The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[SoothingDave]

Why, in heavens name, did you go to so much trouble to tell me you don't know the "Laws of the Universe"?

Why do engineers like Star Trek? These things just are.

SD

[SoothingDave]

As I said to IMRight, I guess I did know it but never really thought about the implications. It just strikes me as very odd.

I find it odd that you never contemplated this before. Are you thinking about coming back? ;-)

The idea of God being physically present in our Tabernacles is a fulfillment of the time in the desert, when God traveled with the Israelites. God had a physical presence in the world then. He does now, but He is not limited to just one location.

The Eucharistic theology we have is the one thing that so totally seperates us from all other Western churches. It is the reason for the accusations of us being the Great Harlot, etc.

If the Catholic Church is not right about God being Physicaly Present in the Eucharist, then we are nothing but devious idolators, lost forever in our crazy theology.

If it is God, then bow down. If it is not, then you are violating the 2nd commandment.

SD

[RobbyS]

St. Thomas, arguing prospectively against Luther's "consubstantiation", first argues that it is philosophically incorrect, more or less disputing Luther's quasi-nominalism. But then he argues --and her I think we get closer to what is easier for us to understand, that the Lutheran idea goes against the form of the sacrament. It is what TRD refers to as Christ's command:" This is my body", not" Here is my body." The real issue, is Christ actually present in the Sacrament, or only in the soul of the recepient? To look at the rite as Calvin did or, more crudely, as Zwingli did is to remove Christ from our presence until he come. But even to accept Luther's view, as Thomas also points out, is to eliminate worship of the consecrated host. I think that the only real options are between the Catholic view and the view of John Calvin, between what you call the physical and what you call the spiritual presence. The problem is that Calvin's finely argued theory-- which avoid s the superficiality of Zwingli or Carlstadt--is that almost no Calvinists follow him. To most them it becomes little more than an inspirational play, because they want more than anything else to avoid an "papist idolotry." So the very emotion that one would think to accompany an evangelical ceremony is often missing, so that it becomes--and I have witnessed this-- "Hamlet" without the prince of Demmark.

Now I hasten to say that, yes this is a generalization. Rhys Issac. his his bookm "The transformation of Virginia," describes an outdoor baptism celebrated by the "New Light" Baptists, and it seems he describes a situation where the celebrants truly felt the Lord's presence, the "power" that Calvin describes. But I can only say that in the Lord's Supper's I have witnessed, the Baptists exhibit a dry formalism rather than the enthusiasm that one can see in so many Catholc parishes during communion.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

It was possible for those people to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood before the perfect sacrifice was given.

Where does it say that?

Where does it say it wasn't?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

But I can only say that in the Lord's Supper's I have witnessed, the Baptists exhibit a dry formalism rather than the enthusiasm that one can see in so many Catholc parishes during communion.

You're so full of crap most of the time it isn't even funny. I've been to numberous catholic churches and have never witnessed enthusiasm during communion. Never.

[IMRight]

Where does it say it wasn't?

You can believe in Sola Scriptura while saying that?

[DouglasKC]

Not physically, but the goal is to bury the "old" man Uh Oh! I'm here for you if you need me Reg!

lol...not THAT old man...

[gracebeliever]

That from the earliest times it is what Christians believed and practiced (I think that Josephus actually referred to Christians as the "people who think they eat their God"). But it really boils down to "do this" (or "this do" for the KJV crowd I guess) and "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you". So it woult have to be available to believers today. Paul also talked about "eating and drinking judgement" on yourself if you failed to "recognize the body and blood of Christ" when you partake communion. Christ had left long before Paul's words, yet he still considered them binding.

