|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Does the real presence mean God isn't really present outside the Eucharist?
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
A class discussion today on what our practices say about our theology, particularly about the way we think about God, got me thinking about this. When we say that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, does this mean that Christ is not really present outside the Eucharist?
I'm thinking in terms of the classic story of the person walking along the beach. Per Wikipedia: quote:
This popular text describes a dream, in which the person is walking on a beach with God. They leave two sets of footprints in the sand behind them. Looking back, the tracks are stated to represent various stages of this person's life. At some points the two trails dwindle to one, especially at the lowest and most hopeless moments of the character's life. When questioning God, believing that God must have abandoned his follower during those times, God gives the explanation: "During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."
Does the real presence mean that:
a) God is not really present outside the Eucharist, and therefore this story, while a nice sentiment, is nonsense;
b) Christ is not really present outside the Eucharist, and therefore this story is about the presence of the First or Third Persons of the Trinity rather than the Second Person/Logos/Christ; or
c) God or Christ is really present both inside and outside the Eucharist; if you choose this, please give thoughts on how the Eucharist is unique.
I'm thoroughly stumped, to be honest, and I know there are Shipmates fare wiser than I. Have at it!
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
a) No
b) Jesus is the only person of the Trinity with feet
c) You can see, touch, consume and digest the Blessed Sacrament
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Like the story says, God is omnipresent, both inside and outside the eucharist. But He is manifest to us to different extents at different times and in different places. The contradiction is in our imperfect perception of reality, rather than in reality itself.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Immanence -v- transcendence.
Plus what Erroneous Monk said.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Why can't God be present outside the Eucharist and Christ be especially present in the Eucharist.
To me saying that if Christ is present in the Eucharist then God cannot be present outside it like saying that when Christ was alive on earth then God couldn't be present elsewhere. In short Modalism.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
What others have said. Questions and beliefs about the Real Presence have nothing to do with any Unreal Presence of God or Christ elsewhere (including where two or three are gathered) and much to do with exactly what Jesus meant when he said "This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . ."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
What others have said. Questions and beliefs about the Real Presence have nothing to do with any Unreal Presence of God or Christ elsewhere (including where two or three are gathered) and much to do with exactly what Jesus meant when he said "This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . ."
Since 'unreal' could have at least two very different meanings in this context, wouldn't 'immaterial' be a better word to choose?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since 'unreal' could have at least two very different meanings in this context, wouldn't 'immaterial' be a better word to choose?
Perhaps so. I was just playing with the word "real." Perhaps "non-real," as that seems to be what the OP was asking -- "not really present outside the Eucharist"?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Risking cross-over from another thread...
I think it has a lot to do with the sense of the centrality of the Eucharist in worship. You can see and understand that centrality as a once a day event, a weekly communion, a monthly or quarterly celebration. For those who have regular communion its about being in regular communion with God and for those who do it quarterly (or sometimes even less) it's about being well prepared and trying in some sense to make it a more sacred event than it might be daily or weekly (not a path that I personally would choose, but I can understand the thinking). But it is from this event of remembering/memorial/being really present with God/communion (whatever way you want to put it) that all of Christian living, devotion and prayer essentially flows. At least thats how sacramental churches understand it. I guess those who don't 'do' sacraments technically would point to scripture as a means of knowing God and finding God's presence in your life and through it. I would have personal difficulties with this and I'm not sure I could totally square it with the experience of the church down through the ages.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
To say "this is a lake" is not to say that the humidity is zero.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
Echoing the thoughts of others, 'real presence' does not deny the 'universal presence' or the presence in other ways.
In addition to the real presence in the Eucharist and the universal presence, how might God be present? :-
- The Holy Spirit, present in his people
- Gifts of the Spirit, given to his people
- The church as the 'body of Christ'
- When joining our worship with the worship of the angels, we come into the presence of God (a rather different way of looking at it than God becoming present with us)
- The use of icons as 'windows into heaven' allows us to 'see' God's presence more clearly
- Each individual person should be regarded as an icon of God, reflecting something of God, (and treated accordingly)
- Very explicitly, when we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner etc we are feeding, clothing, visiting Christ
This isn't an exhaustive list, by any means, and not everyone will agree with the theology underlying all of them. But the point is that these ways of understanding the 'presence' of God are not mutually exclusive; the presence of God in one way preclude his presence in other ways.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I think it's said differently and probably believed differently in different churches.
