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   »   » Oblivion   » Explaining the Eucharist (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Explaining the Eucharist
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of my sons was quite perturbed, when young, that we were going up to the altar to drink blood (he was listening to the words of the priest and coming to a quite understandable conclusion). How do people explain what is happening during the Eucharist - to their children / congregation / interested enquirers? After all, it's a pretty strange thing to encounter for the first time.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it really practical to revisit 2000 years of debate over the nature of the Eucharist? Your child is not the first one to be a bit startled by the thought, according to John's gospel. But John saw no reason to explain any further how it is that "(Jesus') body is true food and his blood true drink".

When my children were young I took a Reformed view of this, and so did not believe there was any miraculous change in the nature of the elements. Broadly, there are three views:

The memorialist view, is that the elements represent the body and blood, and the Eucharist is a ritual remembrance.

The Calvinist view is that the wine truly is the blood of Christ but becomes so only by faith, so that an unbeliever that eats a consecrated host has in no way partaken of anything but bread or wine.

The catholic view is that the elements are miraculously transformed so they become the body and blood of Christ whether you believe it or not. So both believers and unbelievers partake of the body and blood, and for the unbeliever this is viewed as seriously detrimental.

The real question to me is whether you believe in the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics tend to prefer the tern Real Presence, but Calvinist would strenuously affirm the real presence, but limit it to believers.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's time for deep theological analysis, but what my son was actually doing was picking up on the words the priest was saying during the administration: 'This is my body', 'This is my blood'. How you explain that what he was hearing wasn't something really scary, to a 3 year old, is something quite different. Or, for that matter, to a first time church attender with no previous Christian background.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes - the first eucharist I ever attended had a priest in a fiddleback chasuble with his back to us making lots of arm movements while saying the words of institution very quietly.

I thought he wad cutting his wrists.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lilac
Shipmate
# 17979

 - Posted      Profile for Lilac   Email Lilac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At school I found myself discussing this issue with a Jewish boy. After some puzzlement he said nervously, "I hope they don't eat this bread..."

--------------------
Seeking...

Posts: 62 | From: Birmingham / Coventry Area, UK | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804

 - Posted      Profile for Ethne Alba     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To be honest, I can't see how one can explain this to a three year old....well, I couldn't to any three year old that I've ever taken to church anyway.

Three year olds are everso literal.....


( Just read Alefric's "Sermon on the Sacrifice of Easter Day" and it seems that it had to be explained simply 1,000 years ago as well)

Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does "it's ok because it's Jesus" not suffice for a 3 year old?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Does "it's ok because it's Jesus" not suffice for a 3 year old?

Yes, I think this is very good indeed. I must say, I hadn't been able to come up with anything that wasn't overly complex or theologically laden in one direction or another. Further, we can't really expect a three year old to get his/her head around any properly understood theory of atonement, which is the basic context for understanding the meaning of the Eucharist.

As to what one might say to an interested non-Christian, I think the beginning of such a discussion might well eschew specific Eucharistic theologies and instead start with a profession that we believe that in receiving the consecrated Bread and Wine of the Eucharist we are receiving the Presence of the Risen Christ, and united with him and with all Christians living and departed. It is not the flesh and blood of a corpse that we profess to eat, but the being of the risen and ascended cosmic Christ who makes himself present to us in the Eucharist.

The foregoing is an attempt to find a via media to convey a common Christian understanding that can be congruent with the full range of the transubstantiationist-memorialist continuum.

Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can you take the three-year-old up with you to have a look? Then you can say something like, "I know it sounds gross, but it's not--come and see" and it may be reassuring.

With an older child (who can handle analogies) I said, "It's kind of what happened when you were inside my tummy--before you were born you got everything you needed from my body and blood--that's how you ate, that's how you lived. It's how mommies take care of their unborn babies when there's no food inside there."

--------------------
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
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's an interesting analogy, Lamb Chopped. It might have to be explained gently, but I can see there's mileage in that, especially for slightly older children.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are there Sunday School teachers on here who've come across material which tries to explain what goes on, in an easy to understand way? Or do people make up their own / avoid the situation? Presumably those who prepare young children, aged 6 or 7, for First Communion will have thought through the subject?

