|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Explaining the Eucharist
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I've always appreciated the Orthodox affirmation of what happens at the Eucharist -- namely that it's a "Divine Mystery." I actually prefer that to the rather tortured Lutheran definition of Real Presence "in, with and under," etc...which I think was a response in kind to the equally tortured explanations of transubstantiation.
I wanted to respond, though, to the comment about Jesus not intending to establish a sacrament/ritual.
First of all -- and I don't mean this to be snarky -- it's always important to tease out one's emotional reactions to Scripture from an actual attempt to read/interpret it, to avoid an eisegenic reading. In other words, if Holy Communion is an awkward and confusing point in the service for someone for whatever reason, that person should be careful about reading his/her negative reactions back into the texts describing the Last Supper, or into a doctrinal declaration: "Well, I suspect Jesus didn't really institute a ritual for the his community of followers," "People must have made that bit up later," etc. (And just in the interests of full disclosure, I've certainly read back my own prejudices into texts that would be more convenient for me to discount.)
Secondly: While it's true that a gospel is a different genre of writing than a work of journalism, I would submit that the record of Scripture, which reflects the remembered experience of Jesus' original followers, does indeed indicate that Jesus at some point did institute Holy Communion as a central ritual gathering point, if you will, of the faithful. And that is also consistent with his use of food/meals as focal points both for demonstrating the power of God and for demonstrating divine generosity and inclusion. Jesus sharing meals with the ritually "unclean"; Jesus blessing and serving food; Jesus' presence creating an abundance of food; Jesus' use of "banquet" imagery in his parables about the Kingdom; all images and ideas that swirl into the imagery of the Eucharist.
[ 17. February 2014, 14:06: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The text seems to be very clear here in drawing a connection between the thing that is to be remembered (the Lord's death) and the thing that is causing us to remember it (eating the bread and drinking the cup).
Then you aren’t following the text. Christ says “this is my body which is given for you … this is my blood … do this in remembrance of me.” He didn’t say “remember my death.” What we see in the text is that we are to ‘do the bread’ and ‘do the wine’ which means to do what Christ did with these elements (take bread and wine, give thanks, break the bread and distribute the elements). The meal is the response to this, but the ‘memorial’ doesn’t refer to the meal. The meal is the response to the ‘memorial.’
The next line draws the connection with Jesus death "when you do this you proclaim my death until I come again". At the very least, it would seem that the meal is an occasion to create a memory for others.
I'm still completely at sea re: what your point is here and what you are laboring so hard to communicate. Perhaps it's clearer to others but I haven't got a clue what you are suggesting here-- or why.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously not all Christians agree that it is only a memorial, but it clearly is a memorial-- the only dispute is whether it is something more than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A memorial is something which symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates a historical event. What Christian group is there that does not think the Eucharist symbolises, calls to mind or commemorates something about the life of Jesus?
But if you ask a Jew what a memorial is, and he will say that it is a sacrifice. As a Zwinglian what a memorial is, and you will get a whole different answer. For a Jew a memorial was more than a commemoration of an historical event.
For a Zwinglian it is also more than just "commemoration", fwiw.
But again, the point (not just my point, but the original point we're both responding to) was that "memorial" was a minimal aspect-- a "lowest common denominator" understanding that all Christians agree on. Everyone has agreed that for many it is much more than that. Your "Jewish" understanding of memorial would be an example of "more than" that would also subsume and include any "lesser" Zwinglian understandings of the memorial.
[ 17. February 2014, 14:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I was involved in preparing children for their first communion a couple of months ago and said something like, 'Some people believe that the bread and wine actually change into....That is what i believe; others.....'
The age-range was 5-12 because it is the first time we have admitted children before confirmation so it was en masse, pun intended.
I observe, as I administer each week, that these children look and behave a lot more reverently than some of us who have been communicants fore decades.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Having been attending church since about a week old and therefore never having had to be introduced to the Eucharist as a new event, I find it very hard to put myself in the shoes of one who is brought up short by the shock of seeing churchgoers taking part in what must appear to be a very strange event indeed.
I did like the approach of one church, which produced a Eucharist booklet, with the words of the Mass on the RH page, with pictures and illustrations on the LH page. So anyone attending the service for the first time would be able to see and read (or have read to them, if very young) why the priest up the front is doing all those strange things. They can do this without the embarrassment of having to ask someone to tell them, or remaining in ignorance.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The two positions I've summarised are the Lutheran position (Real Presence without Annihilation) and the Catholic (Annihilation & Transubstantiation).
Not to be picky, but it is not the Catholic position that the bread and wine are annihilated and replaced; rather, they are converted into the body and blood of Christ. Or at least so this guy thought.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm still completely at sea re: what your point is here and what you are laboring so hard to communicate. Perhaps it's clearer to others but I haven't got a clue what you are suggesting here-- or why.
I am challenging three interrelated claims you have made: (1) that the meal is the obvious natural starting point when talking about the Eucharist; (2) that the memorial is a clear cut thing that everyone agrees on; and (3) that the memorial refers to the meal.
