homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Reserving the Sacrament - Knock! Knock! Who's There? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Reserving the Sacrament - Knock! Knock! Who's There?
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Malin:

quote:
Are there other reasons for having the reserved sacrament put aside? Can it be used in services where a priest is not able to preside over mass?

What other reasons are there for having reserved sacrament? Is it always present to be a blessing to those praying in the church etc? Are there times when there is no reserved sacrament?

There is such a thing as Holy Communion by extension which takes place in Anglican and Methodist services whereby pre-consecrated elements are used where a priest cannot be present. In the liturgy of Good Friday the wafers used are the consecrated wafers from Maundy Thursday. Between Good Friday and Holy Saturday the reserved sacrament is not supposed to be in church because Christ's body is in the tomb. However, in practice a few wafers are put somewhere else in case they are needed urgently (e.g. if someone needs the Last Rites). These are supposed to be consumed before the first Mass of Easter when the reserved sacrament is replenished. (A couple of years ago the then incumbent at our place forgot so, on the Good Friday a year later I found myself having to munch a load of year old Jesus who, we discovered, had occupied the Lady Chapel aumbry in protest against the Iraq war.)

I have to say that I disagree with Leo - we try to send our lay ministers of communion out from a communion service so they can share in the service as it were. It is mainly reserved for purposes of worship. I think the 'we reserve it for the sick, but as it's there lets have solemn evensong and benediction' defence emerged as a way of placating protestantly inclined Bishops and Archdeacons.

Lay ministers have lunch to go to and hospital visitng hoursdon't always fit.

Many housebound like a regular weekday meeting - they like to fuss around making tea for me so it becomes a pastoral visit as well as sacramental.

Sure, it used to placate archdeacons but nobody in the hierarchy seems to object to reservation these days.

I like benediction very much but people in this benefice sometimes like the aumbrey as a focus for prayer. Others like an icon.
Whatever 'helps' people should be welcomed.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whilst I'm an easy go lucky sort who thinks there are no wrong questions, I just don't think any question of the form 'How much God...?' can make any sense. God is not the kind of thing which admits of quantity, not least because God is no kind of thing whatsoever. The question Christians have asked about the Incarnation is not 'How much God is there in Jesus?' but rather 'How can we explain our conviction, expressed in worship, that Jesus is God?'

Or rather, the only people who have framed 'How much' questions have been the kind of people who end up denying both Jesus' humanity and his divinity. How much of a suitably kenotically reduced deity can we cram into the space where Jesus' human psychology would normally go? Once God admits of quantity, she starts competing for space with other quantifiable entities.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Melon

Ship's desserter
# 4038

 - Posted      Profile for Melon   Author's homepage   Email Melon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
TT's question is
quote:
God be present in the whole universe but also present and localised in Jesus?
It's the phrase "localised in Jesus" that is the problem. It makes Jesus sound like part of the created order. There wasn't a larger or smaller dose of God in Jesus, John says, literally, that "God was the Word". Talk of localising God in Jesus sounds perilously close to adoptionism, which was most certainly condemned as heretical by the pre-catholic church. So it's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question because, whatever answer you give, you have incriminated yourself. The correct catholic understanding is hypostatic union, not localising a high concentration of the divine in a human Jesus.

And, if you take hypostatic union seriously, I can't see how anything that involves foodstuffs can in any way compare with the incarnation. You'd need to postulate that the Jesus of the Eucharist has a divine and a starch-based nature, and that the divine was indivisible from the starch, or something.

[x-posted with DoD]

[ 15. February 2007, 16:13: Message edited by: Melon ]

--------------------
French Whine

Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Caty S.

I read, therefore I am.
# 11996

 - Posted      Profile for Caty S.   Email Caty S.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
FCB, I think the evangelical objection to transubstantiation stem largely from your 4th suggestion and I would hazard a guess that, if one is coming to this issue with a sola fide soteriology, then the 'infused grace/righteousness' concept implicit in transubstantiation would run counter to that and effectively be anathema to that position. So it's really a salvation issue rather than "can bread and wine become Jesus' Body and Blood?"

To which I would add some points relating to (3). The passages which come to mind are 'do this in remembrance of me' (showing it to be a commemorative or memorial act) and Hebrews 10:12 'when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God' (all the necessary sacrifices have been completed already).
Posts: 2119 | From: Devon | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
You'd need to postulate that the Jesus of the Eucharist has a divine and a starch-based nature, and that the divine was indivisible from the starch, or something.

