The Protestant Communion

[Randy_Carson]

The command was “take, eat”, not “take, understand”.

As a friend of mine once wrote.

GKC

How satisfied would you be if a Catholic said, “Don’t try to understand, just obey” in the course of a discussion on papal infallibility?

C’mon…God gave us intellect and reason.

 

[SteveVH]

How satisfied would you be if a Catholic said, “Don’t try to understand, just obey” in the course of a discussion on papal infallibility?

C’mon…God gave us intellect and reason.

When the five thousand left Jesus because he told them that unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood they would have no life in them, he then turned to the Apostles and asked “Will you leave also?”. They didn’t respond with “No, Lord, we understand what you are saying. Not sure what their problem is”. Instead they responded “To whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life”.

They didn’t understand it. They believed because of the One who told them. Believing Jesus’ words is enough. If one wishes to pursue their understanding further, wonderful.

 

[GKC]

How satisfied would you be if a Catholic said, “Don’t try to understand, just obey” in the course of a discussion on papal infallibility?

C’mon…God gave us intellect and reason.

I know my limits.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

When the five thousand left Jesus because he told them that unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood they would have no life in them, he then turned to the Apostles and asked “Will you leave also?”. They didn’t respond with “No, Lord, we understand what you are saying. Not sure what their problem is”. Instead they responded “To whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life”.

They didn’t understand it. They believed because of the One who told them. Believing Jesus’ words is enough. If one wishes to pursue their understanding further, wonderful.

I am not saying that we should not have faith. Your example is excellent.

What I am saying is that we can try to understand that which we believe.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know my limits.

GKC

If only Luther had known his.

If someone wanted to overthrow 1,500 years of Church teaching on a subject, it would have been good for him to give us a bit more, don’t you think?

 

[JonNC]

If only Luther had known his.

If someone wanted to overthrow 1,500 years of Church teaching on a subject, it would have been good for him to give us a bit more, don’t you think?

But Luther didn’t overturn 1500 years, because the Church had not taught Transub. for 1500 years, and it is still not taught as Rome teaches it in Orthodoxy.
In fact, Luther in his time was as staunch a defender of the Real Presence as anyone. While it might have been easy enough to distance himself from Rome on this subject, into the welcoming arms of Zwingli, Carlstadt, and later Calvin, instead he writes:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

But Luther didn’t overturn 1500 years, because the Church had not taught Transub. for 1500 years, and it is still not taught as Rome teaches it in Orthodoxy.
In fact, Luther in his time was as staunch a defender of the Real Presence as anyone. While it might have been easy enough to distance himself from Rome on this subject, into the welcoming arms of Zwingli, Carlstadt, and later Calvin, instead he writes:

Jon

You have a point…two, actually, Jon.

Luther maintained a belief in the real presence, and the Church did not use the term “transubstantiation” from the very beginning, so “1,500 years” was hyperbole on my part.

Still…

 

[JonNC]

How satisfied would you be if a Catholic said, “Don’t try to understand, just obey” in the course of a discussion on papal infallibility?

C’mon…God gave us intellect and reason.

I think, Randy, the difference is Christ said, “This is my body”. OTOH, no mention of infallibility for any of the apostles.

If we are to use our intellect and reason, as I agree we are, one area ISTM where we can use it well is in differentiating between that which should be dogmatically defined - the real presence- and that which is reasonable human speculation on the hows of the mystery.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You have a point…two, actually, Jon.

Luther maintained a belief in the real presence, and the Church did not use the term “transubstantiation” from the very beginning, so “1,500 years” was hyperbole on my part.

Still…

The thing is, Randy, if the CC were to say, we believe that Transub. expresses for us the totality of the real presence - body, blood, soul and divinity. Sacramental union, OTOH, leaves us feeling a bit short. However, we recognize in Lutheran belief a belief in the real presence that is felt as strongly as ours, that we both confess, “this is my body”.
Therefore, let us not be divided by a mutual doctrine.
I suspect most Lutherans wouldn’t care less if you believed Transub., because we in turn know of your love for the Eucharist.

Jon

 

[liturgyluver]

So I guess you covered this:

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Thank you for the giant text - I am still in my early fifties and have no need for glasses. This was certainly one aspect of what we covered but we went right back to the the early Christian meals and the particpants. Fr Ignatius who is based in the Vatican gave a fascinating account of Jewish and early Chrsitian meal practices and how scholarship shows a great lack of consistency both of application, and how the association of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ was not made universally in these early celebrations.

The sacrificial interpretation that the Church attributes to Tertullian (and to some elements of Justin Martyr’s work) did not emerge before the third century. At the same time despite the emergence of consecratory and innvocatory elements to some of the prayers at this time, writers such as Origen were saying explicitly that "God the Word was not saying that the visible bread was holding in his hands was his body but rather the word in whose , in whose mystery the bread was to be broken. What is clear is that the transition from full meal to rite emerged gradualy from the third century, and also gradully the prayers used, which were at first extemporized shifted focus from thansgiving to sacrifice.