In the Kirk, we used to have communion only 2 times a year, and we were always told that God was present with us all times, not that we were told other churches had different "beliefs". The bread and wine were not always eaten up "because" they were God, but that happens in some churches.
But I do think that all churches do believe that God is with us whether we are at Eucharist or during the rest of the days and nights.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To say "this is a lake" is not to say that the humidity is zero.
I like that.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I'm thinking in terms of the classic story of the person walking along the beach. Per Wikipedia: quote:
This popular text describes a dream, in which the person is walking on a beach with God. They leave two sets of footprints in the sand behind them. Looking back, the tracks are stated to represent various stages of this person's life. At some points the two trails dwindle to one, especially at the lowest and most hopeless moments of the character's life. When questioning God, believing that God must have abandoned his follower during those times, God gives the explanation: "During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."
Am I the only person who cringes whenever the "footprints" story is trotted out (as though it actually happened to someone once)? It's a horrible little parable. I'd much rather this one:
quote:
A rural labourer is wheeling a barrow of muck down the road when he meets the Vicar. "Mornin' Vicar" he says. "You know you told us in church that God is everywhere?" "Yes" says the Vicar, hesitantly, sensing a trap. "Does that mean he's in this barrow with the muck?". "Yes" says the Vicar, still more hesitantly. "Well can you tell 'im to get out then. It's heavy enough as it is."
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
tangent: there's a (RC) Church of the Real Presence near my friends house - I find this an odd dedication as it seems to imply that the other churches in the area don't have a Real Presence of God in them! (Obviously I know that's not what the dedication means, but to a passer-by it is an odd thing to see on a sign)
end tangent
My vague thoughts/beliefs go thus (though as an Anglican I'm not required to believe in the Real presence in the Eucharist):
1. God* is everywhere
2. Sometimes we forget that he's everywhere and maybe take him for granted/forget about him
3. The Eucharist is a reminder that he's here with us today, not just in the past/in the sky
4. The Holy Spirit is always within us**
Random extra question: If God* is omnipresent, can the different persons be in different places? or are all three everywhere all the time?
*Not sure which of the three persons I mean actually. Told you I was vague.
**Us = christians. Of whatever flavour.
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
Historically the word "real" in real presence was from the latin res(=thing), i.e. the Thing Signified (the Body and Blood). That is why many reformers with a fairly "high" understanding of the eucharist denied the real presence, although they certainly believed in God's presence. This misunderstanding of the meaning of "real" has made it impossible to deny the real presence, but has made the phrase almost meaningless.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm probably sort of a Panentheist, so God is immanent and transcendent in the Bread and Wine, but also everywhere outside of them (did I say that right? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ). The Holy Supper can be a special occasion to celebrate that, to remember Christ's sacrifice, to share in the Fellowship, and to look towards the future in His Kingdom.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I cannot see how, by not having the Eucharist, the services I lead at the Salvation Army are in any way deficient or lacking in the presence of Jesus. We do not believe that any one ceremony, ritual, action, form of worship, is exclusively a means to a particular grace, for grace is available at all times to all people in all places.
We believe that many things are means of grace and are ways to experience the grace of God - including the bread and wine - but we simply can not believe that God's presence is restricted to the Eucharist. The Bible does not support such an assertion. Indeed, neither does the testimony of many, many Christians; even those whose tradtions include Holy Communion.
--------------------
"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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I cannot see how, by not having the Eucharist, the services I lead at the Salvation Army are in any way deficient or lacking in the presence of Jesus. We do not believe that any one ceremony, ritual, action, form of worship, is exclusively a means to a particular grace, for grace is available at all times to all people in all places.
We believe that many things are means of grace and are ways to experience the grace of God - including the bread and wine - but we simply can not believe that God's presence is restricted to the Eucharist. The Bible does not support such an assertion. Indeed, neither does the testimony of many, many Christians; even those whose tradtions include Holy Communion.