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree that seeing is very important, that and explaining it beforehand. I was thinking that my daughter wasn't upset because I'd explained beforehand, but until I read Lamb Chopped's response, I hadn't even thought about the fact that in many churches a 3 year old probably wouldn't be able to see the elements. My daughter could see that in whatever way the bread was a body, it wasn't in the gross way. And I'm sure she didn't understand, but I'd explained that it became God, and that it was a way to get closer to God like in baptism--which was recent enough for her to remember, and I knew had meant something to her--and now Jesus-bread is her favorite part of the service. (Not such a fan of the wine though, always tries to forget to kiss the cup, if no one reminds her. I presume even the edge tastes a bit like the strong wine we use.*

*Above all applies to the non-UMC church we go to. Unfortunately we just dunk at the UMC church I go to, and it's not taken as seriously, so it's not as big a deal to her either

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I remember our shock when our then 3 y.o. was going round to his toys and offering them a drink of blood, until we realised he was rehearsing what he saw at the communion rail. While I don't want to put people off, I also don't want wholly to sanitise the notion that our life flows from Jesus' death.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The real question to me is whether you believe in the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics tend to prefer the tern Real Presence, but Calvinist would strenuously affirm the real presence, but limit it to believers.

The term "real presence" is of Lutheran provenance, I think. Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament without accepting the annihilation of the accidents. In other words, he believed that Christ's body and blood were present in and under the bread and the wine. Whereas the Roman Catholic view is that the elements stop being bread and wine when they become the body and the blood.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zwinglian (Memorialist): no presence, just bread and wine
Calvinist: spiritual presence, still bread and wine
Cranmerian (Anglican): real body and blood received by faith, still bread and wine
Lutheran: real presence, still bread and wine
Catholic: transubstantiated, not bread and wine anymore

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lutherans will say that the real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not dependent on the belief of the receiver. Grace is still being imparted to even the unbeliever.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chorister:
How you explain it to a three year old depends rather on what you believe and on what he already has been told. For many Christians it would be obvious to say that it represents it.

But if that's not your conviction, it would be dishonest.

So I don't think you can divorce the explanation from the underlying theology.

Nor did I imagine you wanted to keep the discussion to the level of a three year old child.

In which case maybe you should try Hell. [Smile]

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When I first took communion (as an adult) I had picked up on 'do this in remembrance of me' and had no problem at all. The various theological interpretations came much later.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The real question to me is whether you believe in the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics tend to prefer the tern Real Presence, but Calvinist would strenuously affirm the real presence, but limit it to believers.

The term "real presence" is of Lutheran provenance, I think. Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament without accepting the annihilation of the accidents. In other words, he believed that Christ's body and blood were present in and under the bread and the wine. Whereas the Roman Catholic view is that the elements stop being bread and wine when they become the body and the blood.
Nope

Calvinist, Look up Mercerberg for Calvinism with this as a particular emphasis. Calvin insisted that at communion we were fed on the Body and Blood of our Lord but it is a spiritual feast, that happens in heaven to which the Holy Spirit takes us during communion. I have spent rather long on it recently.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lutherans will say that the real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not dependent on the belief of the receiver. Grace is still being imparted to even the unbeliever.

Yep. That's why I would place it next in line to Roman Catholicism.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Except that, if I've understood IngoB on other threads correctly, the RCs believe that if you're not in a state of grace, receiving the elements will curse you rather than bless you?

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Barefoot Friar

Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100

 - Posted      Profile for Barefoot Friar   Email Barefoot Friar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lutherans will say that the real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not dependent on the belief of the receiver. Grace is still being imparted to even the unbeliever.

Wesleyans believe the same. Additionally, we believe what Daronmedway said of Anglicans: "real body and blood received by faith, still bread and wine."

--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu

Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then,as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lutherans will say that the real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not dependent on the belief of the receiver. Grace is still being imparted to even the unbeliever.

Though if you can call it grace, when it has such bad effects on the one who receives it without faith... [Eek!]

--------------------
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
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
So I don't think you can divorce the explanation from the underlying theology.

Nor did I imagine you wanted to keep the discussion to the level of a three year old child.


I was interested in how we should explain it to people of any age coming to the Eucharist (or awareness of the Eucharist) for the first time. Is launching into the different understandings of the Eucharist using theological terms really the best way?!

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, yes it is, because different Christians will want to tell their kids very different things. I wouldn't want my kids to be taught Zwinglianism or Roman Catholicism. I'd stretch to Lutheranism and I'd tolerate Calvinism but I personally prefer Cranmerian Receptionism. And that's what I teach my kids. I guess what's more interesting is how I teach my kids Anglican Eucharistic theology, and I'll post on that later.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then, as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.

