encountered it.
On the Eucharist side, I've long been puzzled by the whole thing. So I welcome this whole discussion although I don't yet feel particularly illuminated.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I have been to Buckfast Abbey, a Roman Catholic monastery in Devon, with services (indeed the whole abbey) open to the public. Just inside the door are several bookshelves with many little booklets (not at all expensive) explaining all sorts of aspects of Roman Catholic Christian faith and practice. I've yet to see something similar in an Anglican church (they may exist, but I've yet to see them available just inside the door of churches for people to pick up or purchase). It may go some way towards demystifying everything that goes on.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think it is the natural starting point to begin with the historical institution of the practice, and the associations (ritual meal to Last Supper / ritual meal as instituted at Last Supper to the death of Jesus) which are made in scripture and acknowledged by essentially the whole Christian church.
And that is what I disagree with. You will not find that major emphasis on the meal until Luther. And I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to care much about a Lutheran innovation.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Why? In addition to the reasons already given, because that is relatively simple, comprehensible and uncontroversial.
According to whom? Is the Seder (whatever form that had in Jesus’s day) any more ‘comprehensible’?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Whereas transubstantiation is an extraordinary and unintuitive claim which is widely disputed, and (IMHO) defensible only if you have laid the groundwork in showing that the celebration in which it is said to occur is so important a part of the worship of the church, and of such personal significance in the Christian life, that the extraordinary claims made about it are both appropriate and credible in that historical and devotional context.
You seem to be hung up on the word transubstantiation. I didn’t say that transubstantiation as such was the natural starting point, but that these words by Christ – “this is my body” and “this is my blood” – is not any less a natural starting point than the meal. Transubstantiation is one understanding of those words.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
With respect to Elizabeth Anscombe (who, as a Catholic might well be taking it for granted that this groundwork has already been done) the starting point in her essay ("He is saying Jesus' words that change the bread into Jesus' body") reads to me like a description of a magic spell, absent the context of the faith in which those words are said.
And this cannot be said of any prayer anyone says? And remember that Anscombe is talking to a Catholic child here. Why would you expect that she wouldn’t teach that child Catholic teaching? (And note that using words like ‘magic’ is equally ‘damaging’ to prayers as they are to Catholic views on the words of instituton.)
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
"practically all Christians associate the ritual event of the Eucharist with what Jesus did at the historical event of the Last Supper, and interpret both events as including some sort of reference to Jesus' death and the spiritual significance thereof".
Which excludes almost any theologian before Luther. They focused on the Eucharistic prayer, understood as a thanksgiving sacrifice, and not the meal.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I didn't say that at all. You seem to be drawing a distinction here that I never made and also don't care about.
Didn’t you say this the following?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.
That seems to me to make a clear connection between the memorial and the meal, a connection not found in the only texts that uses the memorial language.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't mind what bits of the historical event you think the "do this" command essentially refers to. Whatever the true answer, I am quite happy to assume that your church (whichever one it is) is getting that part right, and doing the thing Jesus told us to do.
But if you do not care what ‘do this’ essentially refers to, how can you come to an understanding of what the ‘lowest common denominator’ is? Your last comment shows that there isn’t any such ‘lowest common denominator.’
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I have been to Buckfast Abbey, a Roman Catholic monastery in Devon, with services (indeed the whole abbey) open to the public. Just inside the door are several bookshelves with many little booklets (not at all expensive) explaining all sorts of aspects of Roman Catholic Christian faith and practice. I've yet to see something similar in an Anglican church (they may exist, but I've yet to see them available just inside the door of churches for people to pick up or purchase). It may go some way towards demystifying everything that goes on.
All Saints Clifton, Bristol, has a series of take away leaflets on topics such as 'Why holy communion' candles, baptism, incense and so on.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
k-mann,
I'm almost completely certain that whatever it is you are arguing against, I didn't say and don't mean.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think it is the natural starting point to begin with the historical institution of the practice, and the associations (ritual meal to Last Supper / ritual meal as instituted at Last Supper to the death of Jesus) which are made in scripture and acknowledged by essentially the whole Christian church.
And that is what I disagree with. You will not find that major emphasis on the meal until Luther. And I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to care much about a Lutheran innovation.
