|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Stupid christian questions - what's this eucharist thing all about
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Then how do you know that Pentecost happened? Or that Jesus said anything worth taking notice of in the first place rather than simply grew up as a myth in latter years?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I accept the preposition that the words of Jesus are recorded accurately. I'm not sure about anything else.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
It is irrelevant because I don't hold the scriptures in the inerrant way you're suggesting.
I am a Quaker after Fox. God lives within not in a book.
With respect, how can you trust that which comes from within you? How do you "test the spirits to see if they are of God"?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Well, it is a problem, Mark.
With respect to you, I tend to wrestle with the problem rather than throwing the toys out of the cart and joining a rival church with a rival claim to authority.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
I'm still reading, and this is all very educational ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There's so much response it's hard to reply to anyone specifically, but thanks for all the effort.
I suspect it only really makes sense if you're one of you, but I think I have a slightly less vague idea.
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
I can't see that there is any commandment of Jesus to continue with the formulation of words he used at the Last Supper in perpetuity. Given after Pentecost believers had God the Holy Spirit come to live within them, the injunction to 'remember' him becomes rather redundant anyway.
But the fact that the Holy Spirit is present in the Church suggests doctrinal development. No one denies that the more complicated doctrines of the Real Presence emerged well after the first century. However, if the Holy Spirit is always present in the church, then the Church is always continually discerning new truths along the way. Scripture is not a strait jacket, it was never meant to restrict the Church in its ability to determine doctrine.
But not every doctrinal development is of the Holy Spirit - unless you are saying the Church is infallible.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Another point I would make is that there are no two denominations that agree what the eucharist means - which rather suggests that outside the Roman Catholic Church (Which tragically believes it's the only true Church) there is indeed no agreement or acceptance of what those early 2nd century people believed.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Another point I would make is that there are no two denominations that agree what the eucharist means - which rather suggests that outside the Roman Catholic Church (Which tragically believes it's the only true Church) there is indeed no agreement or acceptance of what those early 2nd century people believed.
Part of my initial confusion came from the fact that two people going to the same church at the same time failed to agree.
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
mstevens, that's a sadly not uncommon occurance on many topics!
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
mstevens, that's a sadly not uncommon occurance on many topics!
When we're talking about a holy mystery, it's not necessarily sad at all.
An interesting footnote in a two-volume theological treatise I saw a few years back: "the reformers" (including Calvin) were not comfortable with the Roman Catholics focus upon the consecrated elements. This was not too much for them, he wrote, but too little. The Real Presence of Christ should fill the church and pervade the people.
Who would want to deny that desideratum?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
Part of my initial confusion came from the fact that two people going to the same church at the same time failed to agree.
Part of that can be due to traditions where there is a continuum of thought about what the Eucharist means. Part of my SOF education over the years has been learning that Anglicans do not all agree about sacramental theology -- you have RC and Calvinist and Lutheran-ish schools of thought all within the Anglican umbrella. We Lutherans, on the other hand, despite having a reputation for being contentious and stubborn within our various church bodies, have a much more uniform understanding of what's going on during the Eucharist. (Our differences of opinion on this subject are focused on who is invited to partake -- some of us practice open Communion, while others do not.)
Another element is poor catechesis -- church talk for poor religious education -- within our own faith communities. Especially these days when churchgoing is a kind of consumerist free-for-all, one really can't assume that two people who attend the same church have the same degree of knowledge about the beliefs and practices of that church. Truth be told, even in my homogenous childhood church where everyone's family had been going there for ages and where we had not just one but multiple years of rigorous after-school religious instruction...I sat next to classmates who heard and read all the same things I did, who participated to one degree or the other in all the class discussions, who did the same homework, yet who by confirmation time had only the vaguest idea of the most basic concepts in Christian theology and Lutheran practice. Even today I'll experience "good church folk" who are shocked to (re?)learn some basic element that's been part of every confirmation class since the git-go: "I never knew that!" How can you not know that?