'And eats and drinks judgement on themselves'. Gerasu, that isn't some weird belief peculiar to the RCC. As far as I am aware, every Christian church in Christendom follows St Paul and believes this.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the Lord's body is?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To paraphrase Augustine:

In the Eucharist, the Body of Christ (The Church as the Redeemed People of God) feeds on the Body of Christ (The Eucharist) to become the Body of Christ (The Church in Mission and Witness)

That has been the best explanation I have learned in seminary.

[ 14. February 2014, 23:05: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  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 Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then, as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.

'And eats and drinks judgement on themselves'. Gerasu, that isn't some weird belief peculiar to the RCC. As far as I am aware, every Christian church in Christendom follows St Paul and believes this.
Though Paul talks about 'discerning the body' - in context not the 'body' in the sacrament but in the community - the rich arrived first and ate all the food so that slaves who arrived late, because of their duties, had little.

So the damnation might not be about the sacrament but about the way we treat the poor.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then, as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.

'And eats and drinks judgement on themselves'. Gerasu, that isn't some weird belief peculiar to the RCC. As far as I am aware, every Christian church in Christendom follows St Paul and believes this.
Though Paul talks about 'discerning the body' - in context not the 'body' in the sacrament but in the community - the rich arrived first and ate all the food so that slaves who arrived late, because of their duties, had little.

So the damnation might not be about the sacrament but about the way we treat the poor.

More both/and not either/or, leo. Though the issue of the context of exploitation at the table is rarely explored.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 
The philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe wrote a brief essay on transubstantiation that took its starting point from exactly this question: how do you explain what is going on in the eucharist to a small child?

She, of course, presumes a Catholic view of the eucharist.

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

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
She also assumes a very bright child.

I know full well that little children understand a lot - but in simple terms - as I know from conversations with boat boys/girls when acting as thurifer - but the article linked to is way beyond most children.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  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 ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The elements will NEVER curse you,but if you eat and drink without preparing yourself,without discerning the Body of the Lord then, as St Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians 'he is guilty of sin against the Lord's body.

'And eats and drinks judgement on themselves'. Gerasu, that isn't some weird belief peculiar to the RCC. As far as I am aware, every Christian church in Christendom follows St Paul and believes this.
Though Paul talks about 'discerning the body' - in context not the 'body' in the sacrament but in the community - the rich arrived first and ate all the food so that slaves who arrived late, because of their duties, had little.

So the damnation might not be about the sacrament but about the way we treat the poor.

More both/and not either/or, leo. Though the issue of the context of exploitation at the table is rarely explored.
When it is, the Vatican inhibit such discussion e.g. Tissa Balasuriya's 'The Eucharist and Human Liberation.'

Do you have any particular authority for the both/and?

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
So I don't think you can divorce the explanation from the underlying theology.

Nor did I imagine you wanted to keep the discussion to the level of a three year old child.


I was interested in how we should explain it to people of any age coming to the Eucharist (or awareness of the Eucharist) for the first time. Is launching into the different understandings of the Eucharist using theological terms really the best way?!
No--i'd simply retell the narrative to start with (adding that "do this" is why we do this) and then wait for the person to ask questions, if any. The mere story might be enough to satisfy curiosity--don't want to overwhelm people, like the child who asked "where did i come from?" And got a detailed explanation of sex and childbirth, when the answer he really wanted was "Los Angeles."

--------------------
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
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Do you have any particular authority for the both/and?

The Holy Spirit?

[code]

[ 15. February 2014, 16:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Do you have any particular authority for the both/and?

The Holy Spirit?

[code]

Through which of Her inspired writings?

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
She also assumes a very bright child....

I agree. I found that paper quite difficult to follow. I suppose if your mother was Elizabeth Anscombe, you would not be as other three year olds.

Tangent alert
None of my business by the way but I'd question the curious assertion on that website by Dr M C Gormally, whoever he or she is, that they have copyright in the paper. It may be that he or she has legitimately acquired it in some way that isn't there disclosed, but unless so, Elizabeth Anscombe died in 2001. The natural assumption is that copyright is live and belongs to her and her executors on her behalf until the end of 2071!

