A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Socrates4Jesus]

By faith in Christ’s promises to the Church, and by faith that He cannot command us to do that which we cannot do (namely, eat and drink of His body and blood. See John 6:54)

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
(John 6:54)
How do you know Jesus meant for you and i to take this literally, JM?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Ooooops!!! ECF’s = Early Church Fathers.

I’m not sure I understand your question.

For example,

Paul wrote one letter to the Church of Rome. From THAT letter, many translations into different languages came from the one original letter.

Ignatius wrote one letter to the Church of Rome. From that many translations into different languages came from the one original letter.

1000’s of copies then, in multiple languages, come from those original translations of the original letters.

Perhaps this will help make my meaning clearer, Steve: Let’s assume, Paul and Ignatius both wrote a letter. We know we do not have the original letter either of them wrote.

Now, let’s assume that the early Christians were diligent in their copying of the letter of Paul (believing his letters to be, as Peter wrote, Scripture). They copied his letter in many different languages and circulated them to many different churches throughout Europe and Africa and the Middle East and Asia. As a result, thousands of these ancient copies survive in many different nations and in many different languages. Some that survived are different from the others, but scholars, comparing the copies, are able to weed out the errors in translation. Lets say that the earliest fragments of these letters date back to the first century AD, less than 50 years after Jesus rose from the dead.

Let’s also assume that early Christians were not as diligent in copying the writings of Ignatius as they were about copying the writings of Paul. His letters were not circulated to nearly as many churches nor in nearly as many languages. Over time, only a few ancient manuscripts copies of his letters survive, and these are different from one another, so that we are not sure exactly which one contains the actual words of Ignatius, if any of them. Lets say that the earliest of these copies contains only fragments, and was penned 500 years after Ignatius was in the grave.

Which would you trust to be closer to the actual letters that the authors wrote: The handful of ancient manuscript copies of Ignatius’ letter, or the thousands of ancient manuscript copies of Paul’s letter?

 

[jmcrae]

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
(John 6:54)
How do you know Jesus meant for you and i to take this literally, JM?

Because at the Last Supper when He held up the bread and wine to bless them, He said, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood.”

Because St. Ignatius tells us that those who don’t believe that it is really His body and blood separate themselves from the Church.

Because St. Paul tells us that those who eat the Eucharist without discerning Christ’s body and blood eat and drink damnation unto themselves, “and for this reason, many are sick.”

Because when I pray to the Eucharist, miracles happen.

That’s all I can think of, right now.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Don’t get me wrong. I believe miracles do happen. Those recored in the bible and those happening today.

But, again the miraculous cannot be “proven” scientificly.

All you can do is demonstrate that the scientist don’t currently have an explanation.

They can tell you where there was water now there is wine.

They can tell you that the DNA of a man that appeared dead matches that of a man who is alive.

They can’t , however, “prove” that God made it so.

So unlees you want to define a miracle as that for which there is no scientific explanation, then you can’t “prove” a miracle.

Chuck

True, but they can prove that it is so. What was water, tastes like wine. A man you knew since you were a kid who was born blind, can suddenly see. A man who obviously was tortured and died, looks you in the eye, opens His cloak, and dares you to stick your fingers in the wound in His side.

I’m not asking you to prove how God changes the bread into the human flesh of Jesus, Chuck. I’m asking something much easier: I’m asking you to prove that God changes the bread into the human flesh of Jesus.

 

[steve_b]

Perhaps this will help make my meaning clearer, Steve: Let’s assume, Paul and Ignatius …

With all due respect, let’s not assume. What you go on to assume is not the way it was.

Pope Clement of Rome ( in ~80-90 AD) for example, (St John s still alive, and hasn’t written the book of Revelation yet) wrote a letter to the Corinthians settling sedition among their bishops. The Corinthians still read his letter today in Divine Liturgy as if it is scripture, even though it is not.

No one is suggesting the writings of the ECF’s are on the same level as scripture. Because they’re NOT. But as historical documents giving us an up close and personal view of the Church after the death and resurrection of Jesus, for the 1st 800 years, they are invaluable.
Soc:

Which would you trust to be closer to the actual letters that the authors wrote: The handful of ancient manuscript copies of Ignatius’ letter, or the thousands of ancient manuscript copies of Paul’s letter?

You set up a false distinction.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

What answer of yours have i ignored, JM?

