An Exegetical Refutation of the Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (1)

[pneuma07]

Yes and no. He is telling us that the original “real presence” occupied a space within a broad spectrum of views. Later (on the next page) he adds that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was a “special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church.” The modern concept of a real bodily presence requires more than that…as the Calvinist view of a spiritual presence would easily fit within Pelikan’s description of a “special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church.” In fact, the Calvinistic view probably fits that description better than the transubstantial, b/c the transubstantial view requires a distinct bodily presence.

After reminding that forms of the Lord’s presence were acknowledged ( just as the CC of course does), the sentence begins like this. “Yet the adoraration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seemes to have presupposed that ……” and here the quoted words above begin. The whole sentence doesn’t look potentially fitting with Calvin also IMHO.

Later Pelikan states . “The theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by thr church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds”.

The church had the belief, which, following the future controversies in different context, would be precised.
Nothing in that chapter of Pelikan’s opus on Christian Tradition tells us RP was an eventual product of pious imagination . No idea of unfaithfulness of the church of 100-600 AD to the original belief is even suggested.

I would suggest that you reconcile the two by understanding that Van der Meer is using “Real Presence” to mean the modern idea of Real Bodily Presence and Pelikan is using “Real Presence” to mean a “special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church” Pelikan’s term can include many “real presences” that are not “real bodily presences”.
It seems to me that when hoping to defend the claim of a consensus wrt a real bodily presence the RP umbrella is stretched to include any special presence (whether that special presence actually contemplates a real bodily presence or not)…or said another way, unless a father denies a real bodily presence, he is included under the RP umbrella giving the impression that he actually endorsed a RBP.

See above.
Jaroslav Pelikan IMHO simply does not seem to point to the discontinuity advocated by your previous post. Neither between ante-nicene fathers and primitive Christianity, nor between the former and later Fathers. (Let’s not forget his work you took the quotation from is informed by the concept of Development ! )

If that is the re-enactment that TU had in mind, then of course, I see it…but he said (IIRC) remembrance and re-enactment, so I thought he meant something else

I’m glad you see the re-enactment. What about a remembrance which is a re-enactment, ?

 

[pneuma07]

I didn’t think I was portraying Iggy as very likely NRP. I think he falls into the uncertain category

I’ll admit such is possible, I just don’t think it very likely

.

Thanks for precising on Iggy as possibly RP. .
Are you saying you can also admit as possible that Ignatius knew Apostolic Succession ? Or that’s just wishful understanding of me ?

I am not sure what you are saying here. If it is that to clarify symbolism only one word is required and that to clarify a real bodily presence a handful or so of words would be required…I don’t see the few extra seconds that those extra words would have taken as being important.

What formulation of the Institution would suffice in itself to make you believe RP ?

thanks

I don’t know that it is certain that this is about the Eucharist, but let’s assume it is…it could very well be.

You’re welcome. You’re making a great job here by , among other things, pruning bad catholic arguments. These are proteins with which you are feeding CAF, IMHO.

frequency has to do with form and not substance (IMHO)…Catholics here don’t actually break bread or use one loaf whereas a percentage of Protestants do, but that again would be form and not substance

Here let me differ deeply. A liturgical step a la Zwingli has much to do with substance. It is not the WAY but, let me say, …the very WEIGH of the Eucharistic celebration which is in question. What about those branches of modern Chirstianity which have no Supper at all: just form ? On the Lord’s day assemble to break bread and offer thanks. Not specifically to sing, to dance or to listen to a sermon……

I don’t do it at all. I don’t see anything important that is acheived with that sign.

That signifies I have to be in peace with my brother or sister , peace with one another before receiving the Prince of Peace. Not necessary, but fine IMHO.
And everyone, from the president of the assembly to any present, “ confesses one’s transgressions”.

It is my understanding that the sacrifice described in the Didache 14 was the act of worship/thanksgiving and that it wasn’t uncommon for the ancients to view all worship and good works as offerings or sacrifices to God. I suspect that, by using that understanding, a typical NRP congregation would describe its Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice, provided that they could be guaranteed that no one would think they were claiming it to be a sacrifice in the same way Catholics do.
Probably not, but then it might just be that Didache 14 sees the sacrifice as the act of worship itself (see Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins p. 40 and following)

Yes, act of worship/thanksgiving ( eucharistein). Thanksgiving and breaking the bread is precisely the Eucharist.

