The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

[Matt Black]

Matt,

Do you want still to bring the ECF's to override the Bible commandments?

No, I want to bring the ECFs to correctly interpret the Bible; they are eminently more qualified to do so than you or I

 

[Matt Black]

EricB, just to pick up on a couple of your points:

if there is no change, and only a "presence" IN; then actually, the Orthodox position is taking the "this is my Body" the same basic way as the "memorialist" position.

Er...no; the memorialist position is saying that there is no Presence at all in the bread and wine and that it is simply a remembrance of Christ's death (hence 'memorialist'). You are - correct me if I'm wrong - saying that there is no physical change but that there is a spiritual Presence in communion. That is quite a way along the continuum away from memorialism and seems to me to be close to the kind of receptionism (believers receive Christ spiritually when they eat and drink at communion) espoused by Anglicans and Presbyterians. The Orthodox do believe in a physical change but do not attempt to explain it; they are content to leave it as a mystery.

In the debates we have had here before, the Orthodox (including DT, and IIRC Matt)

I'm not Orthodox

How is what I said closer to transubstantiation? I do not believe in any "change" of the elements at all.

See above. You're closer to the trans end of the continuum with your receptionism than you are the memorialist end, IMO.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

EricB,

You are - correct me if I'm wrong - saying that there is no physical change but that there is a spiritual Presence in communion.

Matt, based on his last post that I responded, Eric really doesn't seem to support even that. Although he seems to grudgingly admit the possibility of a spiritual presence within the bread and wine, he ultimately seems to find such a position superfluous since the "spirit is already in us. He then defines "convey" (a word I had used) in such a way (Ie in which something merely 'represents' another reality without actually 'making present' the reality) in order to assert that Memorialists believe that baptism and communion "convey" the reality they signify. Perhaps, I should have been more specific in which word I used to describe the idea the physcial object/sign actually making present the reality it signifies, instead of the object being a mere visual aid of a reality already present. Anyway, sorry for speaking for Eric--I'll see if he acknowledges if this assessment of his view is correct.

DT

 

[Eliyahu]

No, I want to bring the ECFs to correctly interpret the Bible; they are eminently more qualified to do so than you or I

Can you us how ECF's interpretted the Leviticus 17 in connection with the Lord Supper?

Or did they ever interpret the Matt 26:28 in terms of Leviticus 17 and Genesis 9:4?

Finally did the ever say that we should EAT the Blood despite the OT commandments?

 

[Eliyahu]

Right, so I ask again: are you therefore a vegetarian?

No, I am not!

 

[Matt Black]

So you accept that Lev 17 is a red herring? Either that, or your being disobedient to that Scripture. (Incidentally that answers your previous post.)

 

[Eliyahu]

So you accept that Lev 17 is a red herring? Either that, or your being disobedient to that Scripture. (Incidentally that answers your previous post.)

In OT period, Jews ate the beef, chicken, without problem. How could they eat the meat? Even today Kosher meat has no problem. We definitely drain out the blood from the meat. Don't you?

This is why Kosher meat is better than common meat which contain a lot of blood for the increase of weight because the meats are sold by weight.

What is your point? are you saying that we should ignore the Law and should eat the Blood?

 

[Eliyahu]

RCC encounters serious problems when they assert the Transubstantiation:

1. Medical Laboratory Test
If they are so sure that the Bread and Wine are converted into Flesh and Blood, there is no reason for them to refuse the Medical Lab Test of the Substances to prove such transformation. However, they have all the time refused it.
When the Transformation took place must be clarified is the question again.
Is the Bread changed to the flesh after the Prayer? or at what moment since it was baked at the Bakery?
Is the Wine converted in wine cellar?

This kind of Delusion or Deception could work quite well during the Dark Age while the Lab Test was not available.



2. Eating Blood despite OT commandments ( Lev 17:10-14, Lev 7, Deut 12, Genesis 9:4)

God clearly and repeatedly prohibited Eating Blood of whatsoever, because it belongs to God Himself.

Jesus said " This is my blood which is shed for many" ( Mt 26:28)

Does it mean this " This is my blood which is shed for many to eat" ?
NOPE!
It means this " This is my blood which is shed for many to be redeemed by being shown to God"

During the OT times, during Passover, did the people eat the Blood of the lambs? NOPE!

Exodus 12:7
And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the two post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it( lamb meat)
13
The blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are, and When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.


Would you have eaten the Blood of the Lamb, instead of applying it unto the door posts?
Then you must have been smitten by God!

You are in miserable situation now!

The Blood of Jesus was NOT shed for you to eat! but it was shed for God to see! God was satisfied with it because the Sinners paid the sufficient price for their sins as Jesus paid it in their stead!