Firstly, the major emphasis on the meal isn’t found until Luther, as Joseph A. Jungmann points out in “‘Abendmahl’ als Name der Eucharistie” (ZKTh 93, 1971): 91-94. On p.93 he says, in english: “Thus it is clear that the term ‘Supper’ was a complete innovation in the sixteenth century.” He is here referring to the name (and the major emphasis) of the action, he is not saying there were no Supper.
Secondly, the ‘memorial’ is not a ‘lowest common denominator.’ To take an obvious example. Catholics hold that the memorial is a continuation of the memorial sacrifices, while Zwinglians do not. Ask a Zwinglian what a memorial is, and you will probably get an answer that doesn’t even resemble the response you get from a Catholic. To understand what the memorial is, you first need to understand the real presence. If the real presence is not real, as Zwinglians claim, than the memorial is nothing more than a ‘get together’ where we think about Jesus and what he has done.
Thirdly, the memorial (i.e. what we understand by Christ’s commandment to “do this in remembrance of me”) doesn’t refer to the meal (in neither Luke nor Paul). It refers to the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal. If the meal is a sacrificial meal, as Catholics hold, then the memorial is the offering, while the meal is the participation in the offering. If a Zwinglian understanding is correct, then the memorial (following what Luke and Paul) would refer to the preparation of the meal; the prayers made to God, etc., but still not to the meal (if they consistently follows Luke and Paul, that is).
--------------------
"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
Thanks for your clarification. I think I see where the confusion arose.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm still completely at sea re: what your point is here and what you are laboring so hard to communicate. Perhaps it's clearer to others but I haven't got a clue what you are suggesting here-- or why.
I am challenging three interrelated claims you have made: (1) that the meal is the obvious natural starting point when talking about the Eucharist; .
Actually, that was another poster, not me.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
(3) that the memorial refers to the meal.
Again, as I said before, I'm not arguing that it does-- nor is anyone else that I'm aware of, either here or in any denominational position.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
If the real presence is not real, as Zwinglians claim, than the memorial is nothing more than a ‘get together’ where we think about Jesus and what he has done.
As a Zwinglian, I can assure you that is not the Zwinglian position, and is offensive as the mischaracterizations often made of the "high church" perspectives.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Secondly, the ‘memorial’ is not a ‘lowest common denominator.’ To take an obvious example. Catholics hold that the memorial is a continuation of the memorial sacrifices, while Zwinglians do not. Ask a Zwinglian what a memorial is, and you will probably get an answer that doesn’t even resemble the response you get from a Catholic. To understand what the memorial is, you first need to understand the real presence. If the real presence is not real, as Zwinglians claim, than the memorial is nothing more than a ‘get together’ where we think about Jesus and what he has done.
Setting aside the mischaracterization of the Zwinglian position, I still think you've got a "lowest common denominator". Obviously, again, the Zwinglian view is not the same as the Catholic (or Lutheran or Orthodox or even Reformed) view. But I am not aware of anything within the Zwinglian view that would not be included or subsumed in those other views, other than (obviously) the "just" or "only" aspect of the memorial. Yes, we are using terms differently, and yes we are both misunderstanding each other's position (an old song). But unless I am really missing something there is nothing in the Zwinglian pov that is not subsumed within the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Reformed positions.
That may or may not mean that beginning with that lowest common denominator is a good starting point-- again, that was not my argument, but another's. My own practice is more like leo's-- starting with a brief and simple and hopefully accurate/respectful overview of several positions, followed by the one favored within my own particular faith tradition.
[ 17. February 2014, 23:04: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
K-Mann quote:
Thirdly, the memorial (i.e. what we understand by Christ’s commandment to “do this in remembrance of me”) doesn’t refer to the meal (in neither Luke nor Paul). It refers to the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal.
It's not at all clear to me how "this" refers to "the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal." It makes more sense to me that "this" is rather specific, referring to parts of the annual Passover meal.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
In answer to Chorister's original question. Last Sunday we had a breaking of bread/Lord's supper before we shared our common meal and explained to the children that we were doing this as a way to remember what Jesus did for us. We explained that the bread (or grape juice in their case) came from the tradition of the Last Supper and that they were not literally the body and blood of Jesus.
I find it interesting that I come from a tradition that would be described pejoratively as literalist, but on the Lord's Supper the positions in faith traditions on literalism seem to be switched.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, we are using terms differently, and yes we are both misunderstanding each other's position (an old song). But unless I am really missing something there is nothing in the Zwinglian pov that is not subsumed within the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Reformed positions.
But then it becomes extremely impractical to use those terms as ‘lowest common denominators,’ because they are used so differently. The view of what the real presence is will colour how you see the memorial.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
K-Mann quote:
Thirdly, the memorial (i.e. what we understand by Christ’s commandment to “do this in remembrance of me”) doesn’t refer to the meal (in neither Luke nor Paul). It refers to the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal.
It's not at all clear to me how "this" refers to "the actions and deeds Christ did before the meal." It makes more sense to me that "this" is rather specific, referring to parts of the annual Passover meal.