Who is this 'Jesus of the Eucharist'? Do we suppose he is someone different from Jesus of Nazareth, risen and glorified? Because if we don't then the 'nature' hypostatically united to the logos is that of a human being (a rationally animate living body, to use wildly fashionable terms). We don't postulate some additional union between foodstuffs and the logos. If we did then we would not have the presence of Jesus. We would have another Incarnation. Rather, the claim is that this Jesus, the man who is the logos is present in a unique and miraculous mode of presence under the signs of bread and wine.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
TT's series of questions seems to have been largely ignored, which I think is a shame, since he was making the key point that catholic beliefs about the Eucharist flow from belief in the incarnation.

I accept this but don't agree that belief in the incarnation requires catholic beliefs about the Eucharist.

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I sincerely would be interested in knowing why you simply cannot believe this. (1) Is it because it defies the evidence of the senses? (2) Is it because you think it impossible on scientific/philosophical grounds? (3) Is it because it violates the plain teaching of scripture? (4) Is it because it leads to consequences that are objectionable for theological or spiritual reasons? (5) All of the above? (6) Some other option I have not thought of?

(3) IMHO it is neither required by nor consistent with the plain teaching of scripture. Jesus' words are very graphic but I don't see any convincing evidence that they were taken as literally true about the material substance of the bread and wine. (1) It does defy the evidence of the senses - but that is not an obstacle in itself. (2) It is probably not impossible on scientific/ philosophical grounds. (4) ISTM that it can lead to consequences that are objectionable, and in light of my response to (3) above I don't feel this is a case where the 'abuse/non-use/right use' tag applies.

All that said I certainly wouldn't (as far as it lay with me) want to let attitude to the sacrament per se stand as a barrier to love and fellowship between me and a brother or sister in Christ.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Melon

Ship's desserter
# 4038

 - Posted      Profile for Melon   Author's homepage   Email Melon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Who is this 'Jesus of the Eucharist'? Do we suppose he is someone different from Jesus of Nazareth, risen and glorified?

Well for me, he's the risen and glorified Jesus of Nazareth we remember whenever we have a meal together, which does seem to make things a whole lot simpler, but...
quote:
Rather, the claim is that this Jesus, the man who is the logos is present in a unique and miraculous mode of presence under the signs of bread and wine.
So the wafer contains both natures of the hypostatic union?

--------------------
French Whine

Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you FCB, DOD and Callan. You have grasped my point precisely and amplified it correctly.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Strictly speaking there is no 'wafer'. What we have is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity present under a unique mode of presence. If we're working with the kind of metaphysics where no particular thing is more than one particular kind of individual substance, then something is not both 'bread' and 'the Body of Christ'. But, if your question is, is Jesus qua God and man present in the Eucharist, then, yes. And I personally couldn't see the point of the whole shebang were he not! I can encounter the logos without getting out of bed on a Sunday morning.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Melon

Ship's desserter
# 4038

 - Posted      Profile for Melon   Author's homepage   Email Melon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You have grasped my point precisely and amplified it correctly.

It's pretty crucial to grasp it precisely and amplify it correctly, because, as you have demonstrated, the doctrine dissolves into heresy unless you get exactly the right form of words, which isn't really ideal.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But, if your question is, is Jesus qua God and man present in the Eucharist, then, yes. And I personally couldn't see the point of the whole shebang were he not! I can encounter the logos without getting out of bed on a Sunday morning.

Well, if nothing else, you've solved the mystery of why I always struggle to get out of bed on a Sunday.

To head back towards the OP, my understanding is that it's the Holy Spirit who Jesus says will mediate his presence to us. And I'm happy to entertain the possibility that the Holy Spirit is especially active when we take part in the meal that Jesus invited us to take in memory of him. The way I read John 14, Jesus cannot be with all of us all the time, because he is truly man, and geographical constraints are an intrinsic part of what it means to be human. So it seems odd to me to postulate that the human Jesus is present all over the world at the same time. Even the risen Christ only cooked fish on one beach at a time...

--------------------
French Whine

Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While and perhaps because I am, with Hans Kung, Schillebeeckx and others, a transignificationist rather than a transubstatiationist, I would suggest analogy, mudfrog, with cotton and flags. The community of a nation imbues (I think that's the right word) a certain pattern of colours and shapes with enormous significant. Generally if I burnt the flag of your nation or mine, someone would take offence. Yet surely it is no more than cotton and dye?

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by FCB:
I sincerely would be interested in knowing why you simply cannot believe this. (1) Is it because it defies the evidence of the senses? (2) Is it because you think it impossible on scientific/philosophical grounds? (3) Is it because it violates the plain teaching of scripture? (4) Is it because it leads to consequences that are objectionable for theological or spiritual reasons? (5) All of the above? (6) Some other option I have not thought of?

(1) Yes - it's bread/wafer and wine/juice, not human meat - in sensation it tastes, feels and is digested differently

(2) I don't think it can be scientifically proved - what if scientists checked out the DNA of the wafer? There would never be any evidence of its inheritance. But philosophically there are loads of philosophical concepts and so it would fit in there quite easily, even if it is a specific philosophical idea.

(3) There have been scriptural quotes already and I agree with the teaching to remember Jesus. Also, his disciples didn't become cannibals in Jesus' presence before he died - it must have been a metaphor, a memorial for them.

(4) Yes again - I see it as idolatory, but a mistake, not a sin.

(5)Probably...

(6) Some kind of grandiosity dumped on the people who have to do the special prayers, as opposed to the other bit of the same universal church which says we can all share the bread and wine, can all talk and pray about "remembering Jesus"

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
So it seems odd to me to postulate that the human Jesus is present all over the world at the same time. Even the risen Christ only cooked fish on one beach at a time...

And if Jesus were present in the Eucharist in the way that human beings are normally present to one another in this present age then not only would that (as Cranmer rightly concludes, wrongly believing it to be Roman belief) be 'repugnant to the nature of a sacrament', it would also be nonsense. That is why the catholic belief is precisely that Christ is not present in such a way. His risen presence is mediated in a unique way.

Daisymay, I'm fascinated to learn that wafers have DNA. Must have been asleep during that lecture. As should be clear from what I have been saying, nothing in catholic belief suggests anything other than the conclusion that were we to, sacreligiously, place a Host in a mass spectroscope, we would find anything consistent with anything other than bread.
Actually this presence under the form of signs foreshadows a day when we shall all be universally (and bodily) present one to another. A state of affairs we call the Kingdom. And then sacraments shall cease.

[ 15. February 2007, 17:51: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Melon

Ship's desserter
# 4038

 - Posted      Profile for Melon   Author's homepage   Email Melon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
That is why the catholic belief is precisely that Christ is not present in such a way. His risen presence is mediated in a unique way.

So TT's question about the localisation of Jesus is a red herring?
quote:
Daisymay, I'm fascinated to learn that wafers have DNA.
Really? Wafers are made from plant tissue, aren't it? I doubt if the DNA is in very good shape, but I'm sure it's there.
quote:
Actually this presence under the form of signs foreshadows a day when we shall all be universally (and bodily) present one to another. A state of affairs we call the Kingdom. And then sacraments shall cease.
I think the historical creeds offer us a bodily resurrection, and I don't see why you would expect those bodies to be less spacially specific than Jesus' resurrection body. Your heavenly hope sounds more like nirvana to me. (Hmm, maybe Eutychus is right and I have been talking to too many JWs...)

--------------------
French Whine

Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
It's the phrase "localised in Jesus" that is the problem. It makes Jesus sound like part of the created order.

Jesus certainly was (and, indeed, is) part of the created order, by virtue of the humanity he assumed. If we want to start thowing heresy accusations around here, this statement could certainly be taken in a docetic way.
quote:
most certainly condemned as heretical by the pre-catholic church.
The what?
quote:
The correct catholic understanding is hypostatic union, not localising a high concentration of the divine in a human Jesus.+
Only a very large dose of hermeneutical spite would lead someone to take TT's question in that way.
quote:
And, if you take hypostatic union seriously, I can't see how anything that involves foodstuffs can in any way compare with the incarnation. You'd need to postulate that the Jesus of the Eucharist has a divine and a starch-based nature, and that the divine was indivisible from the starch, or something.
Which is why Catholics do not claim that Jesus' divine nature is hypostatically united to bread and wine. Catholic belief about the sacraments is related to Catholic belief about the incarnation; it is not identical with it.

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
That is why the catholic belief is precisely that Christ is not present in such a way. His risen presence is mediated in a unique way.

So TT's question about the localisation of Jesus is a red herring?
quote:
Daisymay, I'm fascinated to learn that wafers have DNA.
Really? Wafers are made from plant tissue, aren't it? I doubt if the DNA is in very good shape, but I'm sure it's there.
quote:
Actually this presence under the form of signs foreshadows a day when we shall all be universally (and bodily) present one to another. A state of affairs we call the Kingdom. And then sacraments shall cease.
I think the historical creeds offer us a bodily resurrection, and I don't see why you would expect those bodies to be less spacially specific than Jesus' resurrection body. Your heavenly hope sounds more like nirvana to me. (Hmm, maybe Eutychus is right and I have been talking to too many JWs...)

Point-by-point:

TT was using language of 'location' given him by a prior poster. I would be astonished if he didn't agree with me on this.

Wafers may contain DNA molecules. They do not, I suggest, contain anything answering to the description 'the DNA of the wafers'.