/QUOTE)

As a witness for the defense I can say that I FEEL Christ’s
s Presence in the Eucharist the same as you feel the presence of another person you dearly love when they are near. Now, maybe I don’t ALways have those feelings but I have had them and I am sure many other people will tell you the same so there is an inner knowledge that God is here among us…in the Tabernacle, on the altar, in communion…

Your inner sense(s) tell you it is true.

There have been some Saints who could into a building and they would know just by the feeling Christ’s presense which room held the Blessed Sacrament.

So “Presence” what does that mean? Is that related to “Substance?”

One word that has been given to describe the physical manifestation of the Lord’s Presence is Shekinah.
Shekinah filled the Temple of Solomon and was in the Ark of the Covenant. The “Shekinah” now has a absorbed the bodily presence of Jesus and thus the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus is a Shekinah Presence in our churches.

Quote:

"While it is admitted that the Rabbinic concept of God being a hovering non-personal force is an unacceptable extension of meaning, the concept of a physical manifestation of God’s localized dwelling is none-the-less scriptural. We have chosen to use the word “Shekinah,” (shknh) , to name this “presence” since this meaning is in general distribution among many Christians, albeit ignorant of the origin of the word. "

"“The word was coined from verbal cognates in the Bible which describe the “presence” of God in a locality. The verbal cognates are copiously used to describe the “Shekinah” appearances. The word “Shekinah,” itself is not in the biblical text but the concept, as I have defined it, clearly is. The word most certainly is derived from “shakan,” and whoever first used the word “Shekinah” coined it as a substantive (noun form) from the verbal forms used to describe the “abiding, dwelling, or habitation” of the physical manifestations of God described in Ex 24:16; Ex 40:35, Nu 9:16-18; and numerous other places where “shakan” is used. The word is also used to describe the mystical “Shekinah” presence in the tabernacle. The word “mishkan,” (), a derivative of “shakan,” (), is often translated “tabernacle.” The Hebrew for tabernacle is more often simply “ohel,” (), or tent. “Mishkan” means “dwelling place.” That is, the “dwelling place” of “Him who dwells” or “Shekinah.”
Shekinah”

And I think Atoms and molecules have nothing to do with the true substance of water or a body or anything. I believe “substance” has to do with the meaning of the object ( water, you, me, a tree)
in God’s original THOUGHT about that object. When God thought about water for example, he understood what water conveyed in terms of how it expressed “Love” and so He created the physical representations of water, in all their various forms, to convey that aspect of LOVE which only water can convey. Each person likewise has some way of embodying a inique aspect of LOVE and that unique aspect of LOVE which you or I or anyone embodies is their substance. Jesis is not only LOVE personigied, he is the source of all other embodiments of LOVE and His Body is also a form of LOVE which he translates into food for His followers to eat.

I don’t know if what I just said makes sense or not, so go ahead and tear it apart or mull it over or whatever. it is just a stab in the dark.

God Bless, MaryJohnZ

 

[toaslan]

Would you say the primary (or individual) substance of water is essential to its existence or nonessential?

Are you asking if the individual substance “this molecule of water” is essential to itself? I’m not following your question (and saying “indiv. substance OF water” doesn’t help me, as it violates our definition as noted on previous post).
Soc:

Would you say the accidents of water are essential to its existence or nonessential?

Accidents inhere in a substance–they can change without the substance changing. Their change does not entail substantial change–that is, their change is not a change at the level of essence.

I would say that the accidents of water are non-essential to its substance.
In other words,
the accidents are non-essential to its existence on the substantial level.
But
the accidents are its existence on the accidental level.

There are ways of being that are not foundational, yet they still are in a participated sense. Aristotle names them, as provided by Lazer back on page 26, post #379, from which linked page I cut and paste this:

Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion. For Aristotle there are 10 categories into which things naturally fall. They are
Substance, and
Nine Accidents:
Quantity,
Quality,
Relation,
Action,
Passion,
Time,
Place,
Disposition (the arrangement of parts), and
Rainment (whether a thing is dressed or armed, etc.)
All these distinctions are basically logical, but in a sense they reflect the structure of reality. One never finds any substance that we experience without some accidents, nor an accident that is not the accident of a substance.

Are accidents essential? By their very definition, they are not!