Could you understand the meaning of it?

 

[Eliyahu]

Here are powerful witnesses from the so-called First Pope of RCC.

1 Pet 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


Does Peter confess Eating the Blood ? or Sprinkling the Blood?


Heb 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel

Did Jesus offer His blood for Eating by disciples? Do you understand the meaning of Sprinkling?



Blood is not for Eating, but was offered to God!

 

[Matt Black]

In OT period, Jews ate the beef, chicken, without problem. How could they eat the meat? Even today Kosher meat has no problem. We definitely drain out the blood from the meat. Don't you?

This is why Kosher meat is better than common meat which contain a lot of blood for the increase of weight because the meats are sold by weight.

What is your point? are you saying that we should ignore the Law and should eat the Blood?

<Shrug> All meat has blood in it; I eat steak and like it rare. I also eat shellfish and wear mixed-fibre garments. Don't you?

 

[Eliyahu]

<Shrug> All meat has blood in it; I eat steak and like it rare. I also eat shellfish and wear mixed-fibre garments. Don't you?

On this part of the Law, if you read Acts 15 where James and the meeting advised the Antioch believers, they didn't mind about many other laws, except the Idolatry and Blood, Fornication, Strangled animals, etc.

Keeping the Law in general by Gentiles may be left to individuals, except such commandments in Acts 15 and the murder mentioned in 1 John 3:15, and many other prohibitions in the NT teachings.

Yes, I do eat the shells which was prohibited for the Israelites. But I don't eat Blood.

Mixed fibre garments were prohibited to Israelites but not to the Gentiles. This may be left only for spiritual meanings.

In nowhere we find that we may eat the Blood of whatsoever, in the Bible.

Moreover, you are talking about Human Blood!

You sound like advocating Vampire!

 

[Eliyahu]

Prohibition of Eating Blood was not based on Jewish Law only.

It was prohibited before the Jewish Law, in Genesis 9:4, at least a thousand years before the Mosaic Law

Therefore it applies to all mankinds.

 

[Eliyahu]

So you accept that Lev 17 is a red herring? Either that, or your being disobedient to that Scripture. (Incidentally that answers your previous post.)

Can you show us any ECF who claimed that we may eat Blood despite the commandments in OT?

or any ECF who said Lord Supper means Drinking the Blood of Jesus despite the commandments in OT?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Be aware that Orthodoxy also rejects Roman Catholic Form and Practice concerning the Holy Eucharist.

bound: I've been thinking a little about the Orthodox views of Transubstaination in regard to Catholicism.

Could it be said that Catholicism was forced to respond to the growing popular 'symbolic' views of Berengar or Zwingli and therefore it was Catholicism felt it was necessary to use whatever philosophical catergories and systems that were available at that time to combat this 'symbolic' view?

And since Orthodox never had to respond to these views, they weren't forced to dogmatize the Eurcharistic identification.

We see the same thing occuring in the fourth century, when the Fathers had to use these same philosophical languages to combat Arianism.
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Can you show us any ECF who claimed that we may eat Blood despite the commandments in OT?

or any ECF who said Lord Supper means Drinking the Blood of Jesus despite the commandments in OT?

Why the Early Church Fathers, why not Christ's command in John 6 and Paul's statement concerning the participation in both Christ's Body and His Blood?
-

 

[Eric B]

Okay, so I describe the Incarnation in my last post as an example of a "supernaturalism" which is basically the convergance of one of your "types" of "supernaturalsim" (ie the virgin birth) with the other "type" (the spiritual truth of the Incarnation)--types which you implied in the earlier post shouldn't be confused. I made this point to show there's no necessary reason to make a hard and fast distinction between these two "types" in order to keep them from being "confused" (as a prelude into my discussion of the Eucharist). However, to the part of the post in which I describe how in the Incarnation the Divine Person (the Son) assumes humanity (rather than a separately subsiting man) and thus becomes empirically a historical man, you respond....

Quote:
But again, this embodiment is still in a PERSON
Which is somewhat ambiguous. I would hope you aren't that suggesting that the Divine Word became embodied in another subsisting PERSON. If you are, you are Nestorian.

No. I mean a person as opposed to a thing.

But moving on...
Quote:
Since all "persons" inhabit bodies, then this divine person would be no different in that respect.
Except that not all "persons" necessarily inhabit 'bodies'. From eternity the Three Divine Persons--God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost--did not inhabit bodies, nor is it some how logically necessary that they do so now.

In that sense; I was thinking of "human" persons (and of course; Christ was fully human as well. So the divine-human person would inhabit a body, but not other physical objects.