That paragraph doesn’t favour either a NRP or a RBP.

IMHO we have seen that NRP scores rather badly with Didache 14.

Didache 10 (which follows the giving of thanks for the wine first and then the bread) thanks God for the spiritual food and drink which is an idea very consistent with the NRP view. Catholics, will of course, point out that they too recognize the Eucharist as spiritual food and drink and so they feel justifed in placing the Didache under the RP umbrella, but that seems to be wishful thinking. What the Didache states is consistent with a NRP and what it states is only something that must be built upon to get to a RBP

Said that I’m aware that we don’t know exactly whether Didache 9-10 describes the very same rite as Didache 14, there is nothing whatsoever needing a wishful thinking there. I feel at home.
But since you can say that’s just my lens, let’s turn to something more objective.

• But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.*

Are all NRP congregations persuaded they eat something which is Holy ( if and when they do eat, I mean) ?

And isn’t it true that some practice very open communion, letting the unbaptized partake ?

But by far the most striking sort of dealing with “what is holy” in some modern Christianities, is considering what remains of it …… as mere garbage.

You can put together plenty of evidence that modern Christianities ( about which you should specify which one ) did not reconstruct the early eucharistic thought and life.

 

[pneuma07]

where I think that this example fails is that the “get up and walk” is what we would call an actual miracle. Something within nature is miraculously changed. Remission of sins, however, is not what I would call a miracle. It is a spiritual event and not an event within nature. If you wanted to argue that this shows that the disciples would be rather receptive to a spiritual presence in the Eucharist, then I would think that you have a point (as such would also be a spiritual event). To claim that his natural body is really present is to go beyond claiming a spiritual event.

.

If we want to stick to a strict definition of miracles ( within nature) then let’s define M2 as a non detectable act possible only to divine power, direct or delegated. Now, if you accept that the Apostles got to acknowledge that the man who would walk alongside them was the Logos ( I do say IF, since you could certainly opine that this is later pious imagination), then I wonder why it had to be so obviously insurmountable for them that He chose that a bread could become the Logos. I know too well this is a step beyond the swallowable four yourself.

But would you bet it was the same for the Twelve, listening to the Lord ? Are you sure you’re thinking by the same categories as they would ?
Before you answer, I’d like to offer this too to your attention.

This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." Luke 22

Murphy O’Connor explains, having regard to the Jewish comprehension of a Covenant ( Living Bread, Saving Cup, page 18)

*"It would have been inconceivable designing a substitute to symbolize the blood. The reality of the blood gave reality to the Covenant.” *

I don’t think Luke 24 descibes the Lord’s Supper. “Breaking bread” is a term that in used in Jewish sources to indicate the action of tearing bread and the rite which began a meal. Further, for the poor (and also quite possibly for those on the road) bread, salt and water was the whole meal. Jesus would have shared many such Jewish meals with his disciples where the meal would have began with breaking bread. (see Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins pp 55-59) Luke 24 then describes the meal that those 3 travellers shared at the end of the day and the initial breaking of bread that they had (possibly) seen Jesus perform on a number of occasions opened their eyes to his identity

So it was a usual meal, the most common of deeds for any traveller, which, at last, immediately opened their eyes after long explanations about Scriptures. Unrelated to the Last Supper and the Institution of just three days before. ….

What if in Emmaus we had the first example of the Liturgy, the Liturgy of the Word followed by the Eucharistic Liturgy ? As you remember, it was the first day after the Sabbath.

 

[pneuma07]

I didn’t think the blogger was claiming that Iggy was a NRP, but that, like me, he was saying that we can’t be sure about Iggy’s position b/c of what he said and how he said it.

As for the RBP being a late development, I would be comfortable suggesting that it was earlier in Asia Minor and later in Alexandria and Carthage.

.

The point on Iggy is duly taken. If Ignatius is quite possibly RP, than how on earth can we be comfortable that Asia Minor came before Syria in this “late” development ?

I note that Ignatius goes even farther than you point out. In Trallians 2 & 7 and in Magnesians 7 Iggy directs that it is essential that nothing be done w/o the bishop. If a bishop is required for everything (in Iggy’s opinion), then it is not surprising that a bishop is required for a valid Eucharist (with or without a RBP being involved).