Indeed Mudfrog, I saw that grace at work in the hands and smiles I encountered at the local Salvation Army centre last week. It put a baptist to shame!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
(though as an Anglican I'm not required to believe in the Real presence in the Eucharist)
Maybe I'm mistaken - but I think a belief in the Real Presence is more or less assumed in Anglicanism. Mind, Anglicans aren't required to believe anything. But AIUI it's the "how" we're agnostic about - e.g., our church has never affirmed transubstantiation (which is a metaphysical explanation, really).
We also see Christ present in the gathered assembly, and in the proclamation of the Gospel.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I cannot see how, by not having the Eucharist, the services I lead at the Salvation Army are in any way deficient or lacking in the presence of Jesus. We do not believe that any one ceremony, ritual, action, form of worship, is exclusively a means to a particular grace, for grace is available at all times to all people in all places.
We believe that many things are means of grace and are ways to experience the grace of God - including the bread and wine - but we simply can not believe that God's presence is restricted to the Eucharist. The Bible does not support such an assertion. Indeed, neither does the testimony of many, many Christians; even those whose tradtions include Holy Communion.
Again, it's a misconstrual to say that Real Presence means God isn't present anywhere else. It is Christ, body, soul, and divinity, who is really present in the Eucharist - it's his Body and Blood. But God, as Trinity, remains as omnipresent and gracious as ever. Sacraments, however, are tangible, sure means of grace. My own devotion to the Eucharist has its origins in my bipolar disorder. Growing up Pentecostal and without Sacraments, all I had to gauge my spiritual health on was my feelings (well, and words in the Bible, but a bipolar brain is really good at questioning and reinterpreting words). But with Communion, I know that no matter how I feel, if I eat the Bread and/or drink the Wine, I have received Christ into myself in some mysterious, mystical, but eminently tangible way. I'm thankful for that.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Churchgeek, I would never gainsay a person's testimony or experience of God. What I am saying - agreeing with you - is that God is found in so many different ways and not just in bread and wine. To say that he is 'extra-present' or 'uniquely-present' or 'present in a way like no other place' within the sacrament of the Eucharist is wrong.
The church has elevated (pun intended) the bread and wine above all other means of grace. I am saying that it is one among so many ways in which grace is perceived and received.
It is but one symbol among others of the always and ever-present God who dwells within by faith and by the infilling of 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think you might have misunderstood what Church Geek was saying to some extent, Mudfrog. I didn't read it to imply that God's grace is exclusively available through the sacraments.
In fact, I don't know of any higher than high sacramentalist who would make that claim. Of course there are other means of grace and the eucharist is one among many symbols, ordinances, sacraments (delete as appropriate) available to us.
That said, I do think that the eucharist does hold a pre-eminent place, partly because it is a direct ordinance from our Lord (and yes, there are others) and partly for similar reasons to those that Churchgeek outlined.
Speaking for myself, I find an 'objectivity' if you like, in the eucharist that I don't find in to the same extent in other spiritual exercises - such as hymn or chorus singing, extemporary prayer (not that I'm against that) and so on where my own feelings, ego and so on can intrude.
When I receive the eucharist I am receiving something - I am not putting on a performance, trying to get noticed or whatever else I may (or may not) be doing in other forms of worship activity.
I think that's the sort of thing that appeals to me about it. It grounds me.
Your mileage may vary.
If that means that I am somehow elevating the eucharist unduly above other means of grace then it is a consequence ... but I don't see these things in isolation, they all work together - prayer, fasting, alms-giving, Bible reading, loving one's neighbour, the eucharist, whatever else ...
As I often say on these boards - and probably to the point of getting on people's nerves - it's both/and not either/or.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Some good points there. Yes, I find the eucharist to be very solid and grounded. It's also participatory, so that one is taken through an experience, or series of experiences. I don't know if God is present there or not, but it certainly opens me up to 'something'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, that's certainly been my experience ...
Mind you, and I don't mean to give offence to the good Major Mudfrog, but is it just me? In the sense that am I the only one who finds it a bit ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) when he blithely pronounces that the 'church is wrong' when a pre-eminent place for the eucharist (however understood) has been its practice for the last 2000 years?