'Since we do not know how they celebrated the Passover meal in Jesus’ day, we cannot use that as a starting point. The Passover Seder as we know it dates to the Middle Ages. What we do know, however, is what we see in the text. The emphasis on what Jesus did is quite clear in the most English translations, and even clearer in the Greek text. St. Paul writes (1Cor 11:23-25, my translation) that Jesus “took bread and having given thanks he broke it and said, ‘This [gr. τοῦτο] is my body which is for you; do this [gr. τοῦτο] for my remembrance.’ Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This [gr. τοῦτο] cup is the new covenant in mu blood; do this [gr. τοῦτο], as often as you drink of it, for my remembrance’.”
What we see is that Jesus did seven things, which he then commanded to be done for his remembrance. He (1) took bread; (2) gave thanks; (3) broke the bread; (4) distributed the bread, saying some words; (5) took wine; (6) gave thanks; and (7) distributed the wine. Later this was shortened down to four parts, where the priest (1) took bread and wine; (2) gave thanks; (3) broke the bread; and (4) distributed the bread and wine. See for instance Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (New ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic 2005): 48-50. These seven or four things is the memorial. The meal is the response to the memorial, but the meal is not the memorial itself, at least not in Paul.
Also note that the emphasis on the drinking, the meal context (“as often as you drink of it”), is a parenthetical remark. The text doesn’t say that the memorial is in eating and drinking, but that this is the normal context. We could illustrate this by saying that the Cross is the equivalent of the memorial, while the acceptance of salvation is the equivalent of the meal. Both are very important, but they are distinct.
But the main thing that interests me is that we do not find any major emphasis on the meal until Luther, as Joseph A. Jungmann points out in “‘Abendmahl’ als Name der Eucharistie” (ZKTh 93, 1971): 91-94. On p.93 he says, in english: “Thus it is clear that the term ‘Supper’ was a complete innovation in the sixteenth century.” Before that, the main focus was on the eucharistia – the Eucharistic prayer or thanksgiving, which was seen in sacrificial terms (primarily a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving). See Joseph Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius 1986): 36-39, and two postscripts on pp.50-60.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I am challenging three interrelated claims you have made:
I think you mean me rather than cliffdweller.
quote:
(1) that the meal is the obvious natural starting point when talking about the Eucharist;
Yes, that's my point (although I didn't use 'meal' in contradistinction to 'memorial' as you seem to be doing).
I think it is the natural starting point to begin with the historical institution of the practice, and the associations (ritual meal to Last Supper / ritual meal as instituted at Last Supper to the death of Jesus) which are made in scripture and acknowledged by essentially the whole Christian church.
Why? In addition to the reasons already given, because that is relatively simple, comprehensible and uncontroversial. Whereas transubstantiation is an extraordinary and unintuitive claim which is widely disputed, and (IMHO) defensible only if you have laid the groundwork in showing that the celebration in which it is said to occur is so important a part of the worship of the church, and of such personal significance in the Christian life, that the extraordinary claims made about it are both appropriate and credible in that historical and devotional context.
With respect to Elizabeth Anscombe (who, as a Catholic might well be taking it for granted that this groundwork has already been done) the starting point in her essay ("He is saying Jesus' words that change the bread into Jesus' body") reads to me like a description of a magic spell, absent the context of the faith in which those words are said. I could only take them seriously after assimilating the significance of Jesus, the atonement, the call to discipleship, and the specialness of the Eucharist in the Christian life. Only when I have those ideas settled could I even give a fair hearing to transubstantiation as a doctrine.
quote:
(2) that the memorial is a clear cut thing that everyone agrees on;
That isn't exactly what I said, and cliffdweller has explained what I meant better than I did.
I'll try it without 'memorial' as this seems to be a buzzword into which you are reading connotations I do not intend: what I meant was this - "practically all Christians associate the ritual event of the Eucharist with what Jesus did at the historical event of the Last Supper, and interpret both events as including some sort of reference to Jesus' death and the spiritual significance thereof".
Obviously they then go on to disagree about all sorts of other stuff. The bit that they agree on, being simple and uncontroversial, is a good starting point for explaining the different positions that the various groups then take.
quote:
(3) that the memorial refers to the meal.
I didn't say that at all. You seem to be drawing a distinction here that I never made and also don't care about.
I don't mind what bits of the historical event you think the "do this" command essentially refers to. Whatever the true answer, I am quite happy to assume that your church (whichever one it is) is getting that part right, and doing the thing Jesus told us to do.
[ 18. February 2014, 15:25: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Having been attending church since about a week old and therefore never having had to be introduced to the Eucharist as a new event, I find it very hard to put myself in the shoes of one who is brought up short by the shock of seeing churchgoers taking part in what must appear to be a very strange event indeed.
I did like the approach of one church, which produced a Eucharist booklet, with the words of the Mass on the RH page, with pictures and illustrations on the LH page. So anyone attending the service for the first time would be able to see and read (or have read to them, if very young) why the priest up the front is doing all those strange things. They can do this without the embarrassment of having to ask someone to tell them, or remaining in ignorance.
Changing the subject slightly, I strongly suspect churches could really help newcomers by providing a "How to church" guide explaining the practical side (turn up on sunday, go here, do this, watch out for the surprising whatever... I'm a bit vague on the details myself as I don't). Perhaps some do although I haven't encountered it.
On the Eucharist side, I've long been puzzled by the whole thing. So I welcome this whole discussion although I don't yet feel particularly illuminated.