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

 - Posted      Profile for LutheranChik   Author's homepage   Email LutheranChik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With the disclaimer that children's ministry is not my thing, and I assume that there are age-appropriate teaching materials put out by various church bodies' publishing houses that I'm sure do a fine job of explaining the Eucharist to small children...I think you could describe the Last Supper -- Jesus had a special meal of bread and wine with his friends, and told them to keep having the same meal in his name -- and then say something like, "We believe that when we share this meal with one another Jesus is part of it in a very real, special way that helps us and reminds us that someday all of his friends will be together with him. It's hard to explain, and when grownups try to do it they sometimes use words and word-pictures that are hard to understand even for other grownups; but you don't have to understand it to believe that Jesus is with us in the bread and wine, is happy that we're here together in his name and is going to be with us all week long." Or something like that. Adults really overthink the theology, not only for themselves but for small children. Remember -- they're the ones Jesus notes as "getting" him more than the smart, sophisticated adults.

Ever since I've been an adult children have been welcome at the altar from babe-in-arms age, and they get to see the elements up close and personal from the get-go. (Also, in most churches of my acquaintance these days kids are generally invited to come closer to the altar during the Eucharistic portion of the service, the better to see what's happening.) But I still agree with Lamb Chopped that it's a good idea to give small children some tangible/textural experience of the Communion elements before they actually communicate...not only to reassure them that God can come to us in very ordinary, earthy means but also to avoid incidents like the tot at one service I attended who, per his parents' request, received a wafer, even though it soon became obvious that this was something new for him, and promptly exclaimed, "YUCK. I DON'T LIKE IT."

*In defense of the pastor involved: Because First Communion age varies wildly from local congregation to local congregation, and from child to child, pastors and Eucharistic servers are at the mercy of parents' direction, or in this case misdirection, when visiting families come through the Communion line, when it comes to offering Communion to small children. In my previous church we had a three-year-old communicant whose matter-of-fact understanding about "getting Jesus," and enthusiasm for same, was about as perfect an example of receiving the sacrament "worthily" as any pastor or theologian could want; on the other hand we had teens (let alone adults) who at least to an observer didn't seem to be taking the whole thing either seriously or joyfully at all. Part of the problem is explaining, and re-explaining, how we do Communion week after week to visitors, no matter how tedious this seems to regular church folks; and part of it is re-reminding the regular church folks of the gravity of the sacrament -- that this isn't like taking food samples at a supermarket or doing a runway walk or playing Simon Says.

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
None of my business by the way but I'd question the curious assertion on that website by Dr M C Gormally, whoever he or she is, that they have copyright in the paper. It may be that he or she has legitimately acquired it in some way that isn't there disclosed, but unless so, Elizabeth Anscombe died in 2001. The natural assumption is that copyright is live and belongs to her and her executors on her behalf until the end of 2071!

Dr Gormally, otherwise known by her maiden name Mary Geach, is Elizabeth Anscombe's daughter and literary executor..

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427

 - Posted      Profile for Nenya     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Never mind explaining it to children... I've never really had it satisfactorily explained to me either - or probably it's that the explanations have been ok but I haven't been able to understand or appreciate them properly. I've never been comfortable with the Eucharist, communion, breaking of bread, whatever name it's called in the denomination I'm part of. I've taken wafers at the altar rail. I've been with people who consider it fine to do with coffee and digestive biscuit if that's all you've got and others who think the whole point is that you go out of your way to get the proper elements. I've been part of house church/fellowship meetings where everyone has a chunk of bread and romps around the room giving a piece to whoever they want to say "hi" to. The Baptist church I'm part of passes the bread along the rows with a muttered "The body of Christ broken for you."

I always find it a difficult service/meeting to cope with.

I am personally unconvinced that when Jesus shared that last Passover meal with his friends he intended to establish a ritual for everyone to be following in the ways we all do to this day, any more than I think when he outlined how we should pray he intended us to be repeating The Lord's Prayer down the millennia.

So - interesting thread. [Smile]

Nen - who must be missing something.

--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.

Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011  |  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 leo:
She also assumes a very bright child.

I know full well that little children understand a lot - but in simple terms - as I know from conversations with boat boys/girls when acting as thurifer - but the article linked to is way beyond most children.

Anscombe was the mother of seven, so I suspect she was speaking from experience. But her point is not that what she says in her article is how you should explain the Eucharist to children, but rather that how we teach a child what the Eucharist is -- by focusing on what actually is said and done in the liturgy itself -- is also how we should set about explaining the Eucharist to adults.

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

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
her point is not that what she says in her article is how you should explain the Eucharist to children, but rather that how we teach a child what the Eucharist is -- by focusing on what actually is said and done in the liturgy itself -- is also how we should set about explaining the Eucharist to adults.