I do not feel at liberty to speculate too much about the nature of our resurrection bodies, or indeed the nature of spatiality in the new heaven and new earth. I do take it as axiomatic, however, that all that impedes communication between human beings will be abolished. The very fact that I am talking about distinct 'human beings' who can 'communicate' ought to be enough to demonstrate that I do not have 'nirvana' in mind.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Transubstantiation is good enough for me.

What the logos did once in the historical jesus, he now does in bread and wine.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That is your belief. It is not, however, aptly described as 'transubstantiation'. What you describe is the Incarnation of God as bread and wine.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Melon

Ship's desserter
# 4038

 - Posted      Profile for Melon   Author's homepage   Email Melon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
most certainly condemned as heretical by the pre-catholic church.
The what?
It certainly wasn't the Roman Catholic church at that point.
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
The correct catholic understanding is hypostatic union, not localising a high concentration of the divine in a human Jesus.+
Only a very large dose of hermeneutical spite would lead someone to take TT's question in that way.
Only a chronic inability to decentre from a RC world view would lead someone to assume that everyone naturally reads theological statements from a RC viewpoint.

TT's questions all try to show that God is more present in some places than others, which, apparently, leads to conclusions about the Eucharist. Treating Jesus as a place is not a good plan. As for how much Jesus is present in my heart, mind and body, do I have to accept that anthropology before I answer? And what if I believe that it's rather the Spirit who is with me, and that this Spirit is a person more than a fluid, and that trying to imagine him sitting on a little stool above my left ventricle or snuggled up to my frontal lobe is therefore not helpful?

I can't answer TT's questions without conceding what I consider to be the issues we are discussing. It's as fair as demanding that TT answer the question "What was the single biggest benefit of replacing the Holy Spirit with the pope?"

--------------------
French Whine

Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Only a chronic inability to decentre from a RC world view would lead someone to assume that everyone naturally reads theological statements from a RC viewpoint.

Um, the basic classical theistic belief that God's presence doesn't vary quntifiably is one shared by, say, many Calvinists, or Muslims and Jews. 'RC world view'?!

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37

 - Posted      Profile for Paul.   Author's homepage   Email Paul.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leaving aside the theological, phisophical and scriptural arguments there's another reason I find this so difficult, and that's that I don't naturally relate to a wafer and some wine as if it were a person. It feels like someone presenting me with a ham sandwich and telling me it's the reincarnation of my dead grandmother and expecting me to somehow interact with the sandwich as if that were true*.

This is why I'm always surprised when some wax lyrical about how the very physicality of the elements gives them more of a sense of the presence of Jesus, a better appreciation of the Incarnation, than simply "remembering" Him would. For me, however, the very incongruity of trying to appreciate something that for all the world looks like one thing as something - someONE - else entirely, well that distances me from Jesus rather than draws me close.

(*I realise that analogy may cause offence. I regret that, but in a way if it's not ridiculous enough to cause that kind of offence it wouldn't communicate the strong sense of strangeness and wrongness that the idea of has for me.)

Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Melon,

You win.

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re-reading, TTs original post; yeah, actually.

But, whatever, there is not 'more' God in Jesus.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
That is your belief. It is not, however, aptly described as 'transubstantiation'. What you describe is the Incarnation of God as bread and wine.

The 'substance' of the Logos took the 'accidents' if the historica Jesus. Noe he takes bread and wine.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And, I repeat, that is not the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is a doctrine of Incarnation.

Can you explain why, on your view, the Blessed Sacrament is the Body of Christ? A body of the logos more like.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420

 - Posted      Profile for Newman's Own     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Start with those, think about the implications of the incarnation and you will begin a crash course in sacramentality.

I always enjoy Triple Tiara's posts, but did wish to comment that I found this one particularly excellent. [Overused]

--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn

Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
that is not the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is a doctrine of Incarnation.

Actually, it's a doctrine of impanation.

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which is a subset of doctrines of Incarnation in my opinion. Well sort of. If you think being bread is being 'carnate'. Which it probably isn't. But hey.

Anglo-Catholics seem particularly prone to it. I blame Betjeman. 'God was man in Palestine. And lives today in bread and wine.'

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
adso
Shipmate
# 2895

 - Posted      Profile for adso   Email adso   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A quick tangent back to Eutychus' question re "Where two or three are gathered...". According to Michelle Guinness ("Child of the Covenant") a Jewish audience would have expected a quota of ten people present to make an act of public worship valid. Jesus is reducing this requirement - he promises to be present at any meeting of his followers, however small.

--------------------
os justi meditabitur sapientiam, et lingua eius loquetur judicium. lex dei eius in corde ipsius, et non supplantabuntur gressus eius. alleluia.