Soc, maybe I am “concerned about many things”. Or maybe you do not see what is entailed in the definitions of substance and accident.

Well, over to you, my friend.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’d just wanted to take the time to stop and thank everyone for answering all of my questions and helping me think through this. It seems to me that there are at least three areas of inquiry to find the truth about the Eucharist:

A. The individual substance of the Eucharist itself.
B. What Jesus said and did.
C. What others have said and experienced.

Some of the ideas overlap, for others the twain never meet, yet all are valuable. I do appreciate what each of you are contributing to the understanding of each.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Because at the Last Supper when He held up the bread and wine to bless them, He said, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood.”

Because St. Ignatius tells us that those who don’t believe that it is really His body and blood separate themselves from the Church.

Because St. Paul tells us that those who eat the Eucharist without discerning Christ’s body and blood eat and drink damnation unto themselves, “and for this reason, many are sick.”

Because when I pray to the Eucharist, miracles happen.

That’s all I can think of, right now.

Which of these beautiful paths would you like to travel down with me, JM? Each seems equally inviting. I’ll let you decide.

http://www.ingramsonline.com/January_2006/woods.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

With all due respect, let’s not assume. What you go on to assume is not the way it was.

Pope Clement of Rome ( in ~80-90 AD) for example, (St John s still alive, and hasn’t written the book of Revelation yet) wrote a letter to the Corinthians settling sedition among their bishops. The Corinthians still read his letter today in Divine Liturgy as if it is scripture, even though it is not. …

If you answer my questions, Steve, i will not have to make any assumptions:

• Is it the original letter Clement wrote with his own hand, or a copy?
• If it is a copy, are there hundreds just like it, or has only one survived?
• Was the earliest copy made decades after the author was dead, or centuries after his body was cold in the crypt?

If you do not have the answers, that’s OK, but at least try to understand why i have doubts.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

As a witness for the defense I can say that I FEEL Christ’s
s Presence in the Eucharist the same as you feel the presence of another person you dearly love when they are near. Now, maybe I don’t ALways have those feelings but I have had them and I am sure many other people will tell you the same so there is an inner knowledge that God is here among us in the Tabernacle, on the altar, in communion. Your inner sense(s) tell you it is true. …

Have you ever been fooled by your feelings, Mary? You would not say, for example, that on the days you do not feel Jesus is near, that He must not be near. He’s there whether you feel Him or not. In fact, isn’t God always near, whether you are at Mass or not? Isn’t he just a prayer away, even if you feel far from Him?

It seems to me that feelings ebb and flow like the tide, but the reality is that God is always present. At least, that’s what Jesus tells me.

15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.*-- Jesus (John:14)*http://i.pbase.com/g4/82/265582/3/62021093.DXXC8R7U.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…And I think Atoms and molecules have nothing to do with the true substance of water or a body or anything. I believe “substance” has to do with the meaning of the object ( water, you, me, a tree) in God’s original THOUGHT about that object. When God thought about water for example, he understood what water conveyed in terms of how it expressed “Love” and so He created the physical representations of water, in all their various forms, to convey that aspect of LOVE which only water can convey. Each person likewise has some way of embodying a inique aspect of LOVE and that unique aspect of LOVE which you or I or anyone embodies is their substance. Jesis is not only LOVE personigied, he is the source of all other embodiments of LOVE and His Body is also a form of LOVE which he translates into food for His followers to eat.

I don’t know if what I just said makes sense or not, so go ahead and tear it apart or mull it over or whatever. it is just a stab in the dark.

God Bless, MaryJohnZ

Yes, it makes sense, Mary. Thank you!



I’m interested in the evidence (rational, historical, or otherwise) as to what the Eucharist actually is. I think discovering the truth about what it is will give me a better appreciation about why it is.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Are you asking if the individual substance “this molecule of water” is essential to itself? I’m not following your question (and saying “indiv. substance OF water” doesn’t help me, as it violates our definition as noted on previous post).
…

Perhaps i’m saying nothing, perhaps something. Let’s look at accidents, first, and then compare the two.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Accidents inhere in a substance–they can change without the substance changing. Their change does not entail substantial change–that is, their change is not a change at the level of essence. …

Again, i want to express my appreciation for helping me understand what substance and accidents are, ToAslan.



Would you say, then, that the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are accidents of water, or not accidents of water, or both? Whatever answer you give, please explain why.

