On Communion

[Thinkingstuff]

I like good thought provoking thought so I'll bring up an on going debate I'm having with Catholic family members. The Eucharist. We've had arguments over the scriptures and transubstantiation. The arguments go something like this. "What do you think Jesus meant when he said "is" in:

And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them saying "This is my body which is given for you: do this in rememberance of me"

Lk 22:19 My typical reply is emphasis on rememberance which isn't a strong argument. A stronger one is Jesus also said he "is" the vine but Catholics don't go around looking at vines as Jesus. Then the next statement is what about

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread , he shall live forever and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them. Verily, Verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you....Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this, said, this is an hard saying who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?....From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him then Jesus said unto the twelve will ye also go away?

Jn 6:51-53;60-61;66-67 I usually respond by quoting Jhn6:63
we discuss a multitude of other verses. Baring in mind that we can have endless debates over what scripture said I read the early church fathers and came accross these:

They even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers, because they will not admit the Eucharist is the self same body of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins.

Ignatius AD 98-117(Epistle to the Smyrneaens)

In the same way, my brothers, when we offer our own Eucharist to God, each one should keep to his own degree. His conscience must be clear, he must not infringe the rules prescribed for his ministering, and he is to bear himself with reverence.

Clement Date uncertain(Epistle to the Corinthians)
And Justin Martyr actually spells it out indicating that by consecrating prayer over the Eucharist that it becomes the body and blood. These are the earliest writings of Christianity apart from the NT. What are the responses to these?

 

[annsni]

Since Jesus died, rose again and ascended into heaven, His physical body is no longer here. The only "body" that's left is His church - the body of believers. For us to say that we are drinking His blood is to go against all of Scripture that forbids the drinking of blood, so it cannot be literal blood that we are drinking. Instead "Do this in rememberance of Me" tells us that it's symbolism. There is no longer any need for Christ's blood and body to be broken and consumed because the sacrifice that He made was done once for all eternity. He does not need to die again.

 

[donnA]

Jesus' body was already broken, and His blood already shed, He died once and rose again. How many times does this have to happen to satisfy the RCC? They demand His crucifixion over and over. The phrase "Do this in rememberance of Me" means something, and it does not mean do this (crucifixion) to Me over and over, but to "remember" Jesus and what He did.

 

[Darron Steele]

About Ignatius:

He was no more teaching transubstantiation than Jesus Christ was when He implemented the Lord's Supper. When Jesus Christ said "This is my body" about the loaf, it is evident He was using symbolic language because His real body was there in front of them and was not the loaf.

Gnostics were a big problem to the church in Ignatius's time. They even assembled with Christians. They denied that the Christ of God could have a body of physical flesh. They usually claimed that a Christ being took over the body of a solely-mortal Jesus, or claimed that Jesus Christ only seemed to have a real body of flesh. Either way, the Lord's Supper posed a problem to them. Some `changed' the meaning of the Lord's Supper so that it did not involve Christ having a body of flesh. Others refrained from the Lord's Supper.

Ignatius was writing against those people. They denied that Jesus Christ came in flesh. In the Lord's Supper, the loaf represents the body of flesh of Jesus Christ, and the drink represents the blood of Jesus Christ. Ignatius was not teaching transubstantiation, but rather he was reiterating the real meaning of the Lord's Supper against those who denied it.

 

[mrtumnus]

Jesus' body was already broken, and His blood already shed, He died once and rose again. How many times does this have to happen to satisfy the RCC? They demand His crucifixion over and over. The phrase "Do this in rememberance of Me" means something, and it does not mean do this (crucifixion) to Me over and over, but to "remember" Jesus and what He did.

The reason this will in all probability not make any headway with the Catholics he's talking to is this is not the view of Catholics regarding the Mass -- it's an incorrect perception that is perpetuated by many Protestants. Catholics do not view the Mass as re-crucifying Jesus. They view that God is omnipresent throughout time (no past, present or future) and that through they Mass they are joined to the one sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary which is perpetual because to God it is always present, as all moments of time are.

 

[mrtumnus]

Since Jesus died, rose again and ascended into heaven, His physical body is no longer here. The only "body" that's left is His church - the body of believers. For us to say that we are drinking His blood is to go against all of Scripture that forbids the drinking of blood, so it cannot be literal blood that we are drinking. Instead "Do this in rememberance of Me" tells us that it's symbolism. There is no longer any need for Christ's blood and body to be broken and consumed because the sacrifice that He made was done once for all eternity. He does not need to die again.

Catholics would agree with you that it is not 'literal blood' in terms of the properties of wine do not change. Take the wine to the lab and it is still wine. What is believed to change is the 'substance' not the properties.

Regardless, I personally would be cautious with applying the laws about drinking blood in this case. These restrictions are based in the 'cleanliness' laws -- blood was seen to be 'unclean'. Not exactly applicable to the blood of the Lamb, by which we are 'cleansed' from all sin.