It seems very odd to me to start with transubstantiation (or any other theory about how exactly Christ is present in the Eucharist).

I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.

Then I'd add the inferences that the canonical writers draw directly from it: that it's a form of worship, that it should express fellowship with other Christians, that it is both an expression of and part of our Christian discipleship, and that it is a serious business: taking it lightly, or worse, contemptuously, is a serious sin.

Then the explanation of why it's so serious a matter, and similarly, why it's so important fits in: it's an encounter with Jesus. Of course the churches disagree about how that encounter works, so the explanation (if it is to be properly educational) should include both "what I believe about it" and "what other Christians think". But I wouldn't even begin to tackle this level of explanation without first having done the groundwork of setting out the historical events that the Eucharist symbolises, and the role it should have in the life of a believer.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Except that, if I've understood IngoB on other threads correctly, the RCs believe that if you're not in a state of grace, receiving the elements will curse you rather than bless you?

Which is also the traditional Lutheran position. Or rather that it can curse you (which is also the RC position). A grave sin needs sufficient knowledge to be deadly.

--------------------
"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
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It seems very odd to me to start with transubstantiation (or any other theory about how exactly Christ is present in the Eucharist).

I don’t find that odd at all. That just means that she takes as her starting point (her understanding of) Christ’s claim that “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Why should the meal be the natural starting point?

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.

And who says all Christians agree about that? What is a memorial, for instance?

And from your text you assume that what Christ commanded to keep doing (“do this in remembrance of me” and “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”) refers to the meal. But you won’t find that in Scripture. What Christ commanded to be done was what he did (i.e. to take bread/wine, give thanks/bless, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is a natural outcome of this, of course, but the remembrance refers to doing what Christ did, and not to the meal.

--------------------
"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
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.

And who says all Christians agree about that? What is a memorial, for instance?

Obviously not all Christians agree that it is only a memorial, but it clearly is a memorial-- the only dispute is whether it is something more than that.


quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

And from your text you assume that what Christ commanded to keep doing (“do this in remembrance of me” and “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”) refers to the meal. But you won’t find that in Scripture. What Christ commanded to be done was what he did (i.e. to take bread/wine, give thanks/bless, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is a natural outcome of this, of course, but the remembrance refers to doing what Christ did, and not to the meal.

Huh? I'm not following you at all here. I keep trying to respond but I honestly cannot even figure out what you are arguing for or against here.

quote:
1Cor. 11:23-26 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes

The text seems to be very clear here in drawing a connection between the thing that is to be remembered (the Lord's death) and the thing that is causing us to remember it (eating the bread and drinking the cup). Now, again, whether there is something more to it than just that is obviously a matter of great debate. But the fact that, at the very minimum, the bread & wine are bringing the atonement to mind would seem both obvious as well as a universally held Christian belief.

What am I missing?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
That just means that she takes as her starting point (her understanding of) Christ’s claim that “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Why should the meal be the natural starting point?

Two reasons: Firstly, because an assertion of transubstantiation is an extraordinary claim. It is simply not true (on a catholic viewpoint or any other viewpoint I am aware of) that saying the words “this is my body” of a thing transforms it into something else, or makes it an object for worship, outside the context of the Eucharist. And therefore, it seems to me, that transubstantiation can't be properly understood other than in that context. Anscombe's explanation to a child would, it seems to me, make it appear quite possible for anyone to say “this is my body” and produce a worshipable presentation of Jesus, or, come to that, say the same words with any other historical figure in mind and claim to then have a piece of their flesh. Since transubstantiation doesn't work like that, starting with 'how transubstantiation works' produces an odd and false impression.

Whereas starting with the historical context, building on that the personal and devotional context, and getting to the point where we can say that something unusual and special is going on, gives the basis for saying precisely what we believe that special thing to be.