'You lot all had it wrong until General Booth came along to put you straight ...'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't think you have to be Pope Benedict nor the Ecumenical Patriarch to find something rather arrogant in that assertion.
You are all wrong. I am right.
Ok, I know Mudfrog (and others, including myself) would turn around and say that the church had it wrong over slavery, the treatment of women and various other issues for years and years and years ... but saying as the the church (by which I mean the community of faith) has continued down the years from NT times I can't see how we can disaggregate practices such as the eucharist - which were clearly there from the outset (see the Didache) from what we might personally see as NT practice.
To do so seems to be introducing a false dichotomy. The only reason we have the faith today is because it's been handed down over the years.
Still ... this has been debated here before and will be again ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The other phrase I've heard to explain this is "thin places" - those places where we (general) find it easier to encounter God. For some it's places, for others it's in the Eucharist, for others it's in doing for others.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
(though as an Anglican I'm not required to believe in the Real presence in the Eucharist)
Maybe I'm mistaken - but I think a belief in the Real Presence is more or less assumed in Anglicanism.
Not at the VeryConservativeEvangelical™ end. At that end the Lord's Supper (they would never call it Eucharist) is seen as no more than remembering the passion.
Me? I'm FairyConservativeEvangelical™ and believe in the real presence.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
(though as an Anglican I'm not required to believe in the Real presence in the Eucharist)
Maybe I'm mistaken - but I think a belief in the Real Presence is more or less assumed in Anglicanism.
Not at the VeryConservativeEvangelical™ end. At that end the Lord's Supper (they would never call it Eucharist) is seen as no more than remembering the passion.
Me? I'm FairyConservativeEvangelical™ and believe in the real presence.
I think belief in the Real Presence as described on this thread is weakest in charismatic evo places, which often tend towards the Baptist in their sacramental theology. Con evo places tend to be more like Presbyterians.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mind you, and I don't mean to give offence to the good Major Mudfrog, but is it just me? In the sense that am I the only one who finds it a bit when he blithely pronounces that the 'church is wrong' when a pre-eminent place for the eucharist (however understood) has been its practice for the last 2000 years?
'You lot all had it wrong until General Booth came along to put you straight ...'
I'm sorry? That has never been my assertion and is far from the truth as far as William Booth is concerned too.
I'm not going to enter that argument here but I think it might be best if you were not to misrepresent our view.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I'm thinking in terms of the classic story of the person walking along the beach. Per Wikipedia: quote:
This popular text describes a dream, in which the person is walking on a beach with God. They leave two sets of footprints in the sand behind them. Looking back, the tracks are stated to represent various stages of this person's life. At some points the two trails dwindle to one, especially at the lowest and most hopeless moments of the character's life. When questioning God, believing that God must have abandoned his follower during those times, God gives the explanation: "During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."
Am I the only person who cringes whenever the "footprints" story is trotted out (as though it actually happened to someone once)? It's a horrible little parable.
Agreed. But much improved by the ending I saw somewhere here on the Ship:
"And God said, 'You seemed a bit down, so I thought we'd hop on one foot for a while.'"
When it comes to the Presence in the Eucharist, I confess that I struggle, but somehow I struggle with the whole thing really, even in my own flavour of church which regards it as an act of remembrance or a fellowship meal. I don't know why and it's probably a subject for another thread.
Nen - unsure of things...
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
Thanks for all the responses! It's Thanksgiving over here, so there's no way I'll be able to stay on top of discussion regularly.
There seem to be a consensus coming out that what's unique is our awareness of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. This certainly makes sense to me, although it's interesting that it shifts the question from an ontological one (where is Christ really present?) to an epistemological one (when do we best know Christ's presence?) This suggests that Christ is as Really Present in any other situation as in the Eucharist. This may well be true, but it's an interesting implication: the Eucharist is more about the unveiling of a pre-existing presence than about Christ making himself present.
otyetsfoma has introduced a very intriguing point, which is that "real" derives from L. res (matter, thing).
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
Historically the word "real" in real presence was from the latin res(=thing), i.e. the Thing Signified (the Body and Blood). That is why many reformers with a fairly "high" understanding of the eucharist denied the real presence, although they certainly believed in God's presence. This misunderstanding of the meaning of "real" has made it impossible to deny the real presence, but has made the phrase almost meaningless.