I've already made reference to the fact that Solomon said of God:
"The LORD said He would dwell in the dark cloud. I have surely built for you an exalted house. And a place for You to dwell forever". (1 Kings 8:12-13)
So if the Divine Person can inhabit non-human "inanimate" objects, why can't He in others? It's HIS creation--he can do what He wants to with it, right?

I don't believe I ever claimed that the cloud, temple, of tabernacle "became" God's 'body'. I just pointed out that the Scriptures asserted that God at one time or another dwelt in those things.

In the NT, Christ is declared to be the express image of God, and He was seen physically and handled. And if He declares the bread and wine to be His body and blood, I believe Him.

So I guess you're backing off your earlier claim that God can't or doesn't indwell "things". Now you seem to be retreating into an unproven assumption that if there's no "empirical difference in the object" then God can't possibly be supernaturally present in it. God was supernaturally present (in a unique way) in Christ, yet for most of Christ's life (the many years He wasn't performing any miracles) there was apparently no empirical difference between He and other men (ie under a microscope, one wouldn't be able to tell He was God Incarnate). And when Christ did start performing miracles people didn't instantly conclude that God dwelled in Him. Similarly, there's no empirical difference between the Scriptures and other books that would compell us to say that the words of the former are "God-breathed" in contradistinction to the latter (eg. empirical lightening bolts don't jump off the pages when we read them) So there's no a priori reason to rule out God becoming supernaturally involved with His creation, in different ways, without being "empirically detected".

After you made the claim that God doesn't indwell things, I pointed out some counter-examples from the OT. Then you responded...
Quote:
And in those cases, God had some sort of visible manifestation inhabit a physical object.
So what was the 'visible manifestation' that inhabited the dark cloud? Solomon said in the verse cited above that God dwelt in the "dark cloud". So what was the 'visible' manifestation that inhabited the dark physical cloud?

The "Glory of the Lord".
The whole point with that, was that whenever God "inhabited" an object like that, what it meant was that there was a visible manifestation of Him emanating from the cloud. Again, God would continue to say that man has never really seen Him. It is a manifestation, not a claim of some "spiritual presense" that you can't see, hear, feel, taste; etc. but it's "just there".
One one hand, you insist that the Bread and Wind IS flesh and blood, but then when asked to explain it further, you come up with this "presence", and try to use these other examples in the Bible that just do not fit. So either the food "changes", or you have God inhabiting them, but you cannot compare it to the glory cloud.

But the flesh belongs to the Divine Person. It's HIS and no other person's. (But I'm not really sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, except to say that the same Divine Person whose human flesh was given on the cross ("for the life of world") had said that this same flesh is food indeed and His blood drink indeed, and that at the Last Supper He declared that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood.)

The point there was, He was not claiming any "change" to the bread; the first staement (my flesh is food) was a spirritual analogy. It was by his flesh being "broken" for us, that we would inherit eternal life, and the actual "bread" represented ("remembrance" ) it. You have turned this simple truth ito a continual process of "receiving Christ" (having His flesh and blood applied to you) every time you eat this meal, which then has some spiritual change applied to it that you can't see, hear, feel or taste. I do not see all of that in those statements at all. Rather than you simply "taking them at what they say", as your side has constantly claimed; it looks like you are adding to them.

Except now you seem to be digressing into modalism, or at least confusing the Persons of the Trinity. It's Christ whose Body and Blood is present in the bread and wine. The Holy Spirit did not become Incarnate (though He played a "role" in the Incarnation) Himself, so His presense in the Church is not exactly the same as Christ's special presence in the Eucharist (though of course, the Son and the Holy Spirit can't ultimately be separated). Also, at Christ's baptism, when the Incarnate Son came out of the water, the Holy Spirit descended as a dove. In other words, They were both present in unique ways at Christ's Baptism, so there's no a priori reason to assume They could not be both present in unique ways in the Church.

Not unless you assume that there can't possibly be two "types" (or modes) of Divine presence exisiting simultaneously, one of the Son (in the Eucharist) and the other of the Holy Spirit. But we already know from Scripture that God is omnipresent and yet can be said also to dwell (somehow 'locally') in the cloud/tabernacle/temple. And if God can so be present simulataneously in more than one of different senses in the OT examples, He certainly can be present in different ways simultaneously so in the NT.

Again, I'm beginning to think you have the Persons of the Trinity confused. It's Christ who "enters" us in the bread and the wine. (The Spirit, as you say, is "already in us")

It's you who sounds Nestorian now; rather than me sounding "modalist" (the opposite). Whatever The Holy Spirit is in; Christ is in, and the Father (John 14). They are separate, but nevertheless, "one substance". You seem to be making three separate spiritual "substances" now, with only one of them inhabiting the bread, and another inhabiting us.