Second reason is that it is natural to describe what something is and what it is for, before giving a technical account of how it words. If you were asked to explain a motor car, you'd start with the basic principle of transportation, go on to set out key components like engine, wheels, controls and seats, and then say something about how cars are driven and perhaps the legal and safety aspects of that. Giving an explanation of the chemical propertties of petrol that make the whole thing go is way down the list (if you ever get to it), because though it is of vital importance, you don't actually need to know that to use a car, and knowing it (and nothing else) gets you really no closer to knowing what a car does than you did before.

quote:
And who says all Christians agree about that? What is a memorial, for instance?
A memorial is something which symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates a historical event. What Christian group is there that does not think the Eucharist symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates something about the life of Jesus?

quote:
And from your text you assume that what Christ commanded to keep doing (“do this in remembrance of me” and “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”) refers to the meal. But you won’t find that in Scripture. What Christ commanded to be done was what he did (i.e. to take bread/wine, give thanks/bless, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is a natural outcome of this, of course, but the remembrance refers to doing what Christ did, and not to the meal.
That seems to be addressing some question about what the essential features of the physical act of Eucharistic celebration are, which isn't something I commented on at all. I'm happy to assume that most churches are obeying the 'do this' command as far as this is concerned.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The real question to me is whether you believe in the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics tend to prefer the tern Real Presence, but Calvinist would strenuously affirm the real presence, but limit it to believers.

The term "real presence" is of Lutheran provenance, I think. Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament without accepting the annihilation of the accidents. In other words, he believed that Christ's body and blood were present in and under the bread and the wine. Whereas the Roman Catholic view is that the elements stop being bread and wine when they become the body and the blood.
Nope

Calvinist, Look up Mercerberg for Calvinism with this as a particular emphasis. Calvin insisted that at communion we were fed on the Body and Blood of our Lord but it is a spiritual feast, that happens in heaven to which the Holy Spirit takes us during communion. I have spent rather long on it recently.

Jengie

I think you're wrong on this Jengie. The two positions I've summarised are the Lutheran position (Real Presence without Annihilation) and the Catholic (Annihilation & Transubstantiation).
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Two reasons: Firstly, because an assertion of transubstantiation is an extraordinary claim. It is simply not true (on a catholic viewpoint or any other viewpoint I am aware of) that saying the words “this is my body” of a thing transforms it into something else, or makes it an object for worship, outside the context of the Eucharist.

And? My point is that transubstantiation is the Catholic understanding of why Christ could say “this is my body.” I see no reason why the meal would be any more of a natural starting point than the real presence (however contrued).

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Second reason is that it is natural to describe what something is and what it is for, before giving a technical account of how it words.

Which is the point of the doctrine of transubstantiation. It doesn’t explain anything, or show how it is done. It is merely a term denoting that the elements have changed.

But my point is that it is not self-evidently obvious that the meal is a more natural starting point. One could also say that the meal is a natural ending point – it is the response to what the Eucharist is.

Note that I am not defending the Catholic position here. I am merely pointing out that the meal isn’t necessarily a more natural starting point than the real presence. And your insistence on the memorial doesn’t quite work either, as we see below.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously not all Christians agree that it is only a memorial, but it clearly is a memorial-- the only dispute is whether it is something more than that.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A memorial is something which symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates a historical event. What Christian group is there that does not think the Eucharist symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates something about the life of Jesus?

But if you ask a Jew what a memorial is, and he will say that it is a sacrifice. As a Zwinglian what a memorial is, and you will get a whole different answer. For a Jew a memorial was more than a commemoration of an historical event.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The text seems to be very clear here in drawing a connection between the thing that is to be remembered (the Lord's death) and the thing that is causing us to remember it (eating the bread and drinking the cup).

Then you aren’t following the text. Christ says “this is my body which is given for you … this is my blood … do this in remembrance of me.” He didn’t say “remember my death.” What we see in the text is that we are to ‘do the bread’ and ‘do the wine’ which means to do what Christ did with these elements (take bread and wine, give thanks, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is the response to this, but the ‘memorial’ doesn’t refer to the meal. The meal is the response to the ‘memorial.’

--------------------
"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
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 
I think it prudent to steer away from Thomist explanation's of the transformation of the elements in the Eucharist when trying to answer questions coming from a non-Christian perspective. These provide only a false clarity IMO, and the meaning of the philosophical categories involved isn't immediately clear to the modern mind and certainly not to the common meaning of the terms involved; indeed perhaps that has always been true. It seems better to assert the proposition that the elements do in fact change in the Eucharist to become the Body and Blood of Christ - the full being of the Risen Christ in his glorified humanity and his eternal divinity, and that this happens according to Our Lord's own word, pronounced by a duly ordained minister (presbyter or bishop) acting on behalf of the Church.

That's a starting point, of course. One can proceed on to aspects of ecclesiology and specific Eucharistic theology if this is called for, but the critical thing is to assert the essential faith of the Church.

Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
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