 

[clmowry]

First, God does not change the bread and wine into “human flesh and blood” He changes them into the “Body and Blood of Our Risen Lord Jesus Christ”.

For this unique substance we have no scientific test.

So this cannot be proven to you. (Nor can it be proven that God partiipated in any other reported miracle, but that is another subject.)

Chuck

True, but they can prove that it is so. What was water, tastes like wine. A man you knew since you were a kid who was born blind, can suddenly see. A man who obviously was tortured and died, looks you in the eye, opens His cloak, and dares you to stick your fingers in the wound in His side.

I’m not asking you to prove how God changes the bread into the human flesh of Jesus, Chuck. I’m asking something much easier: I’m asking you to prove that God changes the bread into the human flesh of Jesus.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

First, God does not change the bread and wine into “human flesh and blood” He changes them into the “Body and Blood of Our Risen Lord Jesus Christ”.

For this unique substance we have no scientific test.

So this cannot be proven to you. (Nor can it be proven that God partiipated in any other reported miracle, but that is another subject.)

Chuck

Hearing what you just said, Chuck, i wonder: Are you blind as a bat to the truth, or am i? I’m not making an accusation, just an observation. Perhaps i’m just misunderstanding you. Perhaps i’m under some Satanic spell that prevents me from seeing the truth. So, please, bear with me, here.

When you say, “Body and Blood of Our Risen Lord Jesus Christ” are you using the words body and blood literally, or metaphorically? I’m not being facetious. I’m really trying to understand.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007/06/070615093131.jpg

 

[davidv]

If you answer my questions, Steve, i will not have to make any assumptions:

• Is it the original letter Clement wrote with his own hand, or a copy?
• If it is a copy, are there hundreds just like it, or has only one survived?
• Was the earliest copy made decades after the author was dead, or centuries after his body was cold in the crypt?
  If you do not have the answers, that’s OK, but at least try to understand why i have doubts.

Please be careful not to let your doubts put you in the same position to whom Jesus was addressing this:

Having eyes do you notsee, and having ears do you not hear?
Mk 8:18 RSV

 

[davidv]

Hearing what you just said, Chuck, i wonder: Are you blind as a bat to the truth, or am i? I’m not making an accusation, just an observation. Perhaps i’m just misunderstanding you. Perhaps i’m under some Satanic spell that prevents me from seeing the truth. So, please, bear with me, here.

When you say, “Body and Blood of Our Risen Lord Jesus Christ” are you using the words body and blood literally, or metaphorically? I’m not being facetious. I’m really trying to understand.

As been said before, it is literally the substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. I will also say that there no way that you can understand this completely, as none of us can. It is one of those revealed truths that are not accessible to reason alone.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

As been said before, it is literally the substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. I will also say that there no way that you can understand this completely, as none of us can. It is one of those revealed truths that are not accessible to reason alone.

Did the body and blood of Jesus that appeared to His disciples after He was resurrected have atoms, David?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[clmowry]

Hopefully neither of us are blind.

I would submit to you that the Body and Blood of our Risen Lord is literally present in the Eucharist but in a way that the body and blood of any other human cannot be.

The God/man Jesus Christ has a unique Essence or Substance the presence for which we do not have a test.

In a similar way a Christian might claim that the Holy Spirit dwells within them. I do not doubt that this can be true.

Let us assume for a second that this is true for you and I. How do we prove it? No amount of medical testing will find the Holy Spirit within us. He has an Essence for which we have no test. The Essence He shares with the Faher and the Son.

In the same way the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ can be present in the Eucharist.

With a few notable exceptions the bread and blood are not transformed with the accidental physical form of human flesh and blood. That does not mean that we can conclude that the Essence of the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in the accidental form of bread and wine any more than we can conclude that the Holy Spirit is absent from a believer.

Chuck

Hearing what you just said, Chuck, i wonder: Are you blind as a bat to the truth, or am i? I’m not making an accusation, just an observation. Perhaps i’m just misunderstanding you. Perhaps i’m under some Satanic spell that prevents me from seeing the truth. So, please, bear with me, here.

When you say, “Body and Blood of Our Risen Lord Jesus Christ” are you using the words body and blood literally, or metaphorically? I’m not being facetious. I’m really trying to understand.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007/06/070615093131.jpg