You can't, surely, be saying that the association between the Eucharist and the Last Supper is a Lutheran innovation? I don't get it.
quote:
Is the Seder (whatever form that had in Jesus’s day) any more ‘comprehensible’?
I don't understand the point you're making. The Seder/Passover (certainly in it's modern form, certainly in the form described in the OT, and almost certainly at all intervening points) has a historical and devotional context. You'd want to explain those to explain the Seder, wouldn't you? If you wanted to know what it was about, you'd ask a Jew things like “What does this refer to?” and “What does this mean to you?”. There are even questions like that in the ritual itself.
I'm suggesting that if you want to explain the Eucharist, answering that sort of question is a good start.
quote:
And this cannot be said of any prayer anyone says? And remember that Anscombe is talking to a Catholic child here. Why would you expect that she wouldn’t teach that child Catholic teaching? (And note that using words like ‘magic’ is equally ‘damaging’ to prayers as they are to Catholic views on the words of instituton.)
Again, I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously I don't think the Catholic view is 'magic'. I think that explaining it as “words that change the bread” absent the context of the faith in which those words are said is describing it as if it were magic. I'm not criticising transubstantiation here. I'm criticising a description of what is going on which makes it sound like magic. And, you'll note, that I expressed doubt that Anscombe is guilty of this in reality, precisely because I think it likely that her pointing out the importance of the words of institution would take place within an (unstated in the essay) context of wider Catholic explanation.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
"practically all Christians associate the ritual event of the Eucharist with what Jesus did at the historical event of the Last Supper, and interpret both events as including some sort of reference to Jesus' death and the spiritual significance thereof".
Which excludes almost any theologian before Luther.
Apart from St Paul? And Matthew, Mark and Luke? You can't possibly imagine that Luther was the first person to think that the Eucharist has its origins in the Last Supper. That would be insane.
quote:
They focused on the Eucharistic prayer, understood as a thanksgiving sacrifice, and not the meal.
You must be reading some sort of agenda into my post that isn't there. I am not setting up the acts of eating and drinking against the acts of giving thanks and praying, and saying we focus on one and ignore the other. That's a distinction you have read into my posts, that wasn't intended, expressed or implied, and which I simply don't care to make.
quote:
Didn’t you say this the following?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.
That seems to me to make a clear connection between the memorial and the meal, a connection not found in the only texts that uses the memorial language.
Again, this is a distinction that you are making and I'm not.
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me. It looks to me like pointless hair-splitting. Jesus broke bread, took wine, gave thanks, talked about his body and blood, referred to his death, and distributed food and drink to be eaten and drunk. He said “Do this”. We copy all of it. If you want to pick out one little bit of that and say this is the Eucharist, then fine. I don't. I honestly cannot see how such an exercise will help anyone's understanding or faith. If it helps you, then that's great. I am not going to argue with you about it. If you worship at any mainstream Christian church, I am practically certain that whatever it is your church does is close enough to count as what I understand the Eucharist to be.
quote:
But if you do not care what ‘do this’ essentially refers to, how can you come to an understanding of what the ‘lowest common denominator’ is? Your last comment shows that there isn’t any such ‘lowest common denominator.’
You're the only Christian I have ever known to denied that the Eucharist is associated with the Last Supper. And I doubt you mean it – I think you are denying something you think I said, which I didn't.
Anyway, that seems to me to be a point of agreement between the churches. 'Lowest common denominator' isn't a phrase I used, but I take cliffdweller to mean by it pretty much what I mean. I am much less confident that you are using the phrase to mean that, because I don't think I understand much of what you are saying.
[ 19. February 2014, 00:22: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
What Eliab said-- all of it.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
The entire rite is the Eucharist, both the consecration of the bread and wine at the altar and the communion of the faithful. Indeed it is traditionally understood that the Eucharistic action itself is not complete until the celebrant receives the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, so that certainly underscores the fact that the offering and the meal can't in fact be separated. They can only be "separated" in terms of liturgical analysis, but not in the actual celebration of the sacrament. The entire rite is aimed at the Church's unity with Christ's eternal self-offering, and both the bit that happens up at the altar and the bit involving the distribution of the consecrated Sacrament serve and express this single intent.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You can't, surely, be saying that the association between the Eucharist and the Last Supper is a Lutheran innovation? I don't get it.
