Holy Communion analogy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cailte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cailte

Guest
Well - I have tried to start a thread before but somehow it never worked so I am trying again.

I have a serious question about some comments I have recently heard from Catholic ‘scholars’. My church ran a course by Edward Sri on the Mass - “A Biblical Walk through the Mass”. It is was a simple enough formula of reading his book and watching a video of a lecture and then sitting in a group answering some set questions.

My problem is this - when it came to the section on the Eucharist Sri quite blatantly compared the experience of receiving communion to the ‘marriage act’ yes, to the intercourse between bride and groom, husband and wife. I was deeply offended and said so in the group - there was a mixed reaction of some people actually saying that for them comparing Communion to the sexual act was fine.

Now, previously I have heard Scott Hahn say the same thing in reference to receiving Communion - that it is lke him inserting himself into his wife [his words]. He said this on EWTN with his wife sitting next to him.

I know that mystical marriage is an old symbol in the old and new testaments - but the corporeal marriage act is just a leap way too far for me. Has this now become an acceptable part of the narrative around Communion?

I am a conservative, traditionalist - I know this. But surely this is offensive language to use to the most important part of Cathodic worship? Could someone help me deal with this please. It is very upsetting to me.
Thanks.
 
I haven’t posted too often and don’t know my way around so if a mod wants to move it that would be fine. I would just like to get some answers to this issue.
 
Cailte said:
Well - I have tried to start a thread before but somehow it never worked so I am trying again.

I have a serious question about some comments I have recently heard from Catholic ‘scholars’. My church ran a course by Edward Sri on the Mass - “A Biblical Walk through the Mass”. It is was a simple enough formula of reading his book and watching a video of a lecture and then sitting in a group answering some set questions.

My problem is this - when it came to the section on the Eucharist Sri quite blatantly compared the experience of receiving communion to the ‘marriage act’ yes, to the intercourse between bride and groom, husband and wife. I was deeply offended and said so in the group - there was a mixed reaction of some people actually saying that for them comparing Communion to the sexual act was fine.

Now, previously I have heard Scott Hahn say the same thing in reference to receiving Communion - that it is lke him inserting himself into his wife [his words]. He said this on EWTN with his wife sitting next to him.

I know that mystical marriage is an old symbol in the old and new testaments - but the corporeal marriage act is just a leap way too far for me. Has this now become an acceptable part of the narrative around Communion?

I am a conservative, traditionalist - I know this. But surely this is offensive language to use to the most important part of Cathodic worship? Could someone help me deal with this please. It is very upsetting to me.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Well i find it as a clear desecration of the most holy sacrament.

The communion is the live presence of the body and blood of Christ. Reception of this in anyway CANNOT be compared to the sexual intercourse act under any circumstance. Sexual intercourse/ conjugal union is not a sacrament. Whereas the Eucharist is a sacrament where at the reception of it we receive inward graces. We have the Corpus Christi, Eucharistic adoration, benedictions not because it’s something similar to sexual union. The Scripture and the Tradition would not give higher value to the Eucharist if it were to be undermined as such. It is sacred in all possible way, that’s why we have so many rules and procedures for the reception of the Eucharist.

Hence in no possible way can the Holy Eucharist be compared to the sexual union!
 
Yep. I’ve seen this other places around as well.

It seems inappropriate. I’ve been told to read “Theology of the Body” again… But nope… I still can’t go there personally.
 
it is the same analogy used by Christ and Paul so why the upset?

the reception of Holy Communion is not being compared to the marriage act.

all the speakers cited are repeating the teaching of Christ himself that marriage, specifically the marriage act which makes marriage possible, is an icon or type of the union between Christ and the Church, his bride, not the other way around. That is why heaven is called the wedding supper of the Lamb in the communion rite of the Mass.

disgust with the analogy reveals some disgust about the marriage act, and a disregard of its sacramental nature, which originates as do all the other sacraments in the Eucharist.
 
InspiritCarol said:
Yep. I’ve seen this other places around as well.

It seems inappropriate. I’ve been told to read “Theology of the Body” again… But nope… I still can’t go there personally.
Click to expand...
Neither can I. I have read parts of Theology of the Body and commentary on it and it seems clear to me that the Christian God is not meant in any way to be taken as sexual. The Bride/Groom analogy I have no problem with - I said this already but turning God into a sexual creature goes beyond anything that I have ever believed.

The pagan gods - many of them - were sexual and that to me is one distinction. In fact the original Halloween - Oice Samain- was a celebration of the Celtic Gods mating. The male Dagha and the female Morrigan mate on the night of Oice Samain or what we now called Halloween.

I have to confess to being really upset at the idea of Holy Communion being described as a sexual act.
 
puzzleannie said:
the reception of Holy Communion is not being compared to the marriage act.
Click to expand...
In Sri’s book he does. He uses the term ‘marriage act’ and then immediately goes on to say that “Likewise” in communion we do the same thing.

Scott Hahn was quite explicit in the interview I saw on EWTN in comparing his sexual act with this wife and Holy Communion…
 
I concur with puzzleannie here, as a recently married man.

Too many people make the sexual act a trivial thing, but that doesn’t take away from its sacramental role in a valid marriage. There are many reasons why Christ compares himself as a bridegroom and the Church as his bride.

The conjugal act is not a “disgusting” behavior. It is a strictly necessary action for the propagation of the human race. Further, it strengthens the marriage bond. A strong married couple creates children, raising them strong in the faith, which is a blessing to the Body of Christ and His Church.

You shouldn’t throw the sexual act aside only because others abuse it. Not everyone does. The Church recognizes its importance, which is why it councils the faithful on its use.

The book “Theology of the Body” (compiled from the writings of Blessed Pope JPII) is a helpful text on treating our bodies as holy temples and to reserve them for the marital act. There is nothing shameful here, any more than the consumption of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ–an act that a few non-Catholics see wrongly as cannibalism.
 
Spencerian said:
I concur with puzzleannie here, as a recently married man.

Too many people make the sexual act a trivial thing, but that doesn’t take away from its sacramental role in a valid marriage. There are many reasons why Christ compares himself as a bridegroom and the Church as his bride.

The conjugal act is not a “disgusting” behavior. It is a strictly necessary action for the propagation of the human race. Further, it strengthens the marriage bond. A strong married couple creates children, raising them strong in the faith, which is a blessing to the Body of Christ and His Church.

You shouldn’t throw the sexual act aside only because others abuse it. Not everyone does. The Church recognizes its importance, which is why it councils the faithful on its use.

The book “Theology of the Body” (compiled from the writings of Blessed Pope JPII) is a helpful text on treating our bodies as holy temples and to reserve them for the marital act. There is nothing shameful here, any more than the consumption of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ–an act that a few non-Catholics see wrongly as cannibalism.
Click to expand...
Well I have no problem with the conjugal act being made holy by the church - which is the order of things and I understand its place within sacred marriage. But I do have a problem with God being turned sexual.
 
My guess would be that he’s saying that just as in the marriage act the couple becomes “one” so too do we become “one” with Christ when we receive communion…
 
NewEnglandPries said:
My guess would be that he’s saying that just as in the marriage act the couple becomes “one” so too do we become “one” with Christ when we receive communion…
Click to expand...
Hmmm. That seems problematic to me, since my understanding of “becoming one” with Christ is being incorporated into Him and being made part of Him. The union in marriage seems to be a different thing. . . or, if anything, the union of a couple into Christ . . . not one member of the couple being incorporated into the other.

Curious.

VC
 
Cailte said:
Well I have no problem with the conjugal act being made holy by the church - which is the order of things and I understand its place within sacred marriage. But I do have a problem with God being turned sexual.
Click to expand...
Try it this way.

The mystical union of Christ to His Bride, the Church, generates eternal life. Without this union, there is no life. It’s a metaphysical union, analogous to a sexual union, which also generates life. The nature of sex is the best one we can use here as an analogy because it is the most intimate and innate combination that’s a part of all life.

The union occurs through the Holy Eucharist, in which we receive, and is maintained, managed and created through other Sacraments (such as the Sacrament of Marriage).

God, in the incarnate form of Christ, is a man. Therefore He has a gender. So did his mother, who bore him through the natural manner of childbirth. Having assumed all that is humanity except in sin, Christ must have done all the natural human processes such as eating as well as waste management. Obviously He was not sexually active Himself, but His teachings do not condemn this for others when done in the way God defined.

In short, it seems that your distaste comes from separating the sex from the sexual. It’s a fine line today, I know, but in the metaphysical union of God and His Church, there’s no “icky” to it. There is a sexual overtone to it all because Christ defined it as such.

That same overtone you seem to find distasteful is also an important definition when the question of women priests come up. Christ is a man, and His Church is feminine in that the two, together, generate eternal life. Two women, mystically or otherwise, cannot create life.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Hmmm. That seems problematic to me, since my understanding of “becoming one” with Christ is being incorporated into Him and being made part of Him. The union in marriage seems to be a different thing. . . or, if anything, the union of a couple into Christ . . . not one member of the couple being incorporated into the other.

Curious.

VC
Click to expand...
Well, all analogies fall short to one degree or another…
 
The mystic saints know this very well. It is in no way scandalous. Bishop Fulton Sheen remarks about the crucifixion, and what is happening there is “Holy Nuptials”.

Read the saints commentary on the song of songs. Read Theology of the Body.

Above the altar in the Cathedral Basilica in St. Louis is a mosaic of a bed. The altar is the priest’s marriage bed.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Well, all analogies fall short to one degree or another…
Click to expand...
Certainly. But, what gives me pause is that the crux of the analogy, that there is a union, is where it falls short. In one the union involves an incorporation, in the other a partnership.

This difficulty seems highlighted when I consider that all of us are called into the union with Christ, whereas the union between husband and wife is exclusive to each other.

I’m just saying – I can understand misgivings with the analogy, and not just based on it being unpalatable, but rather based aptness or theological considerations.

VC
 
Cailte said:
Well - I have tried to start a thread before but somehow it never worked so I am trying again.

I have a serious question about some comments I have recently heard from Catholic ‘scholars’. My church ran a course by Edward Sri on the Mass - “A Biblical Walk through the Mass”. It is was a simple enough formula of reading his book and watching a video of a lecture and then sitting in a group answering some set questions.

My problem is this - when it came to the section on the Eucharist Sri quite blatantly compared the experience of receiving communion to the ‘marriage act’ yes, to the intercourse between bride and groom, husband and wife. I was deeply offended and said so in the group - there was a mixed reaction of some people actually saying that for them comparing Communion to the sexual act was fine.

Now, previously I have heard Scott Hahn say the same thing in reference to receiving Communion - that it is lke him inserting himself into his wife [his words]. He said this on EWTN with his wife sitting next to him.

I know that mystical marriage is an old symbol in the old and new testaments - but the corporeal marriage act is just a leap way too far for me. Has this now become an acceptable part of the narrative around Communion?

I am a conservative, traditionalist - I know this. But surely this is offensive language to use to the most important part of Cathodic worship? Could someone help me deal with this please. It is very upsetting to me.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
I used Sri’s series my parish. I found his description of recieving communion very beautiful. It is perhaps how one sees the sex in a marriage. If it is viewed as the total love and of giving of oneself to the other, it is then seen as a blessed gifted from God. In te Eucharist we are experinacing Christ totally giving himself to us and in return our selves to Him. Sri’s description in to emphisis this kind of self giving love thast we get from Christ and then are called to give to each other. Sex veiwed as a act of self giving love instead something being dirty is a beatiful thing.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Certainly. But, what gives me pause is that the crux of the analogy, that there is a union, is where it falls short. In one the union involves an incorporation, in the other a partnership.

This difficulty seems highlighted when I consider that all of us are called into the union with Christ, whereas the union between husband and wife is exclusive to each other.

I’m just saying – I can understand misgivings with the analogy, and not just based on it being unpalatable, but rather based aptness or theological considerations.

VC
Click to expand...
In all honesty it doesn’t appear that people are objecting to the “exclusive” vs. “inclusive” union theology but rather that something as “pure” as communion would be compared to something as “dirty” as marital relations…
 
the union accomplished in the sacrament of matrimony through the marriage act–the matter of the sacrament being the bodies of the two parties–is an analogy of the communion accomplished by Christ with his Church through the Eucharist, not the other way around.

To reject this is to reject the full implications not only of matrimony and the sacramental economy, but of the Incarnation and the Eucharist. This mystical language has been used by Christian commentators throughout the ages, it is not new to Sri, Hahn, or Christopher West–nor to Pope John Paul II, articulator of the Theology of the Body.

If you think there is someing inherently impure in the marriage act within a valid marriage, I can’t help you that is a matter for professional counselling.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
In all honesty it doesn’t appear that people are objecting to the “exclusive” vs. “inclusive” union theology but rather that something as “pure” as communion would be compared to something as “dirty” as marital relations…
Click to expand...
I’m curious as to whether those who consider the marital act to be “non-sacramental” or “dirty” somehow have ever been married…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top