I know this has all been stated before, but Jesus' statements that "this is my body" and "this is the new testament in my blood" are clearly metaphors just as is the statement that He is the Lamb of God. The men sitting there saw that He gave them bread and wine and understood them for what they were. If anything supernatural had happened to the bread or wine, it would have been recorded. Furthermore, even though Jesus said the wine was "the new testament (covenant) in my blood," He never said the wine was His blood. If this were so, He would have caused them to commit a grievous sacrilege. Leviticus 3:17, 7:26,27 and Acts 15:20 state that they are to stay away from "eating any manner of blood" and that anyone so doing would be "cut off from his people." Since the prohibition of drinking blood was still in effect in Acts 15, well after Christ made these statements, then it is obvious the wine cannot be turned into blood, either Christ's or any others.

Christ in the Gospel of John is the Word of life, another metaphor. "Eat" is used euphemistically throughout Scripture. Eat can refer to devouring the Word of God. A good example is the little scroll Ezekial ate in Ezek. 2:8 and 3:1ff. What Isaiah speaks of eating that which is good in Isa. 55:2 is the Word of God. Eating of the Bread of Life is getting into the Word of God in Christ. An instructive verse that is usually overlooked in the midst of the passage where Jesus describes Himself as the Bread from heaven is John 6:45, which states "every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." That's how a person ate and came to Christ, by the Word of God. That's also just like Romans 10:17, "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

Jesus indicated that what we call communion, or the eucharist, is to be a "remembrance." He did not say it was to be a rite, ceremony, sacrament, or any other religious term. Remembrance has special meaning to Jews in that in remembering they identify with the event. A remembrance of what Christ did for us on the cross by His body and blood and what that affected for us is what we're to celebrate and remember. Unfortunately religion has turned this remembrance into something far different than what Christ intended.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You can believe in Sola Scriptura while saying that?

Was He or was He not speaking to actual live people when he said that? I've never said I believe in your definition of Sola Scriptura anyway. Pay attention.

[malakhi]

It is a type of category or abstract. But it is also its identity. There is somewhere in our minds a prototype that we think of when we hear a word. If I say "dog" there is an abstract that we all recognize, though we may have a hard time describing it. You may think of a particular dog, a Great Dane. I may think of a miniature poodle. These are "accidents," or actual existing specimens or examples of the "substance" of "dog."

So the 'substance' of something is equivalent to its Platonic form? Are you saying that two different dogs are individual expressions of the shared substance of "dogness"? Or does each dog have its own individual substance?

As I understand what you said, the substance is not itself a physical reality, but rather partakes of the physical universe only insofar as it is manifested through its accidents. The implication seems to be that the "real presence" is metaphysical or spiritual.

Now then, imagine that, for some reason a particular dog, perhaps one you know, is suddenly and miraculously changed into a cat. Except he doesn't look or smell any different. It is only by faith that we know that this one particular dog is now really, in substance, a cat. Even though the accidents of "dog" remain it has been elevated to the substance of "cat." It's essence is cat. It IS a cat.

If I insisted to you that my dog was "substantially" a cat, despite continuing to display all the accidents of being a dog, you'd think I was nuts.

I don't find the philosophical categories of "substance" and "accident" particularly useful.

[DouglasKC]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave: Assuming that Christ literally meant that the bread was his flesh and the wine was his blood, then how do you justify biblically that any bread or wine besides the pieces he actually held at the time can do the same?
Because the Sacrafice that He made was for all man, then and thoe after His death.

Well yeah, but my point was that if you want to take it literally instead of symbolically then it would seem like you would have to take it literally all the way through. Jesus said "this is my body". He didn't didn't say "All bread that you have in the future is my body". "This", meaning this specific bread that I'm giving you.

Mar 14:22 And as they ate, Jesus took a loaf and blessed and broke it, and He gave to them and said, Take, eat; this is My body.

[SoothingDave]

So the 'substance' of something is equivalent to its Platonic form? Are you saying that two different dogs are individual expressions of the shared substance of "dogness"? Or does each dog have its own individual substance?

As I understand what you said, the substance is not itself a physical reality, but rather partakes of the physical universe only insofar as it is manifested through its accidents. The implication seems to be that the "real presence" is metaphysical or spiritual.

I am not sure if it can be said that the substance is only an abstract. I believe each object has a substance and an accident that are inherent to the object. But I will need to look into this.