Posts: 688 | From: pays de galles | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Melon:
quote:
TT's questions all try to show that God is more present in some places than others, which, apparently, leads to conclusions about the Eucharist. Treating Jesus as a place is not a good plan. As for how much Jesus is present in my heart, mind and body, do I have to accept that anthropology before I answer? And what if I believe that it's rather the Spirit who is with me, and that this Spirit is a person more than a fluid, and that trying to imagine him sitting on a little stool above my left ventricle or snuggled up to my frontal lobe is therefore not helpful?
This is something that makes sense to me; Jesus told his disciples he was leaving, and sending the Holy Spirit to them all.

As "The Trinity", present in the whole world, the whole universe, both immanent and transcendent, this is a different kind of presence to squeezing Self into lots of tiny bits and pieces and being eaten....

God is everywhere; we may not always remember that, or experience that, or be going through a "Dark Night" where God's light is so bright we see only darkness and may be feeling God is not with us; the "Remembrance" of Jesus is useful and extra useful for many of us in that we can remember and thank God whenever we eat bread, or chapattis, or matzos...

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But we're not talking about the presence of 'God', we're talking about the presence of Jesus, qua human being.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Anglo-Catholics seem particularly prone to it. I blame Betjeman. 'God was man in Palestine. And lives today in bread and wine.'

Interesting. I was speaking several months ago with an young(ish) Anglo-Catholic patristics scholar who teaches at a Catholic university and he told me that he had been teaching his students that the Catholic view was that just as there was a union without separation or confusion between Christ's humanity and divinity, so too there was a union without separation or confusion between Christ and the bread and wine. He seemed quite shocked to learn that this is not the Catholic view of the Eucharist, and slightly embarrassed that he had been misleading his students. I figured that, given the poor state of catechesis these days, it was probabably a higher view of the Eucharist than many of them held previously.

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But we're not talking about the presence of 'God', we're talking about the presence of Jesus, qua human being.

Are you saying that the "presence of Jesus" in wafers etc, is a physical, human thing, and not God? [Confused]

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
[Are you saying that the "presence of Jesus" in wafers etc, is a physical, human thing, and not God? [Confused]

While not a "physical" presence (i.e. a matter of atoms and molecules) it is very much a human thing.

Pretty freaky, huh?

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We speak of Christ bodily ascended and now reigning in heaven. We speak of the church as the Body of Christ. And we speak of the Blessed Sacrament as the Body of Christ. According to Fr. Reid of S. Clement's Church (in a fine Corpus Christi sermon two years ago) these three instances of the Body of Christ are related, and in this manner: by partaking of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, which contains the Body of Christ in heaven, the church becomes the Body of Christ on earth. Sorta like a trickle-down theory, but it's a sensible explanation to me.

A sense of the Real Presence is a venerable tradition of the church which is probably based on experience, and it was long unquestioned. Furthermore, I like the company it keeps.

Although the delicate wording of the 39 Articles allows for receptionism or memorialism, the liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer refers to the elements as the Body and Blood of Christ.

Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is an ancient practice. Laypeople would even take the Sacrament home and partake of it through the week, somewhat as devout people now do with holy water.

I can imagine that in the 16th century, people could justifiably see the Roman Catholic Church the way we would see an evil, monopolistic, domineering conglomerate corporation, and call for radical divergence from traditional thinking in reaction thereto. But now that the precipitating problems have receded, this and other radical changes no longer seem so compelling. This is true especially when the traditional views are of ancient rather than medieval origin, perhaps even antedating the canon of the New Testament. I find it simply silly to appeal to scripture against practices and beliefs in the church that were standard at the time she defined scripture and remained undisturbed by that definition throughout the era.
If the church at the time was not authoritative, then the canon of the New Testament itself could well be a chimera.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
First, Jesus is the Divine person of the Son/Logos with two natures, human and Divine. So there simply can be no question here that in meeting Jesus Personally I meet "more" of God than if I meet for example Melon personally. Melon is not a Divine Person, Jesus is. Interacting with Melon's humanity, shaking his hand and talking with him, allows me to access his human personality - and through that God as far as Melon is an image and likeness of God and walks in faith to God, and of course also as far as God is present in all creation, even in a stone. But interacting with Jesus' humanity, shaking His hand and talking with Him, allows me to access His Divine Personality - true God from true God, without qualifications. That's undoubtedly "more", and for this very reason all Christians cherish the gospel and the witness of the first apostles: because what Jesus did and said is "more God" than what any human person can possibly say or do.