 

[donnA]

They may not view it as such, but thats what it is.

 

[mrtumnus]

They may not view it as such, but thats what it is.

Do you believe Christ can actually be re-crucified?

 

[billwald]

One must study Greek history to understand the Catholic position.

Aristotle taught that one must consider and differentiate between:

Material cause

Efficient cause

Formal cause

Final cause

Bread = material cause

blessing = efficient cause

body = formal cause

fellowship = final cause?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

One must study Greek history to understand the Catholic position.

Aristotle taught that one must consider and differentiate between:

Material cause

Efficient cause

Formal cause

Final cause

Bread = material cause

blessing = efficient cause

body = formal cause

fellowship = final cause?

You peaked my interest please expound. Define Material Cause, efficient couse, formal cause, and final cause.

 

[mrtumnus]

One must study Greek history to understand the Catholic position.

Aristotle taught that one must consider and differentiate between:

Material cause

Efficient cause

Formal cause

Final cause

Bread = material cause

blessing = efficient cause

body = formal cause

fellowship = final cause?

Interest analogy. I would say the final cause is "that they may be one" -- the unity of the body.

 

[Zenas]

In all three of the synoptics Jesus says, "This is my body . . . ." In Matthew and Mark, He says, "This is my blood . . . ." In Luke He says "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." In John 6 Jesus talks about the importance of eating His body and drinking His blood. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul quotes Jesus as saying, "This is my body . . ." and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood . . . ." Never in any of these five passages is there any hint that Jesus was using a metaphor. Surely one of the writers--Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or Paul--would have inserted a parenthetical that this was symbolic or metaphoric if indeed it was.

Church historian J. N. D. Kelly says,

[T]the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1, 10 f.) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the eucharist.

Early Christian Doctrines, p. 196.

It is a difficult matter to ponder because it goes against everything we know. Yet when we go the Bible and approach it with an open mind to God's truth, we must come away with the understanding that the eucharist is the body and the blood of Christ just as the early Christians did. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to take the approach, "It can't mean that because [put here what ever reason fits your fancy].

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I wasn't going quote Justin Martyr but here it is:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. Luke xxii. 19. this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done

what about this?

 

[Matt Black]

No problem for me. But then again, I believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No problem for me. But then again, I believe in the Real Presence.

Ok. What do you mean by "in the Real Presence"? Do agree with the RCC that it is transubstantiation? If you do, then why are you not Catholic? If not, what do you mean by it?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Ok. What do you mean by "in the Real Presence"? Do agree with the RCC that it is transubstantiation? If you do, then why are you not Catholic? If not, what do you mean by it?

Hey, I hesitated wading into this debate again, because (as Matt Black is aware) we've had some extensive debates on this over the years, and I don't have time to get bogged down in another. However, it should be noted that there is a subtle distinction between "Real Presence", in which Christians (from the beginning) have believed that the bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ (and not merely visual aids or metaphors), and 'transubstantiation' which tends to try to define how the "real presence" occurs in Aristotelian philosophical categories (ie 'substances' and 'accidents' etc). As to how Matt (and myself and many others) can believe in the "Real Presence" without being RCC, it should be pointed out that Lutherans, classical Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox also believe in "Real Presence"...they wouldn't necessarily use 'transubstantiation' to 'define' it.

(If you have more questions feel free to PM me)

 

[Matt Black]

Ok. What do you mean by "in the Real Presence"? Do agree with the RCC that it is transubstantiation?

No

If you do, then why are you not Catholic? If not, what do you mean by it?

Broadly speaking, I am agnostic on the issue of how Christ is Really Present in communion, although if pushed I'll probably go for somewhere between Luther and Cranmer as a position. I just believe that He is there; that when we receive communion, we receive His Body and His Blood.

 

[mrtumnus]

No Broadly speaking, I am agnostic on the issue of how Christ is Really Present in communion, although if pushed I'll probably go for somewhere between Luther and Cranmer as a position. I just believe that He is there; that when we receive communion, we receive His Body and His Blood.

Can you explain what you believe is the difference between Luther's views, Cranmer's views and transubstantiation?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No Broadly speaking, I am agnostic on the issue of how Christ is Really Present in communion, although if pushed I'll probably go for somewhere between Luther and Cranmer as a position. I just believe that He is there; that when we receive communion, we receive His Body and His Blood.

So you're more consubstantiation?

 

[Matt Black]

No, I think the term is a theological straw man; I don't believe Luther taught it. What I think both he and Cranmer taught is akin to sacramental union, and this Wiki article explains it better than I can. The difference between this and transubstantiation is that in the latter the emblems or physical elements (bread and wine) are annihilated (per Aquinas) so that only the Body and Blood are left), whereas in the former they remain together with the Body and Blood of Christ.