Unity in the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
liturgyluver said:
Actually if you read books about Eucharistic origins, they are consistent in saying that the concept of the real presence wasn’t at all the belief from the begining. This view actually became prevalent from the fourth century onwards. There was certainly an incremental development to the Eucharistic prayers - and no unity in the Western Church.
Click to expand...
Can we get some titles of those books? Christ made it very clear as to what the bread and wine we to be. I like to believe him over “books” IMHO. 😉
 
aidanbradypop said:
I was lazy…lol…but I went back to 7 again lol

Honestly, I am just fine with the Lutheran and Anglican view of the Eucharist. Of course it is not my belief, but I respect that Lutherans and Anglicans accept some form of the RP. I would hope and pray some denominations to do not see it as a quarterly snack 😉 but coming from a Southern Baptist background, they believe one can go their whole life without ever taking it. Some Baptist congregations I have been to have actually made it once a year on a Wed night. 🤷 Those are the ones that we should educate on the Eucharist. Agree?
Click to expand...
That’s interesteing for the few people I know in Churches that teach it’s not real presence
Commune much less frequently.
 
aidanbradypop said:
Can we get some titles of those books? Christ made it very clear as to what the bread and wine we to be. I like to believe him over “books” IMHO. 😉
Click to expand...
Enrico Mazza The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer and Prof. Paul Bradshaw’s Eucharistic Origins are excellent resources.

Both Catholic and non-Catholic theologians agree that the early Eucharists were shared meals similar to jewish ritual meals. Only as perseution diminished did they gradually evolve into a similar pattern to the current western shape. The petition to consecrate the bread and wine did not emerge until the 4th century - and even then in western rites was positioned prior to the institution narrative.
 
liturgyluver said:
Enrico Mazza The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer and Prof. Paul Bradshaw’s Eucharistic Origins are excellent resources.

Both Catholic and non-Catholic theologians agree that the early Eucharists were shared meals similar to jewish ritual meals. Only as perseution diminished did they gradually evolve into a similar pattern to the current western shape. The petition to consecrate the bread and wine did not emerge until the 4th century - and even then in western rites was positioned prior to the institution narrative.
Click to expand...
Church teaching places the origin of the Eucharist in the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples. That would be your first offical Eucharist.

The earliest extant written account of a Christian eucharistia (Greek: thanksgiving) is that in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (around AD 55), in which St. Paul relates “eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord” in the celebration of a “Supper of the Lord” to the Last Supper of Jesus some 25 years earlier. St. Paul considers that in celebrating the rite they were fulfilling a mandate to do so. The Acts of the Apostles presents the early Christians as meeting for “the breaking of bread” as some sort of ceremony.

It emerge both the 4th century, but you are right in that once the Church was “free” it became well known. I remember reading something from Justin Martyr around 150 AD about the celebration of the Eucharist. That points to earlier than the 4th century.

I think we are gettng off topic. Sorry 😊
 
aidanbradypop said:
Church teaching places the origin of the Eucharist in the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples. That would be your first offical Eucharist.

The earliest extant written account of a Christian eucharistia (Greek: thanksgiving) is that in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (around AD 55), in which St. Paul relates “eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord” in the celebration of a “Supper of the Lord” to the Last Supper of Jesus some 25 years earlier. St. Paul considers that in celebrating the rite they were fulfilling a mandate to do so. The Acts of the Apostles presents the early Christians as meeting for “the breaking of bread” as some sort of ceremony.

It emerge both the 4th century, but you are right in that once the Church was “free” it became well known. I remember reading something from Justin Martyr around 150 AD about the celebration of the Eucharist. That points to earlier than the 4th century.

I think we are gettng off topic. Sorry 😊
Click to expand...
Justin Martyr described the 2nd century practice known to him but there was no consecration - he talks of giving thanks as best they can. What’s interesting is that there was such variation in structure between different communities. But you are right, we digress.
 
40.png
SteveVH:
It is my contention that there will never be unity between Christians until there is unity in belief and practice of the Eucharist. It is, after all, the purpose of the Eucharist; to bring unity between God and man in Jesus Christ, which is the entire mission of the Church.

Is this a deal breaker as far as your faith tradition is concerned?

[from a different post]
The rejection of the true presence of Christ; body, blood, soul and divinity. This was the belief of the Church always, since the beginning. That belief; that doctrine, has been rejected.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that clarification. Others have touched on the historicity of that doctrine, which would make an interesting study, but the simple answer is that, yes, that would be a deal breaker. As I look at the canons from Trent, session XIII, there are some that I don’t really understand or know if they apply, but at least canons 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 would be deal-breakers from my particular Anglican faith tradition.
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT13.HTM
The idea for the thread came as a result of many non-Catholic statements on other threads that seem to place the Eucharist in the non-essential column as far as what it means to be a Christian.
Click to expand...
By your definition, I reject the Eucharist, but the Lord’s Supper is far from non-essential in every church I’ve attended. Whatever differences exist in different denominational understandings of what’s happening in it or the frequency of observing it, the Lord’s Supper is one of two ordinances commanded by Christ to do, and that alone makes it essential.
 