It gets confusing.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... if the Holy Spirit is always present in the church, then the Church is always continually discerning new truths along the way. Scripture is not a strait jacket, it was never meant to restrict the Church in its ability to determine doctrine.
Well put. This is going in the quotes file.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mstevens:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Another point I would make is that there are no two denominations that agree what the eucharist means - which rather suggests that outside the Roman Catholic Church (Which tragically believes it's the only true Church) there is indeed no agreement or acceptance of what those early 2nd century people believed.
Part of my initial confusion came from the fact that two people going to the same church at the same time failed to agree.
You're looking at a many faceted jewel. The view is going to vary depending on where you stand, even within the same fellowship. That's okay.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Anglican_Brat - that which you describe as Holy Spirit led doctrinal development, I consider to be very largely wishful thinking.
So what, Jesus was kidding when he said the Comforter would lead us into all truth?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Anglican_Brat - that which you describe as Holy Spirit led doctrinal development, I consider to be very largely wishful thinking.
So what, Jesus was kidding when he said the Comforter would lead us into all truth?
You're right Fr Weber, but the charismatics will merely argue that Jesus meant 'personal revelation'. Since many (Protestant) charistmatics reject the whole idea of the early church, that's bound to be their exegesis.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I accept the preposition that the words of Jesus are recorded accurately. I'm not sure about anything else.
Why would that be? Seems an unlikely distinction to me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
mstevens, that's a sadly not uncommon occurance on many topics!
I was pondering this overnight, and on further thought I'd say they were very different, but not necessarily contradictory.
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm a fairly old-fashioned Anglican (CofE) from the catholic end of the spectrum, and that largely determines how I think of the eucharist. But I think it's a mistake to focus solely on the act of holy communion within the eucharist.
The eucharist is not only communion but leitourgia, liturgy, the public and corporate "work" of God's people. It is, as several writers have noted, the act in which the Church is most conspicuously itself: singing God's praises, proclaiming his Word and words, recounting the history of salvation and interceding for the world.
And if you want to accuse me of idealising, fine - but I would suggest that the degree to which any eucharist fails to be this is the degree to which we have misunderstood the eucharist to begin with.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
More to the point, Jesus announced his instruction that the Holy Spirit will assist them in discerning truth to all the apostles, namely to the entire apostolic community. It is important that we keep this in mind that the community discerns together on its journey through life.
While admittedly, there is no consensus on the specific mechanics of the Eucharistic mystery (The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation wasn't formally ratified until the 16th century Council of Trent), there was broad consensus among the Patristic fathers from an early age that the Real Presence of Christ is present in the eucharistic elements in a meaningful way that makes the bread and wine substantively different after consecration. There is nothing magical about it, even though I'm a stuffy traditionalist, I accept the modern eucharistic theology that the entire community ultimately celebrates the Eucharist. The Body of Christ that is the Church, feeds on the spiritual body of Christ through the bread and wine, in order to become the body of Christ in the world.
St Augustine was rumored to have said upon distributing communion, "Behold what you are, become what you receive." The Eucharist is a symbol of unity, unity among Christians sharing the bread and wine, but also unity with Christ. Not only is it a symbol, but the Sacrament creates unity within the Christian body as well as with Christ.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Are we in fact saying therefore that everything the Church believes and teaches is of the Holy Spirit? Without error? Without question?
Transubstantiation?
Celibate priests?
Baptismal regeneration?
The status of the Virgin Mary?
The Church is infallible and claims that all it teaches is Truth they have received from the Holy Spirit?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are we in fact saying therefore that everything the Church believes and teaches is of the Holy Spirit? Without error? Without question?
Transubstantiation?
Celibate priests?
Baptismal regeneration?
The status of the Virgin Mary?
The Church is infallible and claims that all it teaches is Truth they have received from the Holy Spirit?
Not exactly.