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I have been to Buckfast Abbey, a Roman Catholic monastery in Devon, with services (indeed the whole abbey) open to the public. Just inside the door are several bookshelves with many little booklets (not at all expensive) explaining all sorts of aspects of Roman Catholic Christian faith and practice. I've yet to see something similar in an Anglican church (they may exist, but I've yet to see them available just inside the door of churches for people to pick up or purchase). It may go some way towards demystifying everything that goes on.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think it is the natural starting point to begin with the historical institution of the practice, and the associations (ritual meal to Last Supper / ritual meal as instituted at Last Supper to the death of Jesus) which are made in scripture and acknowledged by essentially the whole Christian church.
And that is what I disagree with. You will not find that major emphasis on the meal until Luther. And I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to care much about a Lutheran innovation.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Why? In addition to the reasons already given, because that is relatively simple, comprehensible and uncontroversial.
According to whom? Is the Seder (whatever form that had in Jesus’s day) any more ‘comprehensible’?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Whereas transubstantiation is an extraordinary and unintuitive claim which is widely disputed, and (IMHO) defensible only if you have laid the groundwork in showing that the celebration in which it is said to occur is so important a part of the worship of the church, and of such personal significance in the Christian life, that the extraordinary claims made about it are both appropriate and credible in that historical and devotional context.
You seem to be hung up on the word transubstantiation. I didn’t say that transubstantiation as such was the natural starting point, but that these words by Christ – “this is my body” and “this is my blood” – is not any less a natural starting point than the meal. Transubstantiation is one understanding of those words.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
With respect to Elizabeth Anscombe (who, as a Catholic might well be taking it for granted that this groundwork has already been done) the starting point in her essay ("He is saying Jesus' words that change the bread into Jesus' body") reads to me like a description of a magic spell, absent the context of the faith in which those words are said.
And this cannot be said of any prayer anyone says? And remember that Anscombe is talking to a Catholic child here. Why would you expect that she wouldn’t teach that child Catholic teaching? (And note that using words like ‘magic’ is equally ‘damaging’ to prayers as they are to Catholic views on the words of instituton.)
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
"practically all Christians associate the ritual event of the Eucharist with what Jesus did at the historical event of the Last Supper, and interpret both events as including some sort of reference to Jesus' death and the spiritual significance thereof".
Which excludes almost any theologian before Luther. They focused on the Eucharistic prayer, understood as a thanksgiving sacrifice, and not the meal.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I didn't say that at all. You seem to be drawing a distinction here that I never made and also don't care about.
Didn’t you say this the following?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.
That seems to me to make a clear connection between the memorial and the meal, a connection not found in the only texts that uses the memorial language.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't mind what bits of the historical event you think the "do this" command essentially refers to. Whatever the true answer, I am quite happy to assume that your church (whichever one it is) is getting that part right, and doing the thing Jesus told us to do.
But if you do not care what ‘do this’ essentially refers to, how can you come to an understanding of what the ‘lowest common denominator’ is? Your last comment shows that there isn’t any such ‘lowest common denominator.’
--------------------
"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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I have been to Buckfast Abbey, a Roman Catholic monastery in Devon, with services (indeed the whole abbey) open to the public. Just inside the door are several bookshelves with many little booklets (not at all expensive) explaining all sorts of aspects of Roman Catholic Christian faith and practice. I've yet to see something similar in an Anglican church (they may exist, but I've yet to see them available just inside the door of churches for people to pick up or purchase). It may go some way towards demystifying everything that goes on.
All Saints Clifton, Bristol, has a series of take away leaflets on topics such as 'Why holy communion' candles, baptism, incense and so on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
k-mann,
I'm almost completely certain that whatever it is you are arguing against, I didn't say and don't mean.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think it is the natural starting point to begin with the historical institution of the practice, and the associations (ritual meal to Last Supper / ritual meal as instituted at Last Supper to the death of Jesus) which are made in scripture and acknowledged by essentially the whole Christian church.
And that is what I disagree with. You will not find that major emphasis on the meal until Luther. And I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to care much about a Lutheran innovation.
You can't, surely, be saying that the association between the Eucharist and the Last Supper is a Lutheran innovation? I don't get it.
quote:
Is the Seder (whatever form that had in Jesus’s day) any more ‘comprehensible’?
I don't understand the point you're making. The Seder/Passover (certainly in it's modern form, certainly in the form described in the OT, and almost certainly at all intervening points) has a historical and devotional context. You'd want to explain those to explain the Seder, wouldn't you? If you wanted to know what it was about, you'd ask a Jew things like “What does this refer to?” and “What does this mean to you?”. There are even questions like that in the ritual itself.
I'm suggesting that if you want to explain the Eucharist, answering that sort of question is a good start.
quote:
And this cannot be said of any prayer anyone says? And remember that Anscombe is talking to a Catholic child here. Why would you expect that she wouldn’t teach that child Catholic teaching? (And note that using words like ‘magic’ is equally ‘damaging’ to prayers as they are to Catholic views on the words of instituton.)