I suppose this shifts the direction of things a bit, because if we take "real" to somehow mean "material" (the adjective from "matter"), the Second Person is materially present in the Eucharist in a way that God is not necessarily* materially present in the other examples. When two or three are gathered, in other words, Christ can be present without being really (i.e., materially) present.**
Those were some disjointed thoughts, but maybe show how the Eucharist is in fact unique, and—more importantly—can provide the basis for the argument that God is not really present outside the Eucharist. I'm not particularly committed to that position, so I'd love to hear thoughts on it, framed through this material lens.
* Unless, I guess, we assume panentheism?
** This means an assumption, I guess, against materialism; we have to accept that there's something other than the material world. I think most Christians aren't too troubled by that claim.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
There seem to be a consensus coming out that what's unique is our awareness of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. This certainly makes sense to me, although it's interesting that it shifts the question from an ontological one (where is Christ really present?) to an epistemological one (when do we best know Christ's presence?) This suggests that Christ is as Really Present in any other situation as in the Eucharist. This may well be true, but it's an interesting implication: the Eucharist is more about the unveiling of a pre-existing presence than about Christ making himself present.
Good summary! I think that your interesting implication is the truth.
I think that it is a given for Christians that Christ is omnipresent - if we believe that He is God, that is.
So the only alternative is the change that happens with us when we sincerely approach the Holy Supper. We become able to receive Him in a way that is different than our reception at other times.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I was, of course, exaggerating to make a point, Mudfrog. I know what the Army's view is - and you have articulated here very well on a number of occasions.
But I was replying in kind.
You unequivocably stated that the 'church was wrong' - thereby setting yourself up as arbiter and judge as to what the church should believe and practice.
I assumed that you must have some mandate for suggesting this and so put forward your founder, William Booth as the possible source of this authority.
Now it seems I'm misrepresenting your view.
Could it not be that you are misrepresenting what the church is saying/teaching/asserting in a similar way?
I am being deliberately provocative, of course - I've said before and I'll say again, I've got an immense respect for the Salvation Army and respect it's right to do what it believes is best.
I wouldn't have challenged you if you said, 'Well, we see things differently and prefer to do it this way for various reasons such as ....'
But you explicitly stated that the 'church was wrong' and that's what I was objecting to.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Curiosity Killed - I think that's right - but would add the caveat that 'doing for others' isn't an optional extra nor something we should do simply to feel better or because it makes us feel closer to God - we should do it because it is right to do it.
Now, I'm not suggesting you were suggesting otherwise ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was, of course, exaggerating to make a point, Mudfrog. I know what the Army's view is - and you have articulated here very well on a number of occasions.
But I was replying in kind.
You unequivocably stated that the 'church was wrong' - thereby setting yourself up as arbiter and judge as to what the church should believe and practice.
I assumed that you must have some mandate for suggesting this and so put forward your founder, William Booth as the possible source of this authority.
Now it seems I'm misrepresenting your view.
Could it not be that you are misrepresenting what the church is saying/teaching/asserting in a similar way?
I am being deliberately provocative, of course - I've said before and I'll say again, I've got an immense respect for the Salvation Army and respect it's right to do what it believes is best.
I wouldn't have challenged you if you said, 'Well, we see things differently and prefer to do it this way for various reasons such as ....'
But you explicitly stated that the 'church was wrong' and that's what I was objecting to.
Like I'm the first person ever in the history of the church to state a view that is different! I would remind you that every church has a different view on so many things.
Just as a point of illumination regarding our cessation in 1883 of the ritual sacraments.
You will of course know that by the mid 19th century Methodism had moved well away from Wesley's high sacramental views about the sacraments and had become almost dismissive of the Eucharist.
You will no doubt know that many Methodist preachers in that generation had an extremely low churchmanship.