The Church always verifies its Tradition by testing it against Sacred Scripture, and also, IMHO, using its reason. Tradition is not static, it emerges in constant dialogue with Sacred Scripture.
If the Church ever teaches that we should sacrifice bulls to Baal, it would be wrong because Scripture says explicitly not to do that. However, Scripture never says categorically that the consecrated bread and wine are simply "bread and wine." Jesus himself states, "This is my body, this is my blood." You may interpret it metaphorically, I interpret it stronger than that. The text itself does not conclusively lend itself to either position. When that happens, I defer cautiously to the teachings of the Church as a secondary authority. The saints are my faithful brothers and sisters in Christ, and believing that I'm in communion with them still, the Saints alive in Christ, I listen to their witness as well as the witness of my living brothers and sisters today.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are we in fact saying therefore that everything the Church believes and teaches is of the Holy Spirit? Without error? Without question?
Transubstantiation?
Celibate priests?
Baptismal regeneration?
The status of the Virgin Mary?
The Church is infallible and claims that all it teaches is Truth they have received from the Holy Spirit?
Not exactly.
The Church always verifies its Tradition by testing it against Sacred Scripture, and also, IMHO, using its reason. Tradition is not static, it emerges in constant dialogue with Sacred Scripture.
If the Church ever teaches that we should sacrifice bulls to Baal, it would be wrong because Scripture says explicitly not to do that. However, Scripture never says categorically that the consecrated bread and wine are simply "bread and wine." Jesus himself states, "This is my body, this is my blood." You may interpret it metaphorically, I interpret it stronger than that. The text itself does not conclusively lend itself to either position. When that happens, I defer cautiously to the teachings of the Church as a secondary authority. The saints are my faithful brothers and sisters in Christ, and believing that I'm in communion with them still, the Saints alive in Christ, I listen to their witness as well as the witness of my living brothers and sisters today.
What about Pseudo Matthew? That was long ago revealed as a fake and some of the RC teaching that emerged from it is still in place even though the Church acknowledges that the 'gospel' is a forgery.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What about Pseudo Matthew? That was long ago revealed as a fake and some of the RC teaching that emerged from it is still in place even though the Church acknowledges that the 'gospel' is a forgery.
K.
With respect, I think "questionable origins" would be better than to dismiss it as a complete forgery.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What about Pseudo Matthew? That was long ago revealed as a fake and some of the RC teaching that emerged from it is still in place even though the Church acknowledges that the 'gospel' is a forgery.
K.
With respect, I think "questionable origins" would be better than to dismiss it as a complete forgery.
I would tend to say the question of "fake" or not is irrelevant. It's not part of the canon of Scripture and never has been. It's at best a pious fiction. But even a pious fiction can become part of Tradition, which is the ever-renewing witness of every Christian individual and of the Church as a whole to the glory of God.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Jesus himself states, "This is my body, this is my blood." You may interpret it metaphorically, I interpret it stronger than that.
Presumably you also believe Jesus was made of wood (I am the door), stone (I am the way), flour (I am the bread of life) was a shepherd, and so forth.
I think your position is absurd. The fact that some historical figures agree is neither here nor there.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Jesus himself states, "This is my body, this is my blood." You may interpret it metaphorically, I interpret it stronger than that.
Presumably you also believe Jesus was made of wood (I am the door), stone (I am the way), flour (I am the bread of life) was a shepherd, and so forth.
I think your position is absurd. The fact that some historical figures agree is neither here nor there.
There's a great deal of difference between "This is my body" and "I am a piece of bread".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's a great deal of difference between "This is my body" and "I am a piece of bread".
Well, as you assert. I don't think there is any material difference at all.
[ 07. June 2012, 14:28: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's a great deal of difference between "This is my body" and "I am a piece of bread".
Well, as you assert. I don't think there is any material difference at all.
At the level of representation and reminder, which is far less complex than the level of eucharistic anamnesis -
"This is a statue of Winston Churchill."
