Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoic29:
It seems to me, for discussion purposes, that there can be two broad answers:

1) The Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. As to how this happens, we don't truly know. Regardless of how, we know that it truly is Christ Himself.

or

2) The Eucharist is a memorial supper and we do not consider the Eucharist to be truly the Body and Blood of Christ Himself.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
surely 3?
1) transubstantiation
2) consubstantiation
3) memorial supper

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
surely 3?
1) transubstantiation
2) consubstantiation
3) memorial supper

---

If you're going to break real presence up in these "major" categories, I'd think you must include receptionism as another category. And Lutheran-style sacramental union, although there's some fuzzy edges in these groups.

I suppose I'd make a division between real presence and memorialism, and then within real presence one between an objective change in the elements vs some of the non-local and faith-requiring descriptions, and then ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
sorry, forgot
4) unnecessary (eg Salvation Army approach AIUI)

---

Posted                          

• Covenant sacrifice, either for sin, although I particularly think we need to look at the way God uses sacrifice with respect to covenants in the OT. A sacrifice seems to be an intrinsic part of making a covenant.
• Fellowship meal we look first at the act of Maundy Thursday, but you also need to look at the altar fellowship in the Old Testament, the appearance of God to Abraham at the oak in Mamre and to the other meals Jesus shared with his disciples including the post-resurrection ones.
• Great Banquet, the feast at the end of time that all the saved participate in. This can be seen as foreshadowed in various parables and events in the gospel. There is a sense in partaking of the eucharist is participation in the banquet and joining in the dance of the divine Godhead. This bringing heaven down into the life of the Church is actually the central understanding of John Calvin's teaching on the Eucharist.*

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoops - just realised that Leorning Cniht has already referred to this - 'receptionism' ...

Although, if I understand it correctly, the Reformed would argue that their position isn't as simple as 'mere receptionism' if I can put it that way.

Perhaps Jengie Jon can enlighten us ...

---

quote:

---

And thairfoir quhasaeuer sclanderis ws as that we affirmit or beleuit sacramentis to be onlie nakit and bair signis do Iniurie vnto ws and speikis aganis the manifest treuth Bot this liberallie and franklie we confess that we mak ane distinctioun betuix christ Jesus in his eternall substance and betuix the elementis in the sacramental signis Sa that we will nouther wirschip the signis in place of that quhilk is signifyit bethame nother yit do we dispyse and interpreit thame as vnprofitabill and vaine bot do vse thame with all reuerence examining our selfis diligentlie befoir that sa we do because we ar assurit be the mouth of the Apostle that sic as eit of that breid and drink of that coup vnworthely ar gyltie of the body and of the blude of christ Jesus

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If Schillebeekx is correct, that Christ is the sacrament of God and the church is the sacrament of Christ, then all that the church does is a sacrament.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If Schillebeekx is correct, that Christ is the sacrament of God and the church is the sacrament of Christ, then all that the church does is a sacrament.

---

Whilst I recognise you don't actually go this far, to equate Schillebeeckx's position with the Salvationist line is to do him a disservice. He's still fairly keen on the necessity of the sacraments.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Could it not be construed that by 'de-ritualising' the eucharist and insisting that everything we do is sacramental (with which I agree) the SA is, in some way, making a tacit value-judgement against those for whom the physical/sacramental act remains important?

Sure, it's not as if the SA is tearing down altars and over-turning communion tables ... nor is it mocking or scoffing those who practice such things.

But by claiming that you 'place the crucified and risen Christ at the heart of all that we do', could it not be construed that you are implying that others aren't?

---

quote:

---

WE BELIEVE that every visible expression of the Church Universal is endowed with its own blessings and strengths as gifts from God. We respect and admire those strengths, recognising too that because of human frailty every such expression, including The Salvation Army, has its imperfections.

WE DO NOT BELIEVE it is our task to comment negatively upon, or to undermine, the traditions of other denominations, and certainly not in relation to the sacraments (on which our distinctive, though not unique, position sees the whole of life as a sacrament with a calling from God to Salvationists to witness to a life of sanctity without formal sacraments).
It is contrary to our practices to offer adverse comment upon the life of any denomination or local congregation.
We seek to be careful not to belittle the doctrines or practices of any other Christian group. The Army places emphasis in its teaching not upon externals but upon the need for each believer personally to experience that inward spiritual grace to which an external observance testifies.
We maintain that no external observance can rightly be said to be essential to salvation or to the receiving of divine grace and that the biblical truth is that we can meet with God and receive his grace anywhere at any time through faith.
We recognise that external observances such as baptism and eucharist are used in many denominations as a means of grace.
We believe that our calling into sanctity without sacraments is not a contradiction of the ways of other churches, but is something beautiful for Christ, to be held in creative tension with the equally beautiful, but very different, practices of other denominations.
In the overall economy of God there are no inherent contradictions, but there are creative paradoxes.
11

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I accept the church's original belief. Which is to say, that which is taught and believed in Orthodoxy.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

William Booth practised the sacrament of Holy Communion after he was ordained in the Methodist ministry, and throughout his leadership of the Army he was always careful not to dismiss the spiritual benefits felt by those who took communion.
Speaking to a congregation of Salvation Army officers in council in Melbourne soon after the Army had begun to establish itself in Australia, he confirmed: ‘I never allow myself to be led into conversation at the dinner table or to say one word to make anybody else think less of the Sacraments than they do.’