Of course, God can have more than one inhabitation simultaneously (such as inhabiting all of us), but that is because Spirit is not confined to space anyway. (that's what I was trying to say by discussing "persons"). The times God did appear to inhabit objects in space (theophanies) were special visible manifestations. That is not the same as the way the Holy Spirit inhabits us; nor do I think that really compares with your concept of the "real Presence" in bread and wine. That is what I was trying to say regarding "like no other supernatural event".
(And actually; it says the Holy Spirit descended "like" a dove, not AS a dove! So that was no "inhabitation" at all.)

But that doesn't necessarily follow, unless you want to tell Christ our God that He can't possibly communicate His flesh and blood to us in the empirical forms of bread and wine.

Not that He can't; just that that does not seem to be the way He did; it's only people's deduction based on their reading it into scriptural metaphors.

 

[bound]

bound: I've been thinking a little about the Orthodox views of Transubstaination in regard to Catholicism.

Could it be said that Catholicism was forced to respond to the growing popular 'symbolic' views of Berengar or Zwingli and therefore it was Catholicism felt it was necessary to use whatever philosophical catergories and systems that were available at that time to combat this 'symbolic' view?

One might suggest that it was the departure of the Catholic Church from the 'Apostolic Deposit of Faith' which allowed the acceptance of intellectual conjecture as a valid method to explore the Mysteries that led to the likes of Berengar or Zwingli in the first place.

Remember, Scholasticism emerged on the scene well before the Reformation and might be suggested to be it's precursor....

And since Orthodox never had to respond to these views, they weren't forced to dogmatize the Eucharistic identification.

But even if we were to put aside this issue there still exists the departure from 'Form' (i.e. Communion under two species) which again is a sign that the Catholic Church may have departed from 'Apostolic Tradition' as the Orthodox claim.

We see the same thing occurring in the fourth century, when the Fathers had to use these same philosophical languages to combat Arianism.
-

I believe Patristics have 'sanctified' only one philosophical language in which to express the Mysteries (platonism) and the use of Aristotle would still be deemed a departure.

Be aware that I am not Orthodox but I am only trying to say that you can't just 'assume' that the whole history of the Church backs the modern Roman Catholic Church. That just isn't the case.

 

[Eric B]

That may be your assertion, but it doesn't logically follow. Saying that "there's a special spiritual presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine" can't be logically reduced to the proposition that "there's no special spiritual presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine" (if that's what you mean by the word 'symbol'). That's like saying, "Well if A is true, you might as well just go on and say A is not true"

That comes from the double talk (sorry to put it that bluntly) from your side. It's like there is a change; there isn't a[n empirical] change. So what is it, then? You're eating regular bread and wine, yet you believe you are receiving God's spiritual presence somehow. We believe God's Spirit already inhabits us. So I guess...

If one believes that spiritual benefits are actually conveyed through bread, wine, and water, then that one is by definition not a "memorialist", but a "sacramentalist". But you don't really believe that spiritual benefits are actually conveyed through the bread, wine, and water themselves (as will be pointed out below...)

I then discussed how if God can use physical means to bring about the (objective) Atonement, He can also use physical means to (subjectively) apply the benefits of the Atonement to individual lives, since it's ALL God's creation (matter and spirit), and He can do what He wants to with it.

So being in Christ is not salvation itself? Or are you objecting to God using the objects of HIS material creation to communicate the Life (including the Merits) of Christ to believers? If the latter, on what are you basing your objection if you don't disagree in principle that God can do whatever He wants with His creation?

Well, no one is "finally saved" unless he endure to the end and until he stands at the Judgement seat of Christ. (But that's a whole other topic...)

So I guess the difference here might really be more along the lines of the OSAS debate. We believe we receive God's Spirit and are saved and made apart of Christ's body once; upon receiving Him into our hearts, with baptism and Communion as remembrances marking or showing forth the change. You apparently believe we receive some sort of "dose" of the Spirit and salvation, first when we are baptized; and then afterwards at Communion; and this wears off, or whatever, so we have to keep receiving it (as well as doing other good works) in order to finally make it to Heaven in the end. Then, it really is a whole other topic.

Indeed, and God can use physical objects as a means to this end.
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in Him" (John 6:56)
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27)(etc)

And that's spiritual language. The physical elements used represent it, not impart it.

That's a non-sequitur. God imparting His life through us through bread, water, and wine is not being saved "by the works of our hands". Neither I nor you can impart life through bread, wine, or water, but God certainly can.

In your view, the impartation of the life is connected solely with something we DO, with salvation ever hanging int he balance if the dosage wears off, or whatever.
Also, I see that eventually, you were finally chrismated. But they made you wait so long. Do you believe yo were outside of Christ, and lost all that time? You never really gave us a straight answe. I remember Mojoala (a RCC) mentioned a "Baptism of Desire", but the EOC's never seemed to acknowledge any such thing.

Yet, you are thus removing baptism and communion from the reality they convey. In other words, in your view baptism and communion don't actually convey the reality at all. They are separate from another "(that) reality that 'convey' its truth", however that's supposed to be interpreted. In other words instead of the water conveying the reality of the new birth, you say the reality of the new birth itself is conveying...itself? (isn't that a tautology?)

Matt, based on his last post that I responded, Eric really doesn't seem to support even that. Although he seems to grudgingly admit the possibility of a spiritual presence within the bread and wine, he ultimately seems to find such a position superfluous since the "spirit is already in us. He then defines "convey" (a word I had used) in such a way (Ie in which something merely 'represents' another reality without actually 'making present' the reality) in order to assert that Memorialists believe that baptism and communion "convey" the reality they signify. Perhaps, I should have been more specific in which word I used to describe the idea the physcial object/sign actually making present the reality it signifies, instead of the object being a mere visual aid of a reality already present. Anyway, sorry for speaking for Eric--I'll see if he acknowledges if this assessment of his view is correct.

The reality is the reality; the water and communion represent (show) it. I guess we are looking at "convey" differently. I take convey as "show the reality", and you take it as "impart the reality".

So, by that logic we should reject the "supernatual" concept of the Incarnation since it matches up with no other supernatural event in the Bible. As far as I can tell, there is only one instance of a Hypostatic Union between God-Man alluded to in the Scriptures--it is unique. There is nothing else like it, so I guess we need to come up with another explanation since the concept of the Incarnation (Hypostatic Union) is not valid by your criteria for "supernatural concepts....

Except that Christ also teaches that the BREAD--the bread that He literally broke at the Last Supper--is His body. It's not a matter of either the Church or the Bread being Christ's body. The Scriptures affirm BOTH.

Again, as I mentioned above, what I was trying to address was the fact that you are claiming the bread and wine Is the body, but since it doesn't change, it is really a "spiritual presence". This "presence" does not match neither the Incarnation, nor the glory cloud and other Theophanies used to try to illustrate it. I hate to say it, but this is just an abstraction, and the type of argument Paul tells us to ignore; being fruitless.

 

[bound]

At this point I believe we are all moving into a discussion of differing interpretations of Sanctification and the life of the Faithful. Eric is clearly there anyways. I'm not sure the Mods are going to let us depart from the OP in order to discuss this distinction but it would be interesting.

 

[Eric B]

EricB, just to pick up on a couple of your points: Er...no; the memorialist position is saying that there is no Presence at all in the bread and wine and that it is simply a remembrance of Christ's death (hence 'memorialist'). You are - correct me if I'm wrong - saying that there is no physical change but that there is a spiritual Presence in communion. That is quite a way along the continuum away from memorialism and seems to me to be close to the kind of receptionism (believers receive Christ spiritually when they eat and drink at communion) espoused by Anglicans and Presbyterians.

You're closer to the trans end of the continuum with your receptionism than you are the memorialist end, IMO.

I believe there is a spiritual presence in the Communion, if you understand that "the Communion" is US, the people having actual "communion". It's not inanimate objects that have or are "the communion". They are just used for it, representing Christ's flesh and blood.
This I would thik would fall closer to "memorialism", but then if it doesn't; I was never simply following the party line ("Zwinglian Memorialism") anyway. And I would think many Baptists and other evangelicals would give a nod to this as well, even if their doctrinal statements may make it sound like nothing but a "memorial". PastorKev (who was my pastor for a few years) used to remind us of the severity of the occasion, so it was a bit more than a mere "memorial".
But since we do not believe in ANY change in the elements at all; I do not see where we are even in the direction of transubstantiation. The EOC and High Protestant positions would be between us and that.

The Orthodox do believe in a physical change but do not attempt to explain it; they are content to leave it as a mystery.

What they are doing here, is going back and forth between saying it is not a change, but it is Christ's actual flesh and blood, but it's really a "spiritua; presence" comparable to the Theophanies and the Incarnation.

I'm not Orthodox

Oh, but you've always argued pretty much just like DT. I see you're listed as "Baptist (Baptist Union of Great Britain)", so I thought you might be another convert [COUGHdefectorCOUGH]:laugh: like him and others.