Second, what was important about "God with us"? Was it just that Jesus said and did certain things? This we have handed down to us in the gospel, and while these texts are necessarily sketchy and we would have loved to walk with Him instead, we can validly claim to have been given enough. It is a very "enlightened" point of view to claim that what counts about Christ is only this "message" he gave to us. But when I sit with a friend watching the sunset, he may not do anything, he may not say anyhting - and yet there is value to me in his quiet presence. There is a gut-level importance to literally being with each other. Jesus was among them, not just by His words and deeds, as important as they may have been. He was there. John could rest his head on Jesus' chest. That may well have plenty of "spiritual" meaning, but it also has simply the meaning it has: John was able to rest his physical head on God's physical chest - and who among us does not feel the sense of intimacy in this, which just is not possible without physical presence?

Third, God acts as leaven in the bread. Jesus gave us access to His words and deeds through scripture and through the apostolic church. This is, one would have to admit, in one way not quite as good as being with Jesus Himself. A scriptural text can never have the nuance of a discussion with a Divine Person: we do not see the body language, and we only have few words where there would have been many. Also, even if one holds the highest opinion of the authority given to the Church, as I do, her authority is not quite on the same level: He could slice through our difficulties in seconds where we may discuss and fight for centuries. In another way though it is actually better as it is. Blessed are those who believe without having seen. God sees value in our ability to follow this trace of Christ in history we call Church. And Jesus has, so I believe, seen it fit that He only plants the mustard seed, but we grow the tree. It is precisely our working things out as a community which is so pleasing to God.

Now then, just as scripture and Church relate to Christ's words and deeds in Palestine, so I think the "real presence" relates to Christ's bodily presence in Palestine. The "real presence" is truly Christ before me, yes. That's why I bow my knee. Just as scripture and Church truly tell me what Christ said and did. Just like Christ is the Head of the Church (and her scripture), truly but mysteriously, so consecrated bread and wine are His body and blood, truly but mysteriously. However, it cannot be denied that I cannot rest my head on the chest of this "real presence", as John did. My senses do not report Jesus sitting next to me while I watch the sunset together with consecrated bread and wine through the Church window. In some way this "real presence" is thus less than what was encountered in Palestine, just like in some sense scripture and Church are just a trace of Christ. In another sense however it is precisely the leap of faith stepping in for the senses that is pleasing to God, it is precisely our communal adoration and care which makes the mustard seed of Jesus, the man walking in Palestine, become the tree of Jesus, really present all over the world through all times to His faithful.

And at the end of times these two will meet: the words, deeds, and presence of that Divine man in Palestine, and the words, deeds and presence carried through the ages by a human community, expanded and glorified until He has become "all in all". It is thus precisely in the "silliness" of adoring "Jesus in the box", here, there and everywhere that His kingdom is being raised up, that His presence to all is starting to be fulfilled: practically, pragmatically, here and now for you and me. Every consecrated host a brick in the walls of New Jerusalem... So, go to a Church and sit some time quietly with Christ, as good friends do. (I'll bring the beer... [Biased] )

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Beautifully said, IngoB. And this, I think, is the thing: Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar can only be known to us through the combination of faith, obedient belief, and the action of adoring prayer.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But we're not talking about the presence of 'God', we're talking about the presence of Jesus, qua human being.

Are you saying that the "presence of Jesus" in wafers etc, is a physical, human thing, and not God? [Confused]
A human thing and God. And God precisely in being that human thing.

Ingo, I agree with that, I think. But I think we can get rid of the word 'more', even in scare quotes. It is not that Jesus is 'more' God than Melon. Jesus is God. Melon isn't. End of story. It matters, I think, because the glory of the Incarnation is that we see divinity and humanity working in harmony, each according to their proper bring. Part and parcel of divinity is that it is not the kind of 'thing' that admits the qualification 'more'. Hence the need to watch our language.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848

 - Posted      Profile for Nunc Dimittis   Email Nunc Dimittis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
I simply cannot believe that the bread and wine actually become divine and therefore worthy of veneration, or that they are objectively changed regardless of the state of heart of the worshipper - or the presence of any worshippers for that matter.
So you don't believe in the efficacy of the sacraments, ie, the objective grace they convey regardless of the worthiness of the minister - or the state of heart of the worshipper...

Interesting, because the last time I checked, there was an Article about that, too.

Although I concede that receptionism is an historically acceptable position for an Anglican to hold.

My own opinion is that sometimes we get altogether too hung up on words which are loaded with the baggage of entrenched traditional positions. Jesus said, "This is my Body, this is my Blood." Somehow one's theology has to grapple with what that means. For myself, the only way to deal with it with integrity (personal, and within the text) is a belief that, when we as the gathered people of God engage in Eucharist, and obey our Risen Lord's command to "do this in memory of me", he is present in the bread and wine.