You are familiar with the distinction between “licit” and “valid”. The adjective he chooses is “bébaia”, which has nothing to do with being licit. It is rather “trusty” “sure” “proper” “valid”.
The context you correctly mention fully explains that Eucharists without bishops are illicit. It does not explain why they are not proper, or real Eucharists at all. In other words we’re not told simply we are not allowed without bishops to celebrate the Eucharist. We simply are not able to. Again: no bishops, no Eucharist.

But we likely agree it does not make much sense that we are not able to have a … “real mere symbol”of His body.
And you may note how a Catholic understanding fits with Iggy’s position.

well, coming from the anabaptist tradition I understand that it was a pretty one-sided game from our perspective with both Catholic RPer’s and Lutheran RPer’s being rather nasty (can’t speak for the conduct of the Reformed)

Coming from that tradition you know well it looks like Zwinglian **NRPer’s, **in their then brand new ruling position, succeeded in being the first ones to start drowning Anabaptists. January 5 1527.
Maybe we could just prayerfully say with the Lord: “If any one of you ( who were even briefly in ruling position in those times ) is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone .”

As I have stated before, I do not think that it is all that unlikely that the pious would imagine something to be more than it is. It is not uncommon for one to see an author spend a whole chapter elaborating on what he has read into one verse. This, to me, is a natural inclination and anyone trying to argue against the elaboration finds himself labelled as arguing against the wondrous thing that God has (allegedly) done for us.

The Church could stop a flourishing of pious imagination, by excluding much literature from the Canon.
At the end of the day we’re always there: who draws the line ?
The best answer that to my poor knowledge I can honestly give is: the Catholic Church. You appear to prefer to draw the lines by yourself. As many other guys do ( I mean that … they draw their own lines, not that they stick to yours, at least those I could know )

Yes, it is frustrating. I find the whole Godhead thing and the union of Christ’s natures as frustratingly unspecified as well. There is so much conflict that God could have averted if he had only clarified some more things.

Which maybe means that not always Revelation plays according to our own cherished categories.

I think we’ve covered this pretty extensively in the past. Your use of “precisely” is one problem, b/c from my point of view, by distributing what appears to be bread, is not precisely giving them His body. Another problem is that until the whole idea of a transubstantial existence was even developed, I don’t know how the disciples would have envisioned a fulfillment to John 6 other than by a figurative manner. IMHO, once they had the opportunity to reflect on it, they would have understood John 6 figuratively and that would have carried over to the Lord’s Supper.

We’re probably reaching a wall here. Are we ?
I dare propose anyway this exercise.

Let’s read the following verses and then the tales of the Institution.

Reading 1

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat A MERE SYMBOL OF the flesh of the Son of Man and drink A MERE SYMBOL of His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

The Apostles on the Institution: “now at last we get what the mere symbols of His flesh and of His blood are, and we can have life.”

Reading 2

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53” So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you believe you have no life in yourselves.”

The Apostles on the Institution: “now at last we get that the Lord was just speaking about faith. then”

Reading 3

The Apostles on the Institution: “Strange, He had never spoken about giving us a bread
and eating His body”

Which one is the best ?

never, and there was indeed some meat in there

Thanks.

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, it would seem that Ignatius connected the figurative language used at John 6 with the figurative language Christ used with the institution

.

You mean “I want His bread”, is per John 6, and “I want His blood”, is per the Institution.
Wouldn’t that be a little curious since the Institution has both blood and flesh ? Moreover if I remember you explain that John 6, which is about having faith, is not
connected with the Institution.

What about Ephesians 20 ?

that’s fair, but please keep in mind these two things: 1) I am not saying that we know Ignatius was NRP…instead I am saying that we can’t be sure where to place Ignatius on the NRP <-> RBP spectrum. 2) likewise a bit of graphic wording that appears within an eucharistic speech should not be treated as evidence (or even significant hint) that the context is RBP (particularly when figurative words are also within the passage). Else, it could be shown the Reformed Church is RBP (as per my previous example from Calvin)…

Fine. The Church has always used to my poor knoledge symbolic expressions alongside realistic ones, for the simple reason that the Eucharist is clearly seen in a symbolic dimension (too). Once I listened to a whole homily presenting John 6 in terms of “you have to believe”, concluding that next time he would show the eucharist there ( I was no longer in that city to listen to this part ).
For NRP, all the more for purely memorialists, a realist language does not make a lot of sense. ( BTW As I can understanf the Calvin of the Institutiones - as dictinct from the one accepting the Consensus Tigurinus - does look different from our modern memorialists, whatever he would mean in his opus. Not by chance you see sometimes a “back to Calvin’s Institutiones” cry on the view of the Lord’s Supper in the diverse Reformed field ).