Jr…coming from Reformed Theology>Lutheran>Anglican, you have made great strides when it comes to the views of the Eucharist. That fact must not b ignored. 😉 I find som unity in that.
 
jrtrent said:
By your definition, I reject the Eucharist, but the Lord’s Supper is far from non-essential in every church I’ve attended. Whatever differences exist in different denominational understandings of what’s happening in it or the frequency of observing it, the Lord’s Supper is one of two ordinances commanded by Christ to do, and that alone makes it essential.
Click to expand...
But Christ does not just make commandments willy nilly. The reason he commanded us to do it is because it is essential; “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will have no life in you.” Do you see the difference? It is not essential because Christ commanded it; he commanded it because it is essential. And it is essential because it is the body and blood of the Lord and through his body and blood we are reunited to God. We are not united through a symbol. He truly becomes a part of us and we a part of him. There is true unity.
 
aidanbradypop said:
I was lazy…lol…but I went back to 7 again lol

Honestly, I am just fine with the Lutheran and Anglican view of the Eucharist. Of course it is not my belief, but I respect that Lutherans and Anglicans accept some form of the RP. I would hope and pray some denominations to do not see it as a quarterly snack 😉 but coming from a Southern Baptist background, they believe one can go their whole life without ever taking it. Some Baptist congregations I have been to have actually made it once a year on a Wed night. 🤷 Those are the ones that we should educate on the Eucharist. Agree?
Click to expand...
I agree, pop, with the point of your post, but I would not characterize our belief in the real presence as “some form” of it. We believe precisely what Christ said it is; the body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the remission of sins.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I agree, pop, with the point of your post, but I would not characterize our belief in the real presence as “some form” of it. We believe precisely what Christ said it is; the body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the remission of sins.

Jon
Click to expand...
As do we. 😉

bustedhalo.com/questionbox/what-exactly-is-the-difference-between-catholic-and-lutheran-belief-in-communion-they-sound-pretty-alike-to-me

I did not mean to set your beliefs aside by saying “some form.” I will gladly take it back. 👍
 
JonNC said:
I agree, pop, with the point of your post, but I would not characterize our belief in the real presence as “some form” of it. We believe precisely what Christ said it is; the body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the remission of sins.

Here in this Lutheran Church they also say “in with and under” during the Sacrament.
What exactly does that mean?
(This is a LCMS Church)
On second thought; never mind; it probably means what it says… in with and uder.
I’ll try to grab a worship bulletin and I can quote it exactly.
I’ve always found that interesting for that is not what Christ said. “in with and under”
I assume (maybe wrongly) it’s to differentiate between the Catholic understanding
that includes transubstation.
Mary.

Jon
Click to expand...
 
Whoops…transubstantiation…what a word 🙂 I’ll have to double check the spelling later.
That said here they reject consubstantiation which some Lutherans say Lutherans teach.
There’s a reason the Catholic Church practices closed Communion even with those Church denominations that have some form of real presence.

In our opinion it’s not “close” enough.

That said I recognize from Pastor Gary’s posts this varies in the Lutheran Church.
 
MaryT777 said:
Whoops…transubstantiation…what a word 🙂 I’ll have to double check the spelling later.
That said here they reject consubstantiation which some Lutherans say Lutherans teach.
There’s a reason the Catholic Church practices closed Communion even with those Church denominations that have some form of real presence.

In our opinion it’s not “close” enough.

That said I recognize from Pastor Gary’s posts this varies in the Lutheran Church.
Click to expand...
Find me a Lutheran theologian, or an official Lutheran document, that says we teach consubstantiation.

Jon
 
SteveVH said:
There have been more than a few threads that concern the unity of Christians. And while the topic has been addressed in these threads it is for the most part brushed aside. Attemptes are usually made to define the minimal standards on which all Christians must agree; the Trinity, belief in Jesus as one’s Savior, acceptance of God’s grace, etc…

It occurs to me, however, that the Catholic Church does not claim the doctrine of the Trinity as the source and summit of its faith, but rather the Eucharist. Yet this, most important of all things Christian, according to Catholic belief, is so easily dismissed. ** It is my contention that there will never be unity between Christians until there is unity in belief and practice of the Eucharist. ** It is, after all, the purpose of the Eucharist; to bring unity between God and man in Jesus Christ, which is the entire mission of the Church.

Is this a deal breaker as far as your faith tradition is concerned?
Click to expand...
The bold part is spot on in my opinion, specifically the sacrifice of the Mass, something believed by no one in the non-Catholic sphere.
 
SteveVH said:
Thanks for this. Sounds like the Anglicans are much further away from the Catholic position than are Lutherans. I feel like I should have known that. :o
Click to expand...
That surprised me too when I discovered it long ago…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top