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Last time there was a thread on this, I cited Queen Elizabeth I,

Twas God the Word that spake it,
He took the Bread and brake it:
And what that Word did make it,
That I believe and take it.

It isn't just compromise, evasiveness or temporising. What she's saying is that whatever Jesus meant at the Last Supper, and whatever priest/clergyperson/minister/pastor thinks they mean, that is what happens. It's irrespective of our attempts to pigeonhole it theologically.

---

quote:

---

...when he delivereth the Bread to any one, he shall say,

The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.

And the Minister that delivereth the Cup to any one shall say,

The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I wonder what the celebration of the Eucharist achieves or gives to those churches that practise it? Apart from the various theologies, what functions does it fulfil?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I accept the church's original belief. Which is to say, that which is taught and believed in Orthodoxy.

---

When did that original belief appear?
Are we talking Apostolic or 2nd and 3rd Century?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
As for "apostolic" I ask you: how many times does Paul quote Jesus? Yet he gives a huge chunk of the Last Supper narrative, in the context of the worship of the church, and including the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood."

People who claim to take the bible literally somehow never include in their literalism these verses, or the related verses in John, or Christ's statement, "Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink of his blood you have no life within you."

The "plain and obvious" meaning of scripture is only plain and obvious to them when it agrees with their predetermined theology.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I wonder what the celebration of the Eucharist achieves or gives to those churches that practise it? Apart from the various theologies, what functions does it fulfil?

---

It unites us to God physically and intimately.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I wonder what the celebration of the Eucharist achieves or gives to those churches that practise it? Apart from the various theologies, what functions does it fulfil?

---

It unites us to God physically and intimately.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


@hatless, good questions ... But why do we repeat anything? Why do churches meet regularly at all? Why not meet once or twice and then disband?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That's why I asked; because there are those who would read back church practice of centuries later into the Gospel narratives. For example, those who translate 'cup' in the Gospels as 'chalice'. Chalice is a loaded word and is only used for the cup at Mass. Using it in the prayer book makes Jesus into a priestly celebrant at Mass rather than the host of the Jewish Passover meal.

As for the john 6 (and the Last Supper accounts) I would prefer to see them as having a Jewish meaning, not 2nd century Church meaning.

I don't think John 6 refers to eucharist in the slightest. It has a contemporary Jewish meaning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
As individuals or as a congregation or a people?

---

quote:

---

And why does it have to be repeated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's also a rite that unites us to each other, as something that normally occurs communally.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So it all went 'wrong' in the 2nd century, did it Mudfrog and only the 1st century Christians got things 'right' in their original Jewish context?

I don't think I've ever met an RC or Orthodox Christian who would claim that their liturgies were identical to 1st or 2nd century models in every detail or respect - but they do see a development from the earliest practice to the Mass or the Liturgy as it subsequently developed.

Which is fair enough. Where else did they come from?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Really, Mousethief, language ...

'We'll have no language in this house ...'

I was, of course, trying to point out to Mudfrog how untenable his position is in this one.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Mousethief, you said the Eucharist unites us to God physically and intimately. That does sound like a change of state, like Baptism, marriage, consecration or ordination. Repeated actions are more likely to have an incomplete effect or a temporary effect.

I think I might use the word revelation of the Eucharist. It shows us something, something we keep forgetting.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Yes, but doesn't it also refresh something that can fade, even though you're married? Marriage unites, but that unity is better if made present.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, though, we all tend to redact our own reflections back into the pages of the NT and the practices of the early Church. It's not just a Protestant thing. Surely the Orthodox legends about St Luke painting the first icon of the Virgin Mary is an example of a later practice being redacted back to an earlier stage?

---

quote:

---

I don't have any issues with iconography but it would seem that they developed later - the earliest examples I'm aware of are 3rd century perhaps ...

---

quote:

---

So, I can see what Mudfrog is driving at, although I do think he is taking the RCs more literally on this point than they would themselves. Of course the RCs interpret those passages that Mudfrog refuses to understand eucharistically, eucharistically ...

---

quote:

---

The first time I read the wee Penguin paperback of the Sub-Apostolic Fathers I was shocked at how 'catholic' they were ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I was partly reacting to your bish bash bosh style, there's a question, here is the answer.

---

quote:

---

Which is fine, but I think the Eucharist is one of those things that isn't neat and obvious.

---

quote:

---

And unity with God is a bit of a startling concept! I can just about imagine being drawn into the life of God ..

---