Nevertheless the expressions we use depend IMHO on the environment we live in. On the why a realist language is not used or welcome in many contemporary congregations we could give plausibly some motivations I suppose:

1. they have departed so far from Sacred Tradition, that such expressions would sound simply alien, or meaningless, to them.
2. They are afraid they could be equivocated: suspicions could be raised against the author or preaching pastor, or, worse, someone in the fold could remember the view explained by some RPers and, Heaven forbid, could even suspect they have a point.

Consider now that realist expressions can be found in any age from the sub-apostolic time . Without discontinuity. Whereas I strongly suspect that those more faithful to the supposed original orthodox NRP at least would have turned to a more careful language in such a changing environment.

I hope you can concur on that, as I concur with you that a realist expression in a passage does not necessarily make an author RP.

Symmetry is not something one needs to pursue with figurative statements. In John 6:51 Christ identified the bread of God as his flesh, but he never identifed something as his blood. Ignatius follows John 6 in saying: “Bread of God is what I desire; that is, the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David”. However, when he said “and for my drink I desire His Blood, that is, incorruptible love.” Ignatius doesn’t go with “wine”, because that identification wasn’t made in John 6. Instead, Ignatius freelanced and identified Christ’s blood as incorruptible love.

Sorry, you have just said that Ignatius here was referring to both John 6 and the Institution. Now you’re explaining that we have blood and not wine because ……wine is not mentioned in John 6.
I am afraid you lost me here.

Your turn, Pneuma07…may God bless you and yours

And may He bless you, your wife and all yours.

PS How old are the boys ?

 

[KathleenGee]

Symbolism is the working of arbitration.

The sacraments are concrete signs of the life of Christ. There is no arbitration. But faith is required to believe Christ is the Eucharist as well as He present and grace giving in the other sacraments. And to minister them requires to be sacrament as Holy Orders. Sacraments are concrete but nevertheless mystical entities containing the reality of Jesus Christ.

Hence, this is also the underlying issue of the problem with the priests causing scandal…The Psalm 101 says ‘dare not touch My anointed ones’…The priesthood and the Eucharist are inseparable.

(My son understood the Eucharist when I showed him a picture from Thomas a Kempis’ book, ‘Imitation of Christ’.)

I personally believe St. Justin the Martyr’s explanation of the Mass is the best resource on the intent of the Breaking of the Bread. He lived at the beginning of the 2nd century, around 100 AD and was asked to explain what happens. The spirit and tone and many actions are the same that is practiced today, particularly in the less ornate Latin, Vatican II Mass.

 

[Carlan]

Symbolism is the working of arbitration.

The sacraments are concrete signs of the life of Christ. There is no arbitration. But faith is required to believe Christ is the Eucharist as well as He present and grace giving in the other sacraments. And to minister them requires to be sacrament as Holy Orders. Sacraments are concrete but nevertheless mystical entities containing the reality of Jesus Christ.

Thank you Kathleen, you said it!

Posters just simply listen to what Jesus tells us in John 6. Don’t be amongst those who walked away.
ASK for the FAITH to believe in your heart and mind what Jesus is saying.You believed him when he changed water into wine at Cana because you saw the wine and drank it.
It takes faith to believe what he says at the last supper, that the bread and wine is changed into his Body and Blood,Soul and Divinity which was to be offered to the Father the next day for our salvation from sin. Peace to you all, Carlan

 

[KathleenGee]

All of us must be very vigilant to encourage the use of reason…

but also to watch out for intellectual pride…

it exists in the least of us.

 

[Radical]

I’ll pass the congrats to that new RPer.

Thanks

From my own little experience I can say that my daughter, who is 9 and ask me scores of questions on anything, and got a long instruction on that, never asked me how it is possible that she receives Jesus through a wafer.

Your daughter (bless her) I trust, gets an actual explanation that involves the idea that Christ is really bodily present in the elements. That is very different from what we see in John 6 and the institution passages. Also, my main point here was and has always been that the RBPers should not be claiming that the plain and obvious meaning is the RBP interpretation. I have given my reasons for that point so often I will not repeat them yet again.

In order to dispel doubts that this unthinkability is a projection by its proposers of their own mindsets, I need arguments to support the view that in First century a RP was in itself unthinkable.

Just so we are clear…I am saying that it was originally unthinkable, not b/c it requires a miracle or b/c it is a repulsive concept (it isn’t IMHO), but b/c it would have been the first time that such a mode of existence was contemplated.

PS It looks like this time I’m going to be probably quick in processing your thought. Next times I will likely be by far slower.

As you can see, I am not in a hurry myself…and I will be trying to keep my answers as short as possible.

 

[Radical]

After reminding that forms of the Lord’s presence were acknowledged ( just as the CC of course does), the sentence begins like this. “Yet the adoraration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seemes to have presupposed that ……” and here the quoted words above begin. The whole sentence doesn’t look potentially fitting with Calvin also IMHO.

You are right, the adoration part isn’t very Calvinistic.

Later Pelikan states . “The theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by thr church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds”.

as you may recall from my previous references to this section from Pelikan, I think Pelikan goes too far in seeing a RP w/i the early church. He claims that Ignatius comes close to describing a process of substantial change, but I see nothing in Ignatius that even begins to describe a process. Further, in so doing, he pegs Ignatius at the extreme realistic end of the spectrum. As indicated from the blog I linked, I think there is a good argument that we don’t know where to place Ignatius, (let alone placing him at thge one extreme and claiming that he comes close to describing a process of substantial change). The important thing that I wanted to draw from this passage from Pelikan is the wide variety of beliefs that the early church possessed regarding the Eucharist. Pelikan describes a wide spectrum spanning realistic to nearly pure symbolic.

The church had the belief, which, following the future controversies in different context, would be precised.

What Pelikan describes is a range of beliefs and not a uniform belief…and if he claims that the range can be properly placed under the RBP umbrella, then I respectfully disagree. The range of beliefs is consistent with the RBP being a innovation. I don’t know that it works that well with the “Development Model” and it puts the lie to the monolithic model. I would be interested to hear from you on this point…is the apparently wide range really not that wide? Are they all RBP at heart, but merely stressing different aspects? To what degree would you say your answer is free from presumptions?

Nothing in that chapter of Pelikan’s opus on Christian Tradition tells us RP was an eventual product of pious imagination . No idea of unfaithfulness of the church of 100-600 AD to the original belief is even suggested.

This is to be expected considering which tradition Pelikan came from…he can see the near symbolic view possessed by some of the ECFs, but still wants to say that they should be included in the RP umbrella. (Actually this may not be the case b/c his wording at that point is imprecise. He states that between the two excluded extremes existed the doctrine of the RP. “Excluded” would mean that at one end Origen and Clement were outside the doctrine on the RP (this makes sense) and at the other end Justin and Ignatius were outside the doctrine on the RP (this makes no sense given what he claims for them)…it really isn’t Pelikan’s best passage, but it is the one that states the variety of Eucharistic views in the early church and I guess I’ll continue to use it until I find a better one.

Jaroslav Pelikan IMHO simply does not seem to point to the discontinuity advocated by your previous post. Neither between ante-nicene fathers and primitive Christianity, nor between the former and later Fathers. (Let’s not forget his work you took the quotation from is informed by the concept of Development ! )

Yes, IMHO a person from the RBP camp has no choice but to adhere to a concept of development…it is the best (only?) way to salvage the claim that the doctrine is apostolic in the face of the range of views. Is it also your impression that the trend amongst scholars is to see an ever greater diversity?

I’m glad you see the re-enactment. What about a remembrance which is a re-enactment, ?

I think that is a good way of putting it, a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross by a re-enactment of the Lord’s Supper.

 

[Radical]

Thanks for precising on Iggy as possibly RP. .
Are you saying you can also admit as possible that Ignatius knew Apostolic Succession ? Or that’s just wishful understanding of me ?

Sorry, I can neither affirm nor deny the claim…I just don’t know enough to form an opinion.

What formulation of the Institution would suffice in itself to make you believe RP ?

Something along the lines of, “Take this bread and eat. I have changed it into my body.” would have been nice. Something along the lines of, “Take this bread and eat. I have changed it into my body and my body is now present in what appears to be bread to the same extent as my body is present in this room.” would have been better…alas, mere seconds (in an eternity) is all that it would have taken to clarify it either way.

You’re welcome. You’re making a great job here by , among other things, pruning bad catholic arguments. These are proteins with which you are feeding CAF, IMHO

thanks, I do hope that we can help each other

Here let me differ deeply. A liturgical step a la Zwingli has much to do with substance. It is not the WAY but, let me say, …the very WEIGH of the Eucharistic celebration which is in question. What about those branches of modern Chirstianity which have no Supper at all: just form ? On the Lord’s day assemble to break bread and offer thanks. Not specifically to sing, to dance or to listen to a sermon….

IMHO it all depends on what one sees as the nature of the Lord’s Supper b/c that, in turn determines what one views as falling into form and what one sees as falling into substance. From my perspective it would be scandalous to offer only one element and not the other. It is merely half a Lord’s Supper and not a proper whole. I view such a thing as a change of substance and not mere form. Some of what you view as form, I view as substance and vice versa.

That signifies I have to be in peace with my brother or sister , peace with one another before receiving the Prince of Peace. Not necessary, but fine IMHO.

fine yes, but it is very important that one actually has confessed ones sins, and is right with the Lord and has not just made a show of it…the Protestant denominations that I frequent all make a point of stressing this requirement and giving plenty of time to get the job done

Yes, act of worship/thanksgiving ( eucharistein). Thanksgiving and breaking the bread is precisely the Eucharist.

Ahhh…if you only stopped there and didn’t go on to that RBP thing

IMHO we have seen that NRP scores rather badly with Didache 14.

That might be b/c you differ from us NRP’s in what we see as form vs substance. I look at Didache 14 and have nothing but a feeling of total agreement with the contents…any difference from my practice is not seen as going to substance.

Said that I’m aware that we don’t know exactly whether Didache 9-10 describes the very same rite as Didache 14, there is nothing whatsoever needing a wishful thinking there. I feel at home.

That is not a bad way of saying it…I look at the Didache and I feel at home.

But since you can say that’s just my lens, let’s turn to something more objective.

• But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.*
  Are all NRP congregations persuaded they eat something which is Holy ( if and when they do eat, I mean) ?

This is a repeat of the words in Matt 7:6. My NIV’s notation reads: Teaching should be given in accordance with the spiritual capacity of the learners. This reflects how many understand that teaching. The Lord’s Supper, like any righteous action could be properly called holy and allowing someone outside of the body of Christ participate in the Lord’s Supper could be rightly called giving that which is holy to dogs.

And isn’t it true that some practice very open communion, letting the unbaptized partake?

I believe most make the requirement to be membership in the body (which is understood to be achieved through belief)

But by far the most striking sort of dealing with “what is holy” in some modern Christianities, is considering what remains of it …… as mere garbage.

What makes it holy is its association with the proclamation of the Lord’s death. Once it is no longer serving that function, it merely reverts to being common bread and wine.

You can put together plenty of evidence that modern Christianities ( about which you should specify which one ) did not reconstruct the early eucharistic thought and life.

Again, the same could be said of the RBP side. With reference to the Didache, does your Church:
a) Give thanks for the cup first and the bread second?
b) follow the prayer for the cup as set out in the Didache?
c) follow the prayer for the bread as set out in the Didache?
d) follow the prayer at the end as set out in the Didache?
e) use a single loaf of bread and actually break the bread into pieces
f) everyone is given both the wine and the bread?

 

[KathleenGee]

Radical,
I wish you could have attended our Adoration combined with Taize last night…what a loss to those who do not believe…

 

[Radical]

If we want to stick to a strict definition of miracles ( within nature) then let’s define M2 as a non detectable act possible only to divine power, direct or delegated. Now, if you accept that the Apostles got to acknowledge that the man who would walk alongside them was the Logos ( I do say IF, since you could certainly opine that this is later pious imagination), then I wonder why it had to be so obviously insurmountable for them that He chose that a bread could become the Logos.

again it is not the ** choice** that is insurmountable, but it is an alleged change in a physical thing w/o any physical change in the thing that would require some effort to grasp.

This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." Luke 22
Murphy O’Connor explains, having regard to the Jewish comprehension of a Covenant ( Living Bread, Saving Cup, page 18)
*"It would have been inconceivable designing a substitute to symbolize the blood. The reality of the blood gave reality to the Covenant.” *

Agreed. I trust O’Connor would have also noted that the blood was obtained through the sacrificial death of calves (in the instance of the 1st covenant). From there O’Connor must have noted that at the Last Supper Christ had still not died and had not provided his blood. Therefore, at the Last Supper, Christ must have provided a symbol of his necessary actual blood that would be later shed at the cross to introduce and seal the New Covenant. The author of Hebrews explains how this was done through a sacrifice of the body of Jesus once for all. There is no sacrifice for the New Covenant until the cross.

So it was a usual meal, the most common of deeds for any traveller, which, at last, immediately opened their eyes after long explanations about Scriptures. Unrelated to the Last Supper and the Institution of just three days before. ….

I don’t see a reason to read a second Lord’s Supper into “breaking bread”. I note that they were kept from recognizing him (v. 16) As such, that they recognized him had to do with God opening their eyes at that particular time and not with breaking bread in and of itself.

 

[KathleenGee]

The breaking of bread is a Jewish custom…and it is very deeply meaningful how the Sacred Species are venerated and protected after Mass, not thrown away as garbage.

I attended a hospice case. The son brought the father bread and wine. Then I heard the son say prayers…I felt Christ’s presence there among them and their faith making this reception sacred…later I found the glass with drops of wine and pieces of bread in the kitchen sink. This will sound terrible to people, but I took my finger and drew the drop of wine in the cup, and took the crumbs to consume…I cannot say they were transubstantiated, but they were blessed to me, a sacred meeting among them. I just couldn’t throw anything down the sink, irregardless.

I also thank the Church for again, raising the bar to appreciate and sense the sacred around us in such a highly fractured and disposable society.

 

[Mike2010]

That would depend greatly on the symbol, right? Let’s say the symbol for Christ was an Ark or a Rock…such symbols would be hard to eat. On the other hand, let’s say the symbol for the true Bread of Life (aka Jesus) was manna, now isn’t that symbol not only easy to eat, but actually intended for consumption?

Let’s remember that manna was the bread of the Old Testament, and whoever ate it did not get eternal life. It is literally Christ in the appearence of unleavened bread that is the bread of salvation. Christ is the bread of life, and he who eats His body and drinks His blood will live forever.

Manna bread was a symbol. The Eucharist that Christ gave to us in the Last Supper is not a mere symbol, but literally His body.

Why do you think that some of His disciples found it too hard to believe, and left? They would not have found this too hard to believe if Christ was speaking symbolically.
I think that should be: “With the words ‘Take, eat’ Christ calls upon us to eat with the mouth, and asserts that what He puts into our mouth and we receive orally the symbol of His body.”
I thought Christ connected the bread to “eat” and the cup to “drink”. Perhaps, the contention of the Catholics (and Lutheran’s?) that Christ’s body is really present for the mouth, robs the verbs eat and drink of the things Christ connected with them, namely the bread and wine."

With all due respect, it seems that you spent a lot of words in your first post to essentially demonstrate that modern english translations are pretty good…am I missing something?
I would suggest that the new feature instituted by Christ is that he will give his body and pour out his blood for us on the cross as the sacrifice for our sins. We are to look to that sacrifice as it is what really matters to the Lord, the high and important part of the new covenant.
To be very candid, the “Is always means is” argument strikes me as being extremely unsophisticated or …who can’t think of a figure of speech that utilizes “is” in that manner? So let me simply respond at this time by asking this question (which I have asked here before):

Why should we take the “is” of “this is my body” literally and not do the same for the “is” in the following verses:

"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:50

“For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:35

Why shouldn’t I (except for a tendency to apply common sense) conclude that the substance of Mary and the other members of Christ’s family are miraculously present behind/under/whatever the accidents of any disciple’s body…surely can’t be b/c God wouldn’t have the ability to make such a thing happen. I will also be interested to see what is said when you get to Luke where the cup is the new covenant.

I am still having a real hard time understanding why I don’t have other options…

.