"Winston Churchill is a lump of stone."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
That is essentially irrelevant, and I suspect you know it.
The point is that there are 'I am' phrases throughout the scriptures that everyone takes to be poetic/symbolic/narrative. There is this one occasion where the sacramentalists insist that when Jesus said 'this bread is my body' he meant it literally (which would presumably make him guilty of eating himself).
You can only really assert that there is a difference from a position that says there is a difference between these phrases. I am sure to you it is plainly obvious, to me it is not.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sticking a nose in--
The difference is that the other statements all come in contexts that make it clear a simile/metaphor is intended. Like, preaching and teaching, with a bunch of parables, metaphors, etc. all swimming around. But when someone just pops out with "This is my body" with no linguistic play going on in the vicinity, AND he's been known to say odder supernatural things (and turn up right, like the times he predicted his own resurrection), well, you can't really blame his hearers for taking him literally.
I figure that if Jesus rolls his eyes at me on the Last Day and asks me why I was such a putz as to take him literally, I'm going to have a pretty good case against him ("Well, Lord, you keep going on about our lack of faith, and the one time you get it you complain? come on now!").
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
That is essentially irrelevant, and I suspect you know it.
The point is that there are 'I am' phrases throughout the scriptures that everyone takes to be poetic/symbolic/narrative. There is this one occasion where the sacramentalists insist that when Jesus said 'this bread is my body' he meant it literally (which would presumably make him guilty of eating himself).
You can only really assert that there is a difference from a position that says there is a difference between these phrases. I am sure to you it is plainly obvious, to me it is not.
But Jesus wasn't making an "I am" statement, He was making a "this is me" statement.
There's a difference between saying "I am the door" and "This door is me."
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Since many (Protestant) charistmatics reject the whole idea of the early church, that's bound to be their exegesis.
"reject the whole idea of the early church"?
Not sure what that's meant to mean. They certainly believe the early church existed!
If anything its the other way round. They are often committed to imitating the early church. That's whey they spend so much time reading Paul and Acts and so on, and trying to base their church life on what they see there. Most of them seem to think that their church practices are more like those of the early church than the more Catholic ones are.
Its a bit liek the Protestant Reformers. They thought that the Catholic Church had accumulated too many man-made traditions that covered up and obscured what was given to the eApostles and the earliest churches by Jersus. So they wanted to go "back to basics", throw away some of the traditions and get back to Jesus and the Apostles, as described in the New Testament.
Lots of the recent charismatics thought the same thing as well. The Protestant churches had themselves accumulated too much tradtion, too much man-made baggage, just as the Catholics had earlier. They wanted to chuck that out, have a spring-cleaning, and restore the Church to what it should have been all along, what it perhaps was right at the begining.
That's one reason for their worship practices. As they saw it their worship, based around songs directly addressed to God, and around the "gifts of the Spirit", was about recognising that in worship we are in the presences of Almighty God, we are in a sense in heaven participating in the worship of the angels, standing along side them, before the throne of God, in the eternal spoiritual heavenly temple (just look at the words of their songs).
To them a Cathoilic or Anglican or Orthodox Eucharist would seem like a lot of overcomplex ritual that was getting in the way of the believer's direct connection to God, it would have seemed as if it demanded that the worshippers go through human mediators and speak man-made words and repeat man-made actions - things which they found unhelpful, unneccesary at best, actually harmful at worst, putting a barrier between the worshipers and their Lord.
So far from rejecting the early church they thought they were restoring life of the early church, getting back to basics, practising the presence of God, enjoying the real presence of Christ in worship. If Jesus is among us, if the Spirit is in us, if the Father inhabits our worship, why do we need complex man-made rituals to make him really present? He's already here!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
Well yes Ken, that's a good analysis of how many Charismatic and Evangelical Churches look at the 1stC Church and their relationship to it.
I think Komensky might have been referring to the 3rd and 4th century though... whole different story there!
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
The point is that there are 'I am' phrases throughout the scriptures that everyone takes to be poetic/symbolic/narrative. There is this one occasion where the sacramentalists insist that when Jesus said 'this bread is my body' he meant it literally
I don't know, I take "I am the resurrection and the life" fairly literally.
Actually I don't think there is a binary "poetic/symbolic/narrative/not really true" category vs "literally true".
"I am the good shepherd" is not literally true in the sense of being a shepherd of actual sheep (although I dare say he looks after them in a sense as well), but is literally true in the sense of being our actual shepherd.
"I am the resurrection" isn't true in the sense of Jesus having identity with an abstract noun, but I take as literally true in the sense of relating to a real and literal event, which we hope may be extended to us as a real and literal event.
Hence sacramentalists don't actually believe the bread is in fact identical with Jesus' physical body, but do take it some more literal on the continuum than memorialists.
(By the way we still don't know how you can be confident that the bible accurately records Jesus' words on this matter in the first place).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
There's a difference between saying "I am the door" and "This door is me."
Thank you for bringing this up. Some argue that the words of institution are purely metaphorical, just as in John 10:1-7, "I am the door of the sheep" is purely metaphorical.
Not so fast. One is tempted to ask for the objector's core dump on the subject of Palestinian sheepfolds. It probably does not include the important fact that they had no door or gate, other than the shepherd's own body, when he lay down across the opening at night. It may be metaphorical for Christ to describe Himself as a shepherd; but for a shepherd to describe himself as a door would be very literal: a door that would keep the sheep safely in and various marauders out, and bear the brunt of an attack.
When we go on to consider the Eucharistic context of this imagery, it becomes all the more illuminating: not only does the Good Shepherd do this, but the Eucharist is one way that He does.
And it involves His Body in a palpable way.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
That is essentially irrelevant, and I suspect you know it.
The point is that there are 'I am' phrases throughout the scriptures that everyone takes to be poetic/symbolic/narrative. There is this one occasion where the sacramentalists insist that when Jesus said 'this bread is my body' he meant it literally (which would presumably make him guilty of eating himself).
The "I am" phrases are found mostly in the fourth Gospel, which (as I'm sure you know) lacks an institution narrative.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Since many (Protestant) charistmatics reject the whole idea of the early church, that's bound to be their exegesis.
"reject the whole idea of the early church"?
Not sure what that's meant to mean. They certainly believe the early church existed!
If anything its the other way round. They are often committed to imitating the early church. That's whey they spend so much time reading Paul and Acts and so on, and trying to base their church life on what they see there. Most of them seem to think that their church practices are more like those of the early church than the more Catholic ones are.
But Ken, where this falls down is that our canon relies on a consensus of the Church c. mid-4th century as to what Scripture is.
I really don't see a way we can validate that particular decision of the 4th-century Church while rejecting the rest of its theology.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[But Ken, where this falls down is that our canon relies on a consensus of the Church c. mid-4th century as to what Scripture is.
I really don't see a way we can validate that particular decision of the 4th-century Church while rejecting the rest of its theology.
Take that up with Terry Virgo! What I wrote was at least partly my memories of his preaching in the 1970s and early 1980s when he was trying to persuade us Anglicans to come out and join his church. As I carried on in the CofE it obviously didn't entirely work with me.
Though its not entirely unreasonable to suppose that inspired Scripture existed before anyone sat down and wrote a list of it. Such a list is only needed when there is soubt about the matter - so if you had a very idealistic notion of the early church you might think that the legalistic promulgation of the canon of Scripture (and other doctrinal statements) is a sign that things had fallen off from their original state!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Another distinction at least from the Church's view is that "This is my body" and "This is my blood" has never been interpreted to mean that all bread or all wine is like the body and blood of Christ. It's only in the context of Christian community, that this is mentioned.
So, if I go to a store and pick up a loaf and say "This is the body of Christ", I might well make a metaphorical statement there. But it has no actual sacramental validity. As in, it is only in the context of the Christian community, that consecration occurs.
Because of that, we can speak that there is a very real change that occurs from bread being bought at the store to its distribution among Christians in the context of the Eucharistic service. Saying that the Institution narrative is mere metaphor.
Maybe a better analogy is with marriage. I'm tempted to ask Mudfrog if his denomination doesn't believe in marriage, after all if all life is sacramental, then there is no spiritual difference between a couple before marriage and a couple after marriage.
Putting aside the legal changes of marriage, we can say that there is no visible changes that occurs in marriage. Presumably the couple already love each other, so marriage doesn't create love. We could say that marriage is a way for the community to "recognize" that love but to me, that is a weak argument. I recognize a loving couple when they walk hand-in-hand down the street. I certainly don't need a full-blown liturgy to figure out if two people love each other. And there are couples who would say the same thing, that they don't need a wedding to express their love.
The sacramental argument is to me an argument for God's active grace. A sacramentalist would never deny that all life is sacramental, that all life is a means of God's grace. However, I would argue that God's active grace is transformative, that things change because of God's loving presence. So the bread that Christians break together and the wine that they share, become through the grace of God, the means in which Christians commune with their Lord. In marriage, God's supernatural grace is given to the couple so that they become joined together.
There is a change when grace occurs. How that change happens remains a mystery.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I find the whole concept of "sacrament" fascinating and even the secular world is sacramental in many ways.
Let's take the example of the recent Diamond Jubilee celebrations (and those who are republicans or generally dislike the monarchy, please bear with me, because it's just an example which applies to other institutions and secular arrangements). As I write this I have spread in front of me a double page photo of the crowd on the Mall on the last day of the Jubilee holiday. It's a sea of humanity dominated by one single overwhelming symbol: the Union Flag.
Now I would say the use of this flag is "sacramental". If we just wanted to be reminded that we are British and we are celebrating something to do with our country, why not just hold up posters with patriotic slogans on them, or just display maps of the country or whatever (or just pictures of the Queen)? Of course, this would be banal and absurd. The symbol of the Union Flag goes beyond just "reminding" us which country we are in and which culture we are celebrating. It's a symbol that seems to almost incarnate the country itself and when we wrap ourselves in the flag - especially as a large group of compatriots, are we not creating a kind of unity? Hence the power of the flag in commemorations and especially military funerals. Can it really be true that a Union Flag draped over the coffin of a soldier is just there as a glorified identity tag? It's sacramental, meaning (as I see it) that it is a powerful symbol that ministers something intangible but important. It cannot simply be reduced to the intellectual. One naturally feels that life would be so much poorer without this kind of powerful and meaningful symbolism.
It is not surprising therefore that some countries - like the USA - have a strict flag code, because they understand this issue. When an enemy of the USA burns the Stars and Stripes, they are not just burning a reminder that the USA happens to exist, but it's surely more "personal" and one could say "sacrilegious". It's as if the nation itself is "incarnated" in some way in the flag.
Now I think in a very crude way, the eucharist is (in one respect) like the unifying "flag" of the Church. Of course, it is much, much more than that, and I certainly believe in the Real Presence and that we are partaking of Christ's body and blood in a spiritual sense. But it is something tangible and simple (like a flag) that we rally round and through which we affirm and celebrate our unity. And this practical unity is not based on an eloquent preacher, a dynamic worship leader, an august religious institution, "correct" theology, but on "Christ crucified". That is why the eucharist is so extremely important, and I regard it as the central act of Christian worship. It humbles us all. There cannot be (or certainly should not be) any posturing around the table of the Lord, as there can be in other aspects of Christian worship.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let's take the example of the recent Diamond Jubilee celebrations ...
It is not surprising therefore that some countries - like the USA - have a strict flag code, because they understand this issue.
Actually, because they don't have a Queen. The symbol - analagous to a sacrament - of the nature of a monarchy is the monarch. Other systems have to give that role to an inanimate object, such as a flag or a constitution.
(It's one of the reasons I'm a monarchist: I'd far rather have a human being as our symbol of what our nationhood means, than a bit of coloured cloth or some fine words).
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Protestants don't believe that marriage is a sacrament.
Many, in fact, don't believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament either; it's an ordinance.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is a sacrament.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Protestants don't believe that marriage is a sacrament.
Many, in fact, don't believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament either; it's an ordinance.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is a sacrament.
Since there is no word corresponding to "sacrament" in the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament, that is hardly surprising.
The word "sacrament" is a Latin derivative.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
There's nothing in the Bible to say it's an ordinance, whatever that is. Sounds too legalistic to be in the realm of grace.
But I do know what Jesus said in Saint John 6:26-70
which Christians have ever taken from time immemorial as refering to the Mass.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Protestants don't believe that marriage is a sacrament.
Many, in fact, don't believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament either; it's an ordinance.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is a sacrament.
Since there is no word corresponding to "sacrament" in the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament, that is hardly surprising.
The word "sacrament" is a Latin derivative.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
Yes I did.
The word used in the Vulgate -'sacramentum' - is the Latin word used to translate 'mysterion - mystery (as in mystery of faith).
According to Paul the mystery of faith is 'Christ in you.'
We don't need bread and wine for that.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
There's nothing in the Bible to say it's an ordinance, whatever that is. Sounds too legalistic to be in the realm of grace.
But I do know what Jesus said in Saint John 6:26-70
which Christians have ever taken from time immemorial as refering to the Mass.
No they haven't.
What did Jesus mean by it?
What did the disciples take it to mean on that hillside in AD32?
What did the crowds who turned away think about it?
You can be sure they didn't consider a Latin Mass!
You really need to think about John 6 using the mind of a 1st century Jew, not a 16th century Italian Catholic.
[ 07. June 2012, 22:28: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
There's nothing in the Bible to say it's an ordinance, whatever that is. Sounds too legalistic to be in the realm of grace.
But I do know what Jesus said in Saint John 6:26-70
which Christians have ever taken from time immemorial as refering to the Mass.
An ordinance is an authoritative command.
"Do this" is such a command, as is 'this is my commandment, that ye love one another.'
The question regarding that first ordinance 'do this' must be 'Do what?'
[ 07. June 2012, 22:31: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Protestants don't believe that marriage is a sacrament.
Many, in fact, don't believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament either; it's an ordinance.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is a sacrament.
Since there is no word corresponding to "sacrament" in the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament, that is hardly surprising.
The word "sacrament" is a Latin derivative.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
Yes I did.
The word used in the Vulgate -'sacramentum' - is the Latin word used to translate 'mysterion - mystery (as in mystery of faith).
According to Paul the mystery of faith is 'Christ in you.'
We don't need bread and wine for that.
Not wishing to be overly argumentative in Purgatory, but your logic strikes me a bit like suggesting that online versions of the Bible have no value, since the word "computer" is not found in the Old or New Testament.
Or that Google maps of Northwestern America have no value, since Google is not mentioned in the records of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Second time in living memory I heartily agree with Silver Faux. But when a chap is right, dammit, he's right.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
The word Trinity doesn't exist in the Bible either. But giving the word itself a bye, there is no one place in the Bible that even says flatly: "God is one God, but also exists in three persons, the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit". The concept is put together by examination and meditation of many parts in the Bible. A case can be made for a memorialist view of communion, after all there are a lot of metaphors in scripture. But the case has also been made for Real Presence. One can take Christ's words totally literally here, that in the communion supper we partake of the Son's living being "whenever we do this in remembrance of me". Again it's one of those things we can discuss until we're blue in the face, but people will choose the concept that seems most persuasive to them and usually choose a denomination that reflects that in worship.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