…
Apart from St Paul? And Matthew, Mark and Luke? You can't possibly imagine that Luther was the first person to think that the Eucharist has its origins in the Last Supper. That would be insane.
…
You're the only Christian I have ever known to denied that the Eucharist is associated with the Last Supper.
I haven’t denied that the Eucharist is associated with the Last Supper. My point is that the Supper (our Supper, our eating and drinking here and now), which is about our response to, our participation in, what Christ did, is not the same as the memorial.
We do not find this usage of the memorial until Zwingly, and we do not find any major emphasis on the meal until Luther. This is best seen in the fact that until Luther, people said ‘Eucharist,’ while he started to use the phrase ‘the Supper’ or ‘the Lord’s Supper’ (Ger. das Abendmahl or das Herrenmahl). He shifted emphasis from the Eucharistic prayer, the eucharistia (from the sacrifice of praise and the emphasis on the deeds of Christ at the Last Supper), to the meal. We see this most clearly in his two masses (Formula missae from 1523 and Deutsche Messe from 1526), where he completely removed the Offertory, and constructed the words of institution is such a way that they became directed at the congregation (in a pedagogical fashion). Until Luther, every liturgy directed the words of institution towards God the Father, and they saw it as an eucharistia (a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, emphasising the deeds of Christ).
The meal was important, but it was a response to this (to the memorial aspect), a participation in this, but not the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You must be reading some sort of agenda into my post that isn't there. I am not setting up the acts of eating and drinking against the acts of giving thanks and praying, and saying we focus on one and ignore the other. That's a distinction you have read into my posts, that wasn't intended, expressed or implied, and which I simply don't care to make.
No, I did not say that. What I did say is that to focus first on the meal is quite modern, and not found until Luther.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me.
But it is to Luke and Paul.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It looks to me like pointless hair-splitting. Jesus broke bread, took wine, gave thanks, talked about his body and blood, referred to his death, and distributed food and drink to be eaten and drunk.
Where, exactly, did he refer to his death? He referred to his body and blood being given, yes. But that is not necessarily reducible to his death. He didn’t say “this is my body which will be [given] for you” (future tense), but “this is my body which will is [given] for you” (present tense). A case can be made that he gave himself to the Father in the actions of the Last Supper, that this was part of his sacrifice (with the Cross being the culmination). Ratzinger has written about this in Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 2, chapters 4, 5 and 8 (on the High-Priestly Prayer, the institution of the Eucharist and the Crucifixion and Burial, respectively).
My point is that the meal part of the Eucharist is our response to the memorial; we respond to the things Christ did, and what the priest does in his stead. I have not said that the meal is unimportant, I have said that it is a response.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The entire rite is the Eucharist, both the consecration of the bread and wine at the altar and the communion of the faithful. Indeed it is traditionally understood that the Eucharistic action itself is not complete until the celebrant receives the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, so that certainly underscores the fact that the offering and the meal can't in fact be separated. They can only be "separated" in terms of liturgical analysis, but not in the actual celebration of the sacrament. The entire rite is aimed at the Church's unity with Christ's eternal self-offering, and both the bit that happens up at the altar and the bit involving the distribution of the consecrated Sacrament serve and express this single intent.
Just to be clear. I am not saying that we should not eat it. I am saying that the primary emphasis should be on the sacrifice of praise (the memorial), with the meal being a response to this.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
Although there will be problems with this, I like Jimmy Akin’s “Space Warp To Heaven.”
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
All of Jesus is in even the tiniest bit of the Bread or the smallest sip of the Wine. So yes, it's Sausage Jesus. Easy enough for a seven year old, I would think.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
Although there will be problems with this, I like Jimmy Akin’s “Space Warp To Heaven.”
Yes, that's not bad
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
All of Jesus is in even the tiniest bit of the Bread or the smallest sip of the Wine. So yes, it's Sausage Jesus. Easy enough for a seven year old, I would think.
That's really helpful, thanks
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me.
But it is to Luke and Paul.
I'm with Eliab in thinking that this distinction and several others you are laboring to make appear very, very important to you-- but not to anyone else. I'm not seeing any evidence at all in the text that these distinctions were important to Luke or Paul either. One wonders if these distinctions are important for some practical or devotional reason, or if it's merely an opportunity to reel off all these fun-facts-of-dubious-origin you've accumulated. Nonetheless, I'm chastened by Eliab's reminder to simply be glad that these fun facts have apparently brought some meaning and significance to you, even if not to pretty much anyone else. (the snarkiness of the above a good indicator that I've still got a ways to go to follow Eliab's more generous example)
[Code fix -Gwai]
[ 19. February 2014, 14:41: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me.
But it is to Luke and Paul.
I'm with Eliab in thinking that this distinction and several others you are laboring to make appear very, very important to you-- but not to anyone else.
They are distinctions made by virtually every liturgists before Luther, and most liturgists now.
It also ties into this question: To whom is the words of institution directed? Every pre-reformational liturgy and every Catholic or Orthodox post-reformational liturgy directs them at God (the Father), which is connected to the fact that they, and the actions they refer to (thanksgiving, blessing, etc.), were seen as an offering, a eucharist.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me.
But it is to Luke and Paul.
I'm not seeing any evidence at all in the text that these distinctions were important to Luke or Paul either.
I’m just following what the text actually says. Nowhere in neither Luke nor Paul is the words “do this in remembrance of me” used about the meal itself. You could perhaps try to show where I am wrong instead of just saying that I am wrong.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I’m just following what the text actually says. Nowhere in neither Luke nor Paul is the words “do this in remembrance of me” used about the meal itself. You could perhaps try to show where I am wrong instead of just saying that I am wrong.
Reread your sentence above. It's an argument based on silence. Your entire argument is built on what Luke and Paul don't say. And it's a circular argument. The text itself, as Eliab and others have shown, does NOT say what "do this in remembrance of me" refers to in the specificity you are suggesting. You're assertions do not make it so. When you ask me to "show you why you're wrong" you're simply inviting me to engage in another argument from silence. The text doesn't say one way or the other.
It might be helpful if you provided some references to the rather idiosyncratic historical claims you're making. But even more interesting would be to hear from you why this distinction and the others you're laboring in isolation to make are so important to you? The rest of us just don't seem to get the "why" of it, much less whether or not it's true or accurate. You have spent long paragraphs arguing for things that don't seem to make much difference to the experience, meaning, or truth of the eucharist. Could you perhaps elaborate on "how this (your unique distinctives) changes things?"
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
]They are distinctions made by virtually every liturgists before Luther, and most liturgists now.
Perhaps some citations, then, of other "liturgists" who find this distinction noteworthy? Why do you suppose there are no other liturgists in this forum coming to your aid in this argument?
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
]It also ties into this question: To whom is the words of institution directed? Every pre-reformational liturgy and every Catholic or Orthodox post-reformational liturgy directs them at God (the Father), which is connected to the fact that they, and the actions they refer to (thanksgiving, blessing, etc.), were seen as an offering, a eucharist.
I think you will find that most Protestants, including even Zwinglians (i, not y, btw) would say the same.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Reread your sentence above. It's an argument based on silence. Your entire argument is built on what Luke and Paul don't say.
No, it is based on what they do say. That Christ took bread/wine, gave thanks, broke the bread, and gave the wine, saying “this is my body/blood, do this in remembrance of me.” What does ‘this’ refer to? It clearly refers to the bread/wine. Loosely, we could say that Christ said “do the bread/wine.” And what does that mean? Doing denotes an action, and since Christ didn’t say ‘eat’ (which he does in Matthew/Mark, where there is no memorial language), we can say that it refers to his actions, which are to be imitated. We are to take bread/wine, give thanks, break the bread and distribute it. And that, the text says, is done ‘in remembrance of’ Christ. No mention of the eating. And this is reflected in the pre-Lutheran emphasis on the eucharistia (the sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise) over and above the meal aspact (cf. the significant change of name when Luther dropped the word ‘Eucharist’ in favour of ‘Supper’).
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It might be helpful if you provided some references to the rather idiosyncratic historical claims you're making.
I guess you chose to ignore my references to Joseph Jungmann, Joseph Ratzinger, and Gregory Dix, then.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But even more interesting would be to hear from you why this distinction and the others you're laboring in isolation to make are so important to you?
Because it is what the text says. Why is it so important for you to find some kind of psychological explanation?
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You have spent long paragraphs arguing for things that don't seem to make much difference to the experience, meaning, or truth of the eucharist. Could you perhaps elaborate on "how this (your unique distinctives) changes things?"
The change that came with Luther removed every sniff of sacrificial language in the protestant Eucharistic liturgies, things that were inherent in the oldest liturgies. It is not just a question of ‘meaning,’ but of what the Eucharist is. Luther didn’t think it was a sacrifice (and neither did Calvin or Zwingly), therefore he removed that, and focused primarily on the meal.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps some citations, then, of other "liturgists" who find this distinction noteworthy?
Well, I can give you a few names, some of which I have already cited (but which you seems to have missed):
- Joseph Jungmann: The Mass of the Roman Rite (2 vols. New York 1951, 1955); “‘Abendmahl’ als Name der Eucharistie” (Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 93, 1971): 91-94.
- Joseph Ratzinger: The Feast Of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius 1986), esp. chapter 1:2; Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 2 (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius 2011), esp. chapter 4, 5 and 8.
- Cyprian Vagaggini: Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1976), esp. chapter 7 (“From the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, to the Father: The Liturgy and the Christological-Trinitarian Activity in the Divine Plan.”)
- Gregory Dix: The Shape of the Liturgy (New ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic 2005), esp. pp.48-50.
- Heinz Schürmann: Ursprung und Gestalt. Erörterungen und Besinnungen zum Neuen Testament (Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag 1970), esp. the chapter called “Die Gestalt der urchristlichen Eucharistiefeier.”
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Why do you suppose there are no other liturgists in this forum coming to your aid in this argument?
Since I cannot read other people’s mind, I do not speculate on motives, and generally do not care to find psychological explanations. Maybe they think I am able to answer for myself. Who knows?
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
]It also ties into this question: To whom is the words of institution directed? Every pre-reformational liturgy and every Catholic or Orthodox post-reformational liturgy directs them at God (the Father), which is connected to the fact that they, and the actions they refer to (thanksgiving, blessing, etc.), were seen as an offering, a eucharist.
I think you will find that most Protestants, including even Zwinglians (i, not y, btw) would say the same.
Well, not in the Lutheran tradition (except in the high church tradition), and certainly not in the evangelical traditon. Many Lutheran liturgies, btw, make it like they are directed at the congregation. Take, for instance, the fifth eucharistic liturgy of the Missouri Synod (LCMS). Before citing the words of institution, the pastor says: “In the name of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, at His command, and with His own words, we receive His testament.” See Lutheran Service Book, Pew Edition. (Prepared by The Commission on Worship of LCMS. St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House 2005): 217.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
OK, thanks for the references I must have missed. Obviously can't read any of them right now so I'll take your word for it.
So of course I'm no closer to understanding the distinctions you're trying to make, or the significance they hold for you other than your dogged determination that they are "true" and "found in the text" (because of what it doesn't say...). I find your depictions of Protestant theology, including but not limited to Zwingli (again, i not y) wildly off base, but beyond that, again, we're clearly talking past one another. I guess it's best to follow Eliab's more excellent way.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So of course I'm no closer to understanding the distinctions you're trying to make, or the significance they hold for you other than your dogged determination that they are "true" and "found in the text" (because of what it doesn't say...).
No, I do not base it on what the text doesn’t say. I base it on what the text do say.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I find your depictions of Protestant theology, including but not limited to Zwingli (again, i not y) wildly off base, but beyond that, again, we're clearly talking past one another.
The point was initially made by Eliab that it was weird for Anscombe to start with transubstantiation because the meal would be a better starting point, and something which was a ‘lowest common denominator’ (which either doesn’t exist or is so impractical as to be devoid of content). My point is that it is not any less natural to start with the real presence (transubstantiation being one understanding of that), then to start with the meal, because of two reasons:
(1) The real presence (however construed) is one of the interpretations of Christ’s word “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” which is taken from the texts themselves. They are as natural a starting point as the meal itself, and transubstantiation is the Catholic understanding of these. It shouldn’t be surprising that a Catholic (Anscombe) takes the Catholic understanding of the real presence as the starting point of what happens in a Catholic Mass.
(2) Before the Reformation, the meal was not the major focus point of Eucharistic theology. The main focus was on the Eucharistic sacrifice, on the Eucharistic prayer, as Ratzinger shows. (See The Feast Of Faith, pp.33-36). It shouldn’t be surprising that a Catholic do not care for a (historically novel) Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist, and prefers to take as her starting point the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist when explaining what happens in a Catholic Mass.
And for Zwingli and Zwinglians, I wouldn’t be surprised if many Zwinglians don’t follow Zwingli, but that doesn’t mean that Zwingli did not eradicate the Sacrifice of the Mass, the eucharistia, which was the major focus point of pre-Reformational Eucharistic theology, and the way every liturgist understood the memorial aspect. The meal was not unimportant by any means, but it was the Church’s response to the memorial sacrifice, and not identical to it.
According to Wikipedia, supporters of this “claimed that the eucharist was a true sacrifice, while Zwingli claimed that it was a commemorative meal.”
And btw, I am Lutheran, but I reject Luther’s usage of the term ‘Supper’ as the major name for the Eucharist, mostly because he did not have access to much of the early sources we have, and because, in accordance with Lutheran principles of fidelity not only to Scripture but to the catholic tradition (cf. Confessio Augustana, art. XXI), I should follow the Early Church before I follow Luther.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Yes, you have mentioned those things several, several times now. We get that those points are very, very important to you. We're not getting why
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So of course I'm no closer to understanding the distinctions you're trying to make, or the significance they hold for you other than your dogged determination that they are "true" and "found in the text" (because of what it doesn't say...).
No, I do not base it on what the text doesn’t say. I base it on what the text do say.
Again, this is what you said:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I’m just following what the text actually says. Nowhere in neither Luke nor Paul is the words “do this in remembrance of me” used about the meal itself.
That is an argument based on what Luke and Paul do NOT say-- an argument from silence.
[code]
[ 20. February 2014, 04:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, you have mentioned those things several, several times now. We get that those points are very, very important to you. We're not getting why
Because it is what the text says. Why is it so important to you to find some psychological explanation of my participation in this debate? And why do you act as if I am obsessing or something? You have participated in this discussion just as much as I have.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So of course I'm no closer to understanding the distinctions you're trying to make, or the significance they hold for you other than your dogged determination that they are "true" and "found in the text" (because of what it doesn't say...).
No, I do not base it on what the text doesn’t say. I base it on what the text do say.
Again, this is what you said:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I’m just following what the text actually says. Nowhere in neither Luke nor Paul is the words “do this in remembrance of me” used about the meal itself.
That is an argument based on what Luke and Paul do NOT say-- an argument from silence.
I guess you have ignored the other things I have written, then.
The text (1Cor 11:23b-25, my translation) says that Christ “took bread and having given thanks he broke it and said, ‘This [gr. τοῦτο] is my body which is for you; do this [gr. τοῦτο] for my remembrance.’ Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This [gr. τοῦτο] cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this [gr. τοῦτο], as often as you drink of it, for my remembrance’.”
Now, what were they to ‘do’? There is no command here to eat. We see that in Matthew and Mark, but here we are exegeting Paul, where the emphasis is different. Christ said “this is my body which is for you; do this for my remembrance” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink of it, for my remembrance.” What we see here is that Christ commanded the Apostles to ‘do’ the bread (‘this’) and ‘do’ the wine (‘this’). What this seems to mean is that the Apostles were to imitate the actions that Christ did with the bread and the wine, that is to (1) take bread; (2) give thanks; (3) break the bread; (4) distribute the bread; (5) take wine; (6) give thanks; and (7) distribute the wine.
Cyprian, for example, saw this as an act of sacrifice which the Apostles were commanded to do in remembrance of Christ. He writes:
quote:
For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered.
Cyprian, Epistle 62:14, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, ed. Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers 1995): 362.
This is an exegesis of the text, and we see this emphasis in the Early Church, where this was seen as a memorial or thanksgiving sacrifice, a Eucharist, as shown by Gregory Dix (The Shape of the Liturgy, pp.48-50) and Joseph Ratzinger (The Feast Of Faith, pp.33-36).
The meal was a participation in that meal, a sacrificial meal. What happened when Luther came along, however, was that the focus was shifted over to the meal exclusively, and that sacrificial elements were removed, both the Offertory and the Eucharistic Canon (elements which can be deduced from the Lukan/Pauline text).
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0