Again, I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously I don't think the Catholic view is 'magic'. I think that explaining it as “words that change the bread” absent the context of the faith in which those words are said is describing it as if it were magic. I'm not criticising transubstantiation here. I'm criticising a description of what is going on which makes it sound like magic. And, you'll note, that I expressed doubt that Anscombe is guilty of this in reality, precisely because I think it likely that her pointing out the importance of the words of institution would take place within an (unstated in the essay) context of wider Catholic explanation.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
"practically all Christians associate the ritual event of the Eucharist with what Jesus did at the historical event of the Last Supper, and interpret both events as including some sort of reference to Jesus' death and the spiritual significance thereof".
Which excludes almost any theologian before Luther.
Apart from St Paul? And Matthew, Mark and Luke? You can't possibly imagine that Luther was the first person to think that the Eucharist has its origins in the Last Supper. That would be insane.
quote:
They focused on the Eucharistic prayer, understood as a thanksgiving sacrifice, and not the meal.
You must be reading some sort of agenda into my post that isn't there. I am not setting up the acts of eating and drinking against the acts of giving thanks and praying, and saying we focus on one and ignore the other. That's a distinction you have read into my posts, that wasn't intended, expressed or implied, and which I simply don't care to make.
quote:
Didn’t you say this the following?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd start with the bits all Christians agree about: it's a memorial of Jesus' death started by him when he last are a meal with his friends, and that he commanded them (and through them, us) to keep doing it.
That seems to me to make a clear connection between the memorial and the meal, a connection not found in the only texts that uses the memorial language.
Again, this is a distinction that you are making and I'm not.
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me. It looks to me like pointless hair-splitting. Jesus broke bread, took wine, gave thanks, talked about his body and blood, referred to his death, and distributed food and drink to be eaten and drunk. He said “Do this”. We copy all of it. If you want to pick out one little bit of that and say this is the Eucharist, then fine. I don't. I honestly cannot see how such an exercise will help anyone's understanding or faith. If it helps you, then that's great. I am not going to argue with you about it. If you worship at any mainstream Christian church, I am practically certain that whatever it is your church does is close enough to count as what I understand the Eucharist to be.
quote:
But if you do not care what ‘do this’ essentially refers to, how can you come to an understanding of what the ‘lowest common denominator’ is? Your last comment shows that there isn’t any such ‘lowest common denominator.’
You're the only Christian I have ever known to denied that the Eucharist is associated with the Last Supper. And I doubt you mean it – I think you are denying something you think I said, which I didn't.
Anyway, that seems to me to be a point of agreement between the churches. 'Lowest common denominator' isn't a phrase I used, but I take cliffdweller to mean by it pretty much what I mean. I am much less confident that you are using the phrase to mean that, because I don't think I understand much of what you are saying.
[ 19. February 2014, 00:22: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
What Eliab said-- all of it.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The entire rite is the Eucharist, both the consecration of the bread and wine at the altar and the communion of the faithful. Indeed it is traditionally understood that the Eucharistic action itself is not complete until the celebrant receives the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, so that certainly underscores the fact that the offering and the meal can't in fact be separated. They can only be "separated" in terms of liturgical analysis, but not in the actual celebration of the sacrament. The entire rite is aimed at the Church's unity with Christ's eternal self-offering, and both the bit that happens up at the altar and the bit involving the distribution of the consecrated Sacrament serve and express this single intent.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You can't, surely, be saying that the association between the Eucharist and the Last Supper is a Lutheran innovation? I don't get it.
…
Apart from St Paul? And Matthew, Mark and Luke? You can't possibly imagine that Luther was the first person to think that the Eucharist has its origins in the Last Supper. That would be insane.
…
You're the only Christian I have ever known to denied that the Eucharist is associated with the Last Supper.
I haven’t denied that the Eucharist is associated with the Last Supper. My point is that the Supper (our Supper, our eating and drinking here and now), which is about our response to, our participation in, what Christ did, is not the same as the memorial.
We do not find this usage of the memorial until Zwingly, and we do not find any major emphasis on the meal until Luther. This is best seen in the fact that until Luther, people said ‘Eucharist,’ while he started to use the phrase ‘the Supper’ or ‘the Lord’s Supper’ (Ger. das Abendmahl or das Herrenmahl). He shifted emphasis from the Eucharistic prayer, the eucharistia (from the sacrifice of praise and the emphasis on the deeds of Christ at the Last Supper), to the meal. We see this most clearly in his two masses (Formula missae from 1523 and Deutsche Messe from 1526), where he completely removed the Offertory, and constructed the words of institution is such a way that they became directed at the congregation (in a pedagogical fashion). Until Luther, every liturgy directed the words of institution towards God the Father, and they saw it as an eucharistia (a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, emphasising the deeds of Christ).
The meal was important, but it was a response to this (to the memorial aspect), a participation in this, but not the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You must be reading some sort of agenda into my post that isn't there. I am not setting up the acts of eating and drinking against the acts of giving thanks and praying, and saying we focus on one and ignore the other. That's a distinction you have read into my posts, that wasn't intended, expressed or implied, and which I simply don't care to make.
No, I did not say that. What I did say is that to focus first on the meal is quite modern, and not found until Luther.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me.
But it is to Luke and Paul.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It looks to me like pointless hair-splitting. Jesus broke bread, took wine, gave thanks, talked about his body and blood, referred to his death, and distributed food and drink to be eaten and drunk.
Where, exactly, did he refer to his death? He referred to his body and blood being given, yes. But that is not necessarily reducible to his death. He didn’t say “this is my body which will be [given] for you” (future tense), but “this is my body which will is [given] for you” (present tense). A case can be made that he gave himself to the Father in the actions of the Last Supper, that this was part of his sacrifice (with the Cross being the culmination). Ratzinger has written about this in Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 2, chapters 4, 5 and 8 (on the High-Priestly Prayer, the institution of the Eucharist and the Crucifixion and Burial, respectively).
My point is that the meal part of the Eucharist is our response to the memorial; we respond to the things Christ did, and what the priest does in his stead. I have not said that the meal is unimportant, I have said that it is a response.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
--------------------
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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The entire rite is the Eucharist, both the consecration of the bread and wine at the altar and the communion of the faithful. Indeed it is traditionally understood that the Eucharistic action itself is not complete until the celebrant receives the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, so that certainly underscores the fact that the offering and the meal can't in fact be separated. They can only be "separated" in terms of liturgical analysis, but not in the actual celebration of the sacrament. The entire rite is aimed at the Church's unity with Christ's eternal self-offering, and both the bit that happens up at the altar and the bit involving the distribution of the consecrated Sacrament serve and express this single intent.
Just to be clear. I am not saying that we should not eat it. I am saying that the primary emphasis should be on the sacrifice of praise (the memorial), with the meal being a response to this.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
Although there will be problems with this, I like Jimmy Akin’s “Space Warp To Heaven.”
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
All of Jesus is in even the tiniest bit of the Bread or the smallest sip of the Wine. So yes, it's Sausage Jesus. Easy enough for a seven year old, I would think.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
Although there will be problems with this, I like Jimmy Akin’s “Space Warp To Heaven.”
Yes, that's not bad ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My 7 year old is a Doctor Who fan, so I have used the TARDIS as an illustration of the way that what something looks like and what is actually is can be two different things.
But how to answer the question of whether the communicant receives a specific part of Jesus, or whether it is "like a sausage"???
All of Jesus is in even the tiniest bit of the Bread or the smallest sip of the Wine. So yes, it's Sausage Jesus. Easy enough for a seven year old, I would think.
That's really helpful, thanks
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me.
But it is to Luke and Paul.
I'm with Eliab in thinking that this distinction and several others you are laboring to make appear very, very important to you-- but not to anyone else. I'm not seeing any evidence at all in the text that these distinctions were important to Luke or Paul either. One wonders if these distinctions are important for some practical or devotional reason, or if it's merely an opportunity to reel off all these fun-facts-of-dubious-origin you've accumulated. Nonetheless, I'm chastened by Eliab's reminder to simply be glad that these fun facts have apparently brought some meaning and significance to you, even if not to pretty much anyone else. (the snarkiness of the above a good indicator that I've still got a ways to go to follow Eliab's more generous example)
[Code fix -Gwai]
[ 19. February 2014, 14:41: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me.
But it is to Luke and Paul.
I'm with Eliab in thinking that this distinction and several others you are laboring to make appear very, very important to you-- but not to anyone else.
They are distinctions made by virtually every liturgists before Luther, and most liturgists now.
It also ties into this question: To whom is the words of institution directed? Every pre-reformational liturgy and every Catholic or Orthodox post-reformational liturgy directs them at God (the Father), which is connected to the fact that they, and the actions they refer to (thanksgiving, blessing, etc.), were seen as an offering, a eucharist.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get that this memorial/meal distinction is important to you. It isn't to me.
But it is to Luke and Paul.
I'm not seeing any evidence at all in the text that these distinctions were important to Luke or Paul either.
I’m just following what the text actually says. Nowhere in neither Luke nor Paul is the words “do this in remembrance of me” used about the meal itself. You could perhaps try to show where I am wrong instead of just saying that I am wrong.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I’m just following what the text actually says. Nowhere in neither Luke nor Paul is the words “do this in remembrance of me” used about the meal itself. You could perhaps try to show where I am wrong instead of just saying that I am wrong.
Reread your sentence above. It's an argument based on silence. Your entire argument is built on what Luke and Paul don't say. And it's a circular argument. The text itself, as Eliab and others have shown, does NOT say what "do this in remembrance of me" refers to in the specificity you are suggesting. You're assertions do not make it so. When you ask me to "show you why you're wrong" you're simply inviting me to engage in another argument from silence. The text doesn't say one way or the other.
It might be helpful if you provided some references to the rather idiosyncratic historical claims you're making. But even more interesting would be to hear from you why this distinction and the others you're laboring in isolation to make are so important to you? The rest of us just don't seem to get the "why" of it, much less whether or not it's true or accurate. You have spent long paragraphs arguing for things that don't seem to make much difference to the experience, meaning, or truth of the eucharist. Could you perhaps elaborate on "how this (your unique distinctives) changes things?"
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
]They are distinctions made by virtually every liturgists before Luther, and most liturgists now.
Perhaps some citations, then, of other "liturgists" who find this distinction noteworthy? Why do you suppose there are no other liturgists in this forum coming to your aid in this argument?
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
]It also ties into this question: To whom is the words of institution directed? Every pre-reformational liturgy and every Catholic or Orthodox post-reformational liturgy directs them at God (the Father), which is connected to the fact that they, and the actions they refer to (thanksgiving, blessing, etc.), were seen as an offering, a eucharist.
I think you will find that most Protestants, including even Zwinglians (i, not y, btw) would say the same.
--------------------
"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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Reread your sentence above. It's an argument based on silence. Your entire argument is built on what Luke and Paul don't say.
No, it is based on what they do say. That Christ took bread/wine, gave thanks, broke the bread, and gave the wine, saying “this is my body/blood, do this in remembrance of me.” What does ‘this’ refer to? It clearly refers to the bread/wine. Loosely, we could say that Christ said “do the bread/wine.” And what does that mean? Doing denotes an action, and since Christ didn’t say ‘eat’ (which he does in Matthew/Mark, where there is no memorial language), we can say that it refers to his actions, which are to be imitated. We are to take bread/wine, give thanks, break the bread and distribute it. And that, the text says, is done ‘in remembrance of’ Christ. No mention of the eating. And this is reflected in the pre-Lutheran emphasis on the eucharistia (the sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise) over and above the meal aspact (cf. the significant change of name when Luther dropped the word ‘Eucharist’ in favour of ‘Supper’).
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It might be helpful if you provided some references to the rather idiosyncratic historical claims you're making.
I guess you chose to ignore my references to Joseph Jungmann, Joseph Ratzinger, and Gregory Dix, then.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But even more interesting would be to hear from you why this distinction and the others you're laboring in isolation to make are so important to you?
Because it is what the text says. Why is it so important for you to find some kind of psychological explanation?
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You have spent long paragraphs arguing for things that don't seem to make much difference to the experience, meaning, or truth of the eucharist. Could you perhaps elaborate on "how this (your unique distinctives) changes things?"
The change that came with Luther removed every sniff of sacrificial language in the protestant Eucharistic liturgies, things that were inherent in the oldest liturgies. It is not just a question of ‘meaning,’ but of what the Eucharist is. Luther didn’t think it was a sacrifice (and neither did Calvin or Zwingly), therefore he removed that, and focused primarily on the meal.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps some citations, then, of other "liturgists" who find this distinction noteworthy?
Well, I can give you a few names, some of which I have already cited (but which you seems to have missed):
- Joseph Jungmann: The Mass of the Roman Rite (2 vols. New York 1951, 1955); “‘Abendmahl’ als Name der Eucharistie” (Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 93, 1971): 91-94.
- Joseph Ratzinger: The Feast Of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius 1986), esp. chapter 1:2; Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 2 (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius 2011), esp. chapter 4, 5 and 8.
- Cyprian Vagaggini: Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1976), esp. chapter 7 (“From the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, to the Father: The Liturgy and the Christological-Trinitarian Activity in the Divine Plan.”)
- Gregory Dix: The Shape of the Liturgy (New ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic 2005), esp. pp.48-50.
- Heinz Schürmann: Ursprung und Gestalt. Erörterungen und Besinnungen zum Neuen Testament (Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag 1970), esp. the chapter called “Die Gestalt der urchristlichen Eucharistiefeier.”
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Why do you suppose there are no other liturgists in this forum coming to your aid in this argument?
Since I cannot read other people’s mind, I do not speculate on motives, and generally do not care to find psychological explanations. Maybe they think I am able to answer for myself. Who knows?
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
]It also ties into this question: To whom is the words of institution directed? Every pre-reformational liturgy and every Catholic or Orthodox post-reformational liturgy directs them at God (the Father), which is connected to the fact that they, and the actions they refer to (thanksgiving, blessing, etc.), were seen as an offering, a eucharist.
I think you will find that most Protestants, including even Zwinglians (i, not y, btw) would say the same.
Well, not in the Lutheran tradition (except in the high church tradition), and certainly not in the evangelical traditon. Many Lutheran liturgies, btw, make it like they are directed at the congregation. Take, for instance, the fifth eucharistic liturgy of the Missouri Synod (LCMS). Before citing the words of institution, the pastor says: “In the name of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, at His command, and with His own words, we receive His testament.” See Lutheran Service Book, Pew Edition. (Prepared by The Commission on Worship of LCMS. St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House 2005): 217.
--------------------
"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
OK, thanks for the references I must have missed. Obviously can't read any of them right now so I'll take your word for it.
So of course I'm no closer to understanding the distinctions you're trying to make, or the significance they hold for you other than your dogged determination that they are "true" and "found in the text" (because of what it doesn't say...). I find your depictions of Protestant theology, including but not limited to Zwingli (again, i not y) wildly off base, but beyond that, again, we're clearly talking past one another. I guess it's best to follow Eliab's more excellent way.
--------------------
"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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So of course I'm no closer to understanding the distinctions you're trying to make, or the significance they hold for you other than your dogged determination that they are "true" and "found in the text" (because of what it doesn't say...).
No, I do not base it on what the text doesn’t say. I base it on what the text do say.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I find your depictions of Protestant theology, including but not limited to Zwingli (again, i not y) wildly off base, but beyond that, again, we're clearly talking past one another.
The point was initially made by Eliab that it was weird for Anscombe to start with transubstantiation because the meal would be a better starting point, and something which was a ‘lowest common denominator’ (which either doesn’t exist or is so impractical as to be devoid of content). My point is that it is not any less natural to start with the real presence (transubstantiation being one understanding of that), then to start with the meal, because of two reasons:
(1) The real presence (however construed) is one of the interpretations of Christ’s word “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” which is taken from the texts themselves. They are as natural a starting point as the meal itself, and transubstantiation is the Catholic understanding of these. It shouldn’t be surprising that a Catholic (Anscombe) takes the Catholic understanding of the real presence as the starting point of what happens in a Catholic Mass.
(2) Before the Reformation, the meal was not the major focus point of Eucharistic theology. The main focus was on the Eucharistic sacrifice, on the Eucharistic prayer, as Ratzinger shows. (See The Feast Of Faith, pp.33-36). It shouldn’t be surprising that a Catholic do not care for a (historically novel) Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist, and prefers to take as her starting point the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist when explaining what happens in a Catholic Mass.
And for Zwingli and Zwinglians, I wouldn’t be surprised if many Zwinglians don’t follow Zwingli, but that doesn’t mean that Zwingli did not eradicate the Sacrifice of the Mass, the eucharistia, which was the major focus point of pre-Reformational Eucharistic theology, and the way every liturgist understood the memorial aspect. The meal was not unimportant by any means, but it was the Church’s response to the memorial sacrifice, and not identical to it.
According to Wikipedia, supporters of this “claimed that the eucharist was a true sacrifice, while Zwingli claimed that it was a commemorative meal.”
And btw, I am Lutheran, but I reject Luther’s usage of the term ‘Supper’ as the major name for the Eucharist, mostly because he did not have access to much of the early sources we have, and because, in accordance with Lutheran principles of fidelity not only to Scripture but to the catholic tradition (cf. Confessio Augustana, art. XXI), I should follow the Early Church before I follow Luther.
--------------------
"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
Yes, you have mentioned those things several, several times now. We get that those points are very, very important to you. We're not getting why
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So of course I'm no closer to understanding the distinctions you're trying to make, or the significance they hold for you other than your dogged determination that they are "true" and "found in the text" (because of what it doesn't say...).
No, I do not base it on what the text doesn’t say. I base it on what the text do say.
Again, this is what you said:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I’m just following what the text actually says. Nowhere in neither Luke nor Paul is the words “do this in remembrance of me” used about the meal itself.
That is an argument based on what Luke and Paul do NOT say-- an argument from silence.
[code]
[ 20. February 2014, 04:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, you have mentioned those things several, several times now. We get that those points are very, very important to you. We're not getting why
Because it is what the text says. Why is it so important to you to find some psychological explanation of my participation in this debate? And why do you act as if I am obsessing or something? You have participated in this discussion just as much as I have.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So of course I'm no closer to understanding the distinctions you're trying to make, or the significance they hold for you other than your dogged determination that they are "true" and "found in the text" (because of what it doesn't say...).
No, I do not base it on what the text doesn’t say. I base it on what the text do say.
Again, this is what you said:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I’m just following what the text actually says. Nowhere in neither Luke nor Paul is the words “do this in remembrance of me” used about the meal itself.
That is an argument based on what Luke and Paul do NOT say-- an argument from silence.
I guess you have ignored the other things I have written, then.
The text (1Cor 11:23b-25, my translation) says that Christ “took bread and having given thanks he broke it and said, ‘This [gr. τοῦτο] is my body which is for you; do this [gr. τοῦτο] for my remembrance.’ Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This [gr. τοῦτο] cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this [gr. τοῦτο], as often as you drink of it, for my remembrance’.”
Now, what were they to ‘do’? There is no command here to eat. We see that in Matthew and Mark, but here we are exegeting Paul, where the emphasis is different. Christ said “this is my body which is for you; do this for my remembrance” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink of it, for my remembrance.” What we see here is that Christ commanded the Apostles to ‘do’ the bread (‘this’) and ‘do’ the wine (‘this’). What this seems to mean is that the Apostles were to imitate the actions that Christ did with the bread and the wine, that is to (1) take bread; (2) give thanks; (3) break the bread; (4) distribute the bread; (5) take wine; (6) give thanks; and (7) distribute the wine.
Cyprian, for example, saw this as an act of sacrifice which the Apostles were commanded to do in remembrance of Christ. He writes:
quote:
For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered.
Cyprian, Epistle 62:14, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, ed. Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers 1995): 362.
This is an exegesis of the text, and we see this emphasis in the Early Church, where this was seen as a memorial or thanksgiving sacrifice, a Eucharist, as shown by Gregory Dix (The Shape of the Liturgy, pp.48-50) and Joseph Ratzinger (The Feast Of Faith, pp.33-36).
The meal was a participation in that meal, a sacrificial meal. What happened when Luther came along, however, was that the focus was shifted over to the meal exclusively, and that sacrificial elements were removed, both the Offertory and the Eucharistic Canon (elements which can be deduced from the Lukan/Pauline text).
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
