On Communion

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Thinkingstuff, Jun 11, 2008.

  1. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
    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
    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:
    Ignatius AD 98-117(Epistle to the Smyrneaens)
    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?
     
  2. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,171
    Likes Received:
    369
    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.
     
  3. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #4 Darron Steele, Jun 11, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2008
  5. mrtumnus

    mrtumnus
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. mrtumnus

    mrtumnus
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    They may not view it as such, but thats what it is.
     
  8. mrtumnus

    mrtumnus
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you believe Christ can actually be re-crucified?
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  10. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    You peaked my interest please expound. Define Material Cause, efficient couse, formal cause, and final cause.
     
  11. mrtumnus

    mrtumnus
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interest analogy. I would say the final cause is "that they may be one" -- the unity of the body.
     
  12. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    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,
    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].
     
  13. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't going quote Justin Martyr but here it is:

    what about this?
     
  14. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    No problem for me. But then again, I believe in the Real Presence.
     
  15. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  16. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    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)
     
  17. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. mrtumnus

    mrtumnus
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you explain what you believe is the difference between Luther's views, Cranmer's views and transubstantiation?
     
  19. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you're more consubstantiation?
     
  20. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...