My problem with "transubstantiation" is that it comes from within a dialectic of accidence and substance. I think we've moved beyond that philosophically. And anyway, Aquinas himself would be the first to concede the complete inadequacy of language. And there lies the rub: no label is really sufficient, and the reality lies beyond what language can describe. But that doesn't mean it's not actual and real.

Christ is truly present in the eucharist. In it, we are present to the Last Supper, to Calvary, and to the eschatological banquet which will be the consummation of all things. In it, we are made again the Body of Christ, united to our head, each of us more intimately connected to him than we can conceive. It is an wholistic thing. We receive Christ himself, and our union is effected (or a foretaste thereof), on every level.

I can see no other way in which this can be understood than in a belief in Jesus' real presence in the sacrament.

The ancient church sent deacons out after the eucharistic celebration to take the sacrament to the sick. Extended communion and reserved sacrament is a logical development from this ancient practice. The sacrament being reserved should be appropriately housed***; it's been set aside from ordinary use. And if it's placed in a church, in a convenient recepticle, it is appropriate that God's people should come and reflect again on their unity with Christ; I know for myself that prayer in the presence of the sacrament helps me remember, and keeps me in check.


***Having said that, there have been times when I have taken extended communion to people, and Jesus has sat on the top shelf of the bookcase in the living room in his ciborium until I've managed to get back to the church. [Big Grin]

Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848

 - Posted      Profile for Nunc Dimittis   Email Nunc Dimittis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB, beautifully said.

quote:
So, go to a Church and sit some time quietly with Christ, as good friends do. (I'll bring the beer... )
There were many times as a teenager that I'd visit the chip shop, and then duck across to the local RCC place, and "share my chips with the Big Guy"**, on my way home from school.


**One day a parishioner noticed me and made this comment.

Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim   Email Duo Seraphim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
IngoB, beautifully said.

quote:
So, go to a Church and sit some time quietly with Christ, as good friends do. (I'll bring the beer... )

Reading through this thread I did think that a number of people were getting far too hung up on the "accidents" of the bread and wine.

Look, the Real Presence in the Eucharist is about being with Jesus, with God, with the Trinity as friends are and as God and his faithful are and as God and all of his Church are. That's why the Real Presence is a mystery, in the sense that the more we look at it the deeper and richer the lived experience of faith is. The more we ponder it the more there is to ponder - because we are humans and we have only our senses and our minds and hearts and souls to try to understand the concept of the Real Presence. We can only do the best we can with what we have. Signs and symbols help us to focus on that Real Presence but they neither confine nor detract from what that Real Presence truly is. Aided by the Holy Spirit, the Bible helps us to understand and to focus on that Real Presence,the final revelation of God in Jesus. The Bible illuminates the nature of the Real Presence but cannot confine or detract from what the Real Presence means.

God isn't pinned down in a box or a monstrance - and yet he is there and also in the hearts of his believers and everywhere. It doesn't mean that some moiety of God is present in a wafer or that Jesus is a moiety of God - we are talking about the whole deal. Really Present - the One God in Three Persons.

But then God is Really Present everywhere, Really Present in the Eucharist and Really Present when even two or three are gathered together in Jesus' name - because he said so and he doesn't go back on his promises. Thus he is worthy of our worship and reverence wherever he is - even if that happens to be in a box or a monstrance. Not because he is taking a particular form or is pinned down to a location, but because he is God.

So,absolutely the Real Presence in the Eucharist is about the Incarnation, God who became man and came among us. But the celebration of the Eucharist is also directly about the Sacrifice - offered once, for all time and always being offered once and for all time. But in the end it's pre-eminently about God's grace freely extended to all.

So for us the sacrament of the Eucharist is about God's grace active in his Church, about the Incarnation, the Passion and the promise of salvation. St Thomas Aquinas said "Therefore a sacrament is a sign that commemorates what precedes it - Christ's Passion; demonstrates what is accomplished in us through Christ's Passion - grace; and prefigures what that Passion pledges to us - future glory."STh III, 60, 3.

I certainly haven't explained this very well. Mysteries are impossible to grasp fully and thus very difficult things to explain. I'm hoping that one day that God will give me the full explanation. When that day comes, through grace, I'll hope to be able to understand it.

--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)

Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848

 - Posted      Profile for Nunc Dimittis   Email Nunc Dimittis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Another beautiful post, Duo.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241

 - Posted      Profile for Davy Wavy Morrison   Email Davy Wavy Morrison       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Christ's body is present at the right hand of the Father. His body is asent from earth (some people actually celebrate the Ascension). He is present with Christians through the Holy Spirit, and is in their midst throught the Holy Spirit when they meet in his (Jesus') name. he is not pesent in bread and wine and the idea of "reserving the sacrament" can only lead to superstitious ideas and practices.

Now there's an authentic Anglican view for you!

Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim   Email Duo Seraphim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
Christ's body is present at the right hand of the Father. His body is asent from earth (some people actually celebrate the Ascension). He is present with Christians through the Holy Spirit, and is in their midst throught the Holy Spirit when they meet in his (Jesus') name. he is not pesent in bread and wine and the idea of "reserving the sacrament" can only lead to superstitious ideas and practices.

Now there's an authentic Anglican view for you!

I can think of a number of Anglicans who would strongly disagree with you. Indeed some of them have already posted here.

You seem to be confining Jesus or rather his body to a specific locus ie Heaven, while allowing the Holy Spirit free rein to be everywhere the faithful meet, except not in bread or wine.

Where's Jesus then? And how do you interpret Matthew 26:26-29? Or come to think of it, 2 Corinthians 6:16
quote:
For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
So given God is everywhere and always with his people - why not in bread and wine, should he choose?

[ 16. February 2007, 06:17: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)

Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431

 - Posted      Profile for AdamPater   Email AdamPater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
Christ's body is present at the right hand of the Father.

Wasn't this at the centre of one of Luther's arguments? I think it's in the Book of Concord. Christ is indeed at the right hand of the Father, but why do you then say that the Father is absent from us? The psalmist, at least, suggests otherwise.

quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
he is not pesent in bread and wine ...

Absolutely not. He was likely a carpenter, a tradesman, not a peasant in any form.


quote:
Now there's an authentic Anglican view for you!
Reformed, perhaps, but not particularly Anglican.

--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.

Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241

 - Posted      Profile for Davy Wavy Morrison   Email Davy Wavy Morrison       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Forgive my typografical erors.

The body of Christ on earth is his people when they are gathered together. That is not his physical resurrection body and that body of people is the one we have to discern. As an evangelical I don't believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. We use common sense and when Jesus said that the bread and wine were his body he was obviously speaking figuratively, just as when we point to a photo and say "that's Uncle Joe" we don't mean it literally.

Eating the bread and drinking the wine (yes, the elements in BOTH kinds forms an important part of the celebration) is a reminder of Christ's death and reminds us of statements in John 6. There it is obviously not an actual eating and drinking of food that is meant but true faith in and commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431

 - Posted      Profile for AdamPater   Email AdamPater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are quite a few things that you say are obvious that don't seem to be obvious to many of your coreligionists! And very early church writings (Justin Martyr?) support common belief being against yours.

"Both... and...", however, is very Anglican. Orthodox too, I think.

--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.

Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB's post and Duo Seraphim's post both resonate with me. I know there is more to bread and wine than memorial. It is a meeting place. It is something I knew from conversion onwards, when I had precious little understanding to explain it. God was Man in Palestine and lives today in bread and wine. I dont claim to know how. But I do know it. It is not the only way I know His presence. But it is undoubtedly a special way.

Going back a page to Melon's comment here , the key phrase in his post is "I would argue that". Indeed it can be so argued, but it is not conclusive that scripture taken as a whole supports that argument. As an evangelical it seems to me important to recognise that the scripture does not in itself justify either a metaphorical view of Christians as the body of Christ or a metaphorical view of feeding through bread and wine. It is a judgment that it says that. I relate my experiences to such judgments all the time and say "there is more to this than we have believed".

The last time I posted something like this a Shipmate suggested that I must be heading for Rome! Well, that isn't going to happen. I'm a nonconformist. On this issue I see a good reason to be an irritant to the community I belong to. After 30 years, I've earned it.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Melon

Ship's desserter
# 4038

 - Posted      Profile for Melon   Author's homepage   Email Melon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Melon is not a Divine Person

[Frown]
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As an evangelical it seems to me important to recognise that the scripture does not in itself justify either a metaphorical view of Christians as the body of Christ or a metaphorical view of feeding through bread and wine.

I need some help unpacking this. The "discern the body" passage is preceded by concerns about divisions in the church and followed by Paul's pythonesque "UDI for noses" passage on unity and complementarity.

The choice isn't between whether the bread is literally the body or the church is literally the body. I take "You are the body of Christ" as literally (or not) as "This is my body broken for you". The question is surely which analogy Paul is using in the "discern the body" passage, and I can't see any textual reason to assume that he suddenly switches from community concerns to real presence and back to community concerns.

--------------------
French Whine

Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But we're not talking about the presence of 'God', we're talking about the presence of Jesus, qua human being.

Are you saying that the "presence of Jesus" in wafers etc, is a physical, human thing, and not God? [Confused]
A human thing and God. And God precisely in being that human thing.

That's one of the things that concerns me - Jesus present as a human being just puts cannibalism in my mind.

Duo,
Your post sounds very spiritual, even when it's not the place I find myself.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools