Getting Substantial

Post Reply New Topic

References:

A http://www.littlebrothersofjesus.org/in ... -Eucharist

B http://www.christchurchanglican.org/ang ... sence.html

C http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst ... iation.htm

D http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm

It would be very nice if there were actually some talk here with a minimum of mockery. This is a subject some of us take seriously which some Christians view with as much amused incredulity and even disgust as certain atheist feel about the divine entity proposition.

But we'll try.

Here is the thing: if we accept the Real Presence - which, I say up front, I do - how much does it matter and why HOW we think the Real Presence is?

Don't you think that believing that a disk of dry bread is flesh and blood rather strange?

ruveyn

I said a minimum of mockery, but you are a minimalist and that came as a question, whether or nay off topic, which I am fine with answering.

A. it is not always a disk

B. it is not always dry

C. it is not inherently that much stranger than seeing a sparrow and calling it a dinosaur.

AND now I will tell you the stiory. Cannot find it to copy on line so you get my retelling.

In the days of the Desert Fathers in Egypt, there was one old man among them who was good and close to God, who believed ant taught others that the liturgy was symbolic, that the bread and wine were not in fact the very flesh and blood of the Christ.

Two of the younger members of the community worried about this - they need not have, God takes care of his own, but they were young. Still, they were respectful and tactful. They went to him and said [pretending] - Abba, we think the Eucharist is merely stmbolic, is that true?"

The old man said "Hah - you are just saying that becausde you heard about my ideas on the subject. Still, now you mention it, it is a good question. We should gather data and test the hypothesis." No, he did not in the story use those words, but that is what it amounted to.

Next time they were in attendance at the liturgy, they paid close attention. All three prayed earnestly that the old man would see the truth.

At the consecration, thr old man saw not bread, but a little child. While the priest prayed, an angel came down with a sword and pierced the child. The priest then passed out - the old man saw - gobbets of flesh to the congregation.

The old man told the youngsters, "Now I know. The Eucharist truly IS the flesh and blood of the Christ, and God to spare our horror at the sight gives it the appearance of bread in wine."

A sparrow is not a dinosaur. It the the long after descendant of dinosaurs.

ruveyn

In fairness, ruveyn, I am not sure that a belief in the "Real Presence" and a belief in literal transubstantiation are necessarily congruent. Certainly a belief that bread and wine turn into actual, literal flesh and blood defies credibility. But I am not sure that is what is meant by real presence in all circumstances.

One of the great powers of ritual observance is the degree to which it brings people together in common practice. A belief in the real presence can, I suppose, enhance the emotional connection to the practice of communion. It is not a belief that I can share, but it is one that I can analogize.

Right, there's me gone off Communion now.

Ah. So - at what point do the offspring of dinosaurs CEASE to be dinosaurs?

Would you say that you and I are not apes?

Taxonomy - I know all too well - invites you to place all kinds of termini that are often little more than arbitrary points on a continuum.

As the old man points out, that is why it is set to look and taste like what went up to the altar. You mean you never thought about the deeper implications of "body and blood"? A lot of the atheists are very aware and poke at it constantly.

Communion is an act of remembrance of Jesus' death on the cross, with the wine/grape juice representative of his shed blood and the bread representative of his body broken. They do not become Christ's actual flesh and blood, but are merely symbols representative of them.

Body and blood of an adult (Christ) who willingly sacrificed himself one time.
Not body and blood of little children being slaughtered every time Communion is offered.
That's horrible.

Anyhow, I do not at present want to get too far into theory, and the point is not WHETHER the Real Presence and if so how.

The question is - is a particular understanding of the mechanism of the Eucharist - so to speak - important enough to be an article of faith, and thence a shibboleth?

There are several points involved -

how important is the precise nature of the elements?

Sacrament or ordinance?

IS the Real Presence?

To WHOM is the Real Presence?

Does the priest "do" the change?

Who can / may officiate at the liturgy?

Reservation or nay?

Not wanting to go into these here - but how muh, to whom, why do they matter?

For me, I am firm on the Real Presence, moot on in what way. And while I have faith I do not hold it as an article of faith - it is not enjoined by the Christ as a thing to be believed., nor is it in the Nicene Symbol.

And - personality is a factor - I am in general data oriented and not much into theory.

What the heck? Oh, you signed up on February 27th 2011 when all the rest were.

Jesus asked for it to be done in remembrance of him, but it is not necessary for salvation if that's what you mean. It's a shibboleth to see who's in favor of Catholicism perhaps though.



To some, exceedingly important. My stepdad thinks it's wrong to use leavened bread because in one set of verses leaven was analogous to sin.



I don't know.



The Holy Spirit is God's real presence among us and ubiquitously also, but, no, I don't consider the elements of communion to be especially God's presence. They are but items of food merely representative of Christ's act of sacrifice on the cross and not Christ himself.



What? It either is or isn't and I would say it isn't.



No.



The Bible doesn't specify any ranking of church membership required to perform communion.



Whether those who drink the wine and eat the bread are saved? Yes, they should have previously accepted Christ in my opinion, otherwise why are they doing it?



Perhaps only small quantities so as to discourage people from seeing it as a food source.



And I just consider them symbols representative of Christ's victory over sin on the cross to be done in remembrance of him.

Again - not relevant to the question. But since you bring it up, can you prove that? As opposed to asserting it.

It would be appropriate to label that as either your personal belief or some other theological authority's assertion.

Well, if going by the Bible we could have a debate over the meaning of words or if at a communion perhaps some form of chemical analysis or light absorption spectroscopy? Or perhaps measuring the volume and mass to see if it changes in density?

Hey, there.

A. It is a story

B. Even if it is a true story, it records a vision

C. Visions are notoriously problematic because of the difficulty of recording in Kosmos language stimuli which come from the outside. We do not - if we have any sense - try to read Revelation or Ezekiel as prosaic reports of Kosmos-internal events.

D. Not little children - the Christ not in a repeated sacrifice but in a revisiting of THE sacrifice. Jesus seen - perhaps for greater impact on the old man's psyche - as a child, but of course on THAT side time does not apply and the one we see in a vision may seem at once baby and ancient of days.