 

[KathleenGee]

Guess there are all kinds of people…and there are those who are impassioned with questioning down to the bottom of things…it takes all kinds…

It is a grace to believe in the Eucharist. I am not able to part grace to help others believe in Him…

 

[Mike2010]

I urge all those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to read the beliefs and words of the early Church Fathers themselves. St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatious of Antioch, St Clement of Alexandria, etc. All of whom were alive during or were direct studyers of the Apostles. You may be shocked what you actually find.

I would also like to point out that it wasn’t until the years around 1500 that the symbolic view came to be. Even the Orthodox and Coptics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - and this still took 1,000 years for them to break off from the Church.

The fact is that all Christians believed in the Real Presence up until the 1500’s (minus probably a few who rejected it like the apostles in John 6 who had no faith in what Jesus was teaching them).

 

[KathleenGee]

So true, Mike, only if…people post these same remarks as you…but there are those who refuse to believe.

 

[Radical]

The point on Iggy is duly taken. If Ignatius is quite possibly RP, than how on earth can we be comfortable that Asia Minor came before Syria in this “late” development ?

Please note that I would lump Syria in with Asia Minor and I didn’t say Asia Minor before Syria

The context you correctly mention fully explains that Eucharists without bishops are illicit. It does not explain why they are not proper, or real Eucharists at all. In other words we’re not told simply we are not allowed without bishops to celebrate the Eucharist. We simply are not able to. Again: no bishops, no Eucharist.

IMHO you are trying to make way too much out of such a fine distinction. For Ignatius it was that anyone separated from the bishop was separated from the church and that a Eucharist or a baptism or anything done outside of the church was not valid. This is about a monarchical bishop and not about a RBP.

And you may note how a Catholic understanding fits with Iggy’s position.

I think you mean that I might note how a Catholic understanding fits with a realistic interpretation of Iggy’s words…and I might also note how a Anabaptist understanding of the Lord’s Supper fits with a figurative interpretation of Iggy’s words.

Coming from that tradition you know well it looks like Zwinglian **NRPer’s, **in their then brand new ruling position, succeeded in being the first ones to start drowning Anabaptists. January 5 1527.

Tis amazing that Christians of all stripes resorted to violence so readily…and in the name of the Lord no less. The only group that was able to keep blood off their hands was that group which rejected violence and stayed true to that rejection. I think the anabaptists came the closest by far.

Maybe we could just prayerfully say with the Lord: “If any one of you ( who were even briefly in ruling position in those times ) is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone .”

True. Pity that some Catholic, Lutheran or Zwinglian didn’t read that passage and realize: “If any one of you (who were even briefly in a ruling position in those times ) is without sin, let him be the first to drown an Anabaptist”?

The best answer that to my poor knowledge I can honestly give is: the Catholic Church. You appear to prefer to draw the lines by yourself. As many other guys do ( I mean that … they draw their own lines, not that they stick to yours, at least those I could know )

I am comfortable with others drawing the line at different spots than do I (within some boundaries of course). As indciated, I see quite a range of views in existence in the early church and so, quite a range of views (achieved by various line drawers) is not w/o precedent. Sure there will be some that draw the line too far away and, I guess, their early church counterpart would be the gnostics.

Which maybe means that not always Revelation plays according to our own cherished categories.

True, very true.

We’re probably reaching a wall here. Are we ?

yep

I dare propose anyway this exercise.
Let’s read the following verses and then the tales of the Institution.
Reading 1…Reading 3

The Apostles on the Institution: “Strange, He had never spoken about giving us a bread
and eating His body”

Which one is the best ?

Did you leave out a Reading 3 for John? In any event, I doubt that any of your options would reflect my view. I would suggest looking at passages such as:

John 6: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Matt 16: From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, LORD!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
Luke 22: 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Luke 24: He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Somewhere around Luke 24 the disciples probably figured it out and realized Christ had to give his body as a sacrifice (and pour out his blood in the process) to gain forgiveness of sin and eternal life for his followers. They would have then understood that when he talked about giving his body and eternal life in John 6, he was anticipating the cross and that at the institution he was also pointing ahead to the cross.

 

[pneuma07]

Thanks

As you can see, I am not in a hurry myself…and I will be trying to keep my answers as short as possible.

Dear Radical,

I’m waiting for the conclusion of this reply of yours before answering, while chewing a little bit your last posts.

I’m struggling to be disciplined.

Probably my connections aren’t going to be easy after Monday for several days.

Bless you.
P7