 

[GKC]

If only Luther had known his.

If someone wanted to overthrow 1,500 years of Church teaching on a subject, it would have been good for him to give us a bit more, don’t you think?

Seems reasonable.

GKC.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you for the giant text - I am still in my early fifties and have no need for glasses. This was certainly one aspect of what we covered but we went right back to the the early Christian meals and the particpants. Fr Ignatius who is based in the Vatican gave a fascinating account of Jewish and early Chrsitian meal practices and how scholarship shows a great lack of consistency both of application, and how the association of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ was not made universally in these early celebrations.

The sacrificial interpretation that the Church attributes to Tertullian (and to some elements of Justin Martyr’s work) did not emerge before the third century. At the same time despite the emergence of consecratory and innvocatory elements to some of the prayers at this time, writers such as Origen were saying explicitly that "God the Word was not saying that the visible bread was holding in his hands was his body but rather the word in whose , in whose mystery the bread was to be broken. What is clear is that the transition from full meal to rite emerged gradualy from the third century, and also gradully the prayers used, which were at first extemporized shifted focus from thansgiving to sacrifice.

You are welcome - I am entering my late forties and I am in dire need of glasses.

How can St. Justin’s work not enter before the third century when he wrote in the 2nd century?

Ignatius of Antioch (Again 2nd century) writes in his letter to the Romans:

CHAPTER VII.–REASON OF DESIRING TO DIE.

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Irenaeus of Lyons (Again 2nd Century) - Against Heresies Book 4 - Chapter XVIII - 5

1. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned.But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

These are all prior to the 3rd century and before them it was the Apostles.

I really would not pay attention to some dissenting voices because it is pretty obvious what the New Testament says about it and Justin, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus just seal it.

 

[liturgyluver]

You are welcome - I am entering my late forties and I am in dire need of glasses.

How can St. Justin’s work not enter before the third century when he wrote in the 2nd century?

Ignatius of Antioch (Again 2nd century) writes in his letter to the Romans:

Irenaeus of Lyons (Again 2nd Century) - Against Heresies Book 4 - Chapter XVIII - 5

These are all prior to the 3rd century and before them it was the Apostles.

I really would not pay attention to some dissenting voices because it is pretty obvious what the New Testament says about it and Justin, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus just seal it.

The point I was making is that although Justin’s work was eventually to form the standard pattern of Eucharistic rites, this was not until the fourth century onwards. At the time of his writing there was no uniformity of practice.

 

[JonNC]

The bolded from Jose’s post above:

Ignatius

I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Irenaeus

For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

A Lutheran could argue that these dispute Transubstantiation, and support the sacramental union, because they both use bread and body interchangeably.

But I won’t. I won’t because neither of these fathers would have had knowledge of the nature of the 16th century dispute. Instead, we all might be better off understanding the Eucharist as they, and the other Fathers did. “This is my body.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

If only Luther had known his.

If someone wanted to overthrow 1,500 years of Church teaching on a subject, it would have been good for him to give us a bit more, don’t you think?

Seems reasonable.

GKC.

I’m sure he wrote lots lots more on the subject.
You two are more knowledgeable and probably more widely read than I am. Can either of you think of a Christian theologian who wrote more, and is published more than Luther?

Jon

 

[GKC]

I’m sure he wrote lots lots more on the subject.
You two are more knowledgeable and probably more widely read than I am. Can either of you think of a Christian theologian who wrote more, and is published more than Luther?

Jon

Calvin?

Not my specific sandbox, though.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The point I was making is that although Justin’s work was eventually to form the standard pattern of Eucharistic rites, this was not until the fourth century onwards. At the time of his writing there was no uniformity of practice.

Sources please?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m sure he wrote lots lots more on the subject.
You two are more knowledgeable and probably more widely read than I am. Can either of you think of a Christian theologian who wrote more, and is published more than Luther?

Jon

St. Paul

 

[liturgyluver]

Sources please?

I would recommend Professor Paul Bradshaw’ and Maxwell Johnson’s books on Eucharistic Liturgies as a brilliant overview of the development of Eucharistic Liturgies. There is also his Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. There are loads of articles in the journal Studia Liturgica. The other references were Harald Buchinger Jewish and Christian Liturgy in Worship and William Schneemelcher New Testament Apocrypha II.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think, Randy, the difference is Christ said, “This is my body”. OTOH, no mention of infallibility for any of the apostles.

If we are to use our intellect and reason, as I agree we are, one area ISTM where we can use it well is in differentiating between that which should be dogmatically defined - the real presence- and that which is reasonable human speculation on the hows of the mystery.

Jon

Jon-

There is no direct mention of the trinity, either.

And you know I could pull out a whole bunch of scriptures in support of infallibility… :yup: