On Communion

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Do you believe Christ can actually be re-crucified?

 

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.

 

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].

 

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

 

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)

 

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?

 

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.