Please allow me the opportunity to quote from my essay on the subject:
quote:
"Booth, along with most Methodists in the nineteenth century, seems to have moved significantly away from Wesley's Anglican emphases and embraced a more revivalist nonconformity...It became apparent in the nineteenth century that not all Wesley's followers appreciated or adhered to his more 'high church' interpretation of the sacraments as the conveyors of grace. Their views became shaped by the practical needs and theological climate of the day. Methodist preachers began emphasising Scripture as the chief means of grace," taking Wesley's view of the indispensable word of God to the extreme by stressing that word "almost to the exclusion of other means of grace." (Rightmire 1990, 37)
Rightmire, RD Sacraments and The Salvation Army: Pneumatological Foundations, The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Metuchen, 1990
I would want to argue quite strongly that it was Methodism's own low view of the sacrament that enabled, even encouraged Booth, to take the small, final step, to total non observance without much anguish of theological conscience.
Indeed, in my study for this essay I had to do some qualitative research which included conversations with Methodists about their attitude to the Eucharist and was very surprised to discover that in living memory - even as few as 30 years ago, the view amongst older methodists was very non-committal. For example, the Lord's Supper was never part of the main service. After the blessing was pronounced, many of the congregation would leave. The organist left the organ loft and proceeded to the piano, the choir disrobed and came to sit in the front pews.
It was not compulsory and many Methodists would never have bothered to partake.
My studies revealed that for Booth to cease the ritual sacraments was a simple thing to do because many Methodists never took it anyway.
Foe them, the preaching of the word was the greatest means of grace.
So, Booth did not suddenly decide the church was wrong. The church itself had a growing tradition of believing that the Eucharist was simply not an issue for the evangelical church. In the 'take it or leave it' environment of Holy Ghost revivalism and spiritual fervour, it was entirely reasonable to 'leave it.'
Not one Methodist, however, would have even contemplated the thought that somehow they were missing out on a special grace that could only have been found in bread and wine.
--------------------
"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
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
And, MUDFROG, in our Baptist Church, it usually happened after the service and people could decide to stay for communion or go home then. And it was never "wine" we we shared with, as that was believed as likely to get addiction and not healthy for us. We also didn't have communion every Sunday and so we all were sure, and were taught, that God was always present with and within us.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
...though as an Anglican I'm not required to believe in the Real presence in the Eucharist...
According to whom? And what do you mean by 'required'?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
cheesymarzipan - God is economically (i.e. beyond that, utterly ineffable) relationally triune. An inseparable, indivisible, fractal gestalt.
A mystery.
All that is is in Him. He, perichoretically triunely, thinks it all.
LeRoc - yeah, you said it right. Sort of ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Are you only wanting to communicate with yoda-like theology scholars ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
cheesymarzipan - God is economically (i.e. beyond that, utterly ineffable) relationally triune. An inseparable, indivisible, fractal gestalt.
A mystery.
All that is is in Him. He, perichoretically triunely, thinks it all.
LeRoc - yeah, you said it right. Sort of
[waits on the Lord]
The interpretation is: 'Who knows, eh?'
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, Mudfrog, I think your historical analysis is correct. One could argue, of course, that there was a gradual 'degrading' of the apostolic deposit once people started shifting for themselves and doing their own thing and what was right in their own eyes ...
I'm not suggesting that, though, although I would, at times, suggest that revivalism and enthusiasm, rather than (or as well as) adding some much needed oomph and welly, also brought all sorts of daft things in their wake - take Mormonism for instance, that developed from a revivalist setting.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Reformation and the radical reformation, I think it is incontrovertible that those who - for reasons of conscience and often at great expense to themselves in terms of persecution or cold-shouldering etc - stepped out into a more 'independent' way of doing things did so at the risk of heresy at worst (Sabellianism, Socinianism etc etc) or muddled thinking at best ... (dare I mention dispensationalism in this latter category?) ...
On balance, I suspect that most enthusiastic and revivalist movements were trying to rectify things in a positive way - and I certainly wouldn't knock the Salvation Army for its innovative approach in 19th century Britain ...
In the Army's case, I think there was a sufficiently strong elastic band around its waist to keep it within the framework of received tradition (small t) - but that hasn't always been the case with religious entrepreneurs and innovators.
I still believe that there is something 'special' about communion though - but I wouldn't 'de-Christianise' anyone who thought differently.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