I am not sure of dogs. But I know God is One, so anything that had the Divine Substance would by nature be of the same substance.

If I insisted to you that my dog was "substantially" a cat, despite continuing to display all the accidents of being a dog, you'd think I was nuts.

Indeed. I have the words of God to go by to back up my insanity.

I don't find the philosophical categories of "substance" and "accident" particularly useful.

No? Are we limited then to just what we can measure?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Jesus indicated that what we call communion, or the eucharist, is to be a "remembrance."

You wouldn't highlight that word if you knew the full meaning of the underlying Greek word.

SD

[IMRight]

Was He or was He not speaking to actual live people when he said that?

He was. And I think that several NC scholars have handled the situation quite adequately (while messing up the rest of the verse). Matthew Henry's commentary says:

>"2.] It is shed; it was not shed till next day, but it was now upon the point of being shed, it is as good as done. "Before you come to repeat this ordinance yourselves, it will be shed.’’ He was now ready to be offered, and his blood to be poured out, as the blood of the sacrifices which made atonement."

I would say that (and perhaps I am wrong. I'm unaware of a church teaching on the subject) the last supper and calvary were of a piece.

I've never said I believe in your definition of Sola Scriptura anyway.

I've never understood what "my" definition is. I didn't make up the term. I'm not aware of any NC usage which would include "what I say is truth unless directly contradicted by scripture" which was the post I replied to.

Pay attention.

OK. Teach away.

[DouglasKC]

Doug, if the RCC's can decide to do away with the blood and wine part of the communion at will, because it's too messy, what makes you think they'll have any trouble justifying they don't need the original bread and wine Jesus used, and that he gave them the magic words to be able to do the same thing at will, except there the only ones who know how this is done.

What? You didn't get the memo? :-)

[SoothingDave]

Was He or was He not speaking to actual live people when he said that?

Of course He was. And those that found it "hard" left Him. Those who stuck around didn't understand at the moment either, but knew of no other place to turn.

Only when the Last Supper occured to Jesus' command become clear.

"Oh, this is how we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood!"

Like in the story of Abraham and Isaac, God provides the sacrifice.

SD

[malakhi]

I find it odd that you never contemplated this before. Are you thinking about coming back? ;-)

Quite the contrary, it makes me even more certain that I made the right decision. No offense intended, but to me, what the Catechism refers to as the "Worship of the Eucharist"(#1378) has the uneasy feeling of idolatry. I don't of course accept even the notion of God being incarnated in a man. But the notion that God is really present in the consecrated bread and wine in such a way as to make an inanimate object worthy of latria is antipathetic to me. God is both immanent and transcendant. He is omnipresent. He is, therefore, present in the large oak tree in the park. I do not, however, worship the tree.

but He is not limited to just one location.

Do you really think He ever was?

[SoothingDave]

Well yeah, but my point was that if you want to take it literally instead of symbolically then it would seem like you would have to take it literally all the way through. Jesus said "this is my body". He didn't didn't say "All bread that you have in the future is my body". "This", meaning this specific bread that I'm giving you.

What part of "Do this in remembrance of me" is difficult to understand? We do this "this" just like He did "this." Exactly like.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

>"2.] It is shed; it was not shed till next day, but it was now upon the point of being shed, it is as good as done. "Before you come to repeat this ordinance yourselves, it will be shed.’’ He was now ready to be offered, and his blood to be poured out, as the blood of the sacrifices which made atonement."

Good for Matthew Henry. I'm sure Jesus was speaking prophetically as well as to his audience at the time. He made it clear to the people in his audience that they could partake as well.

I've never understood what "my" definition is. I didn't make up the term. I'm not aware of any NC usage which would include "what I say is truth unless directly contradicted by scripture" which was the post I replied to.

Let me teach you something. If ya don't know your own definition of Sola Scripture don't throw it my face as if you do.

[IMRight]

I know this has all been stated before, but Jesus' statements that "this is my body" and "this is the new testament in my blood" are clearly metaphors..

I can't see the distinction that makes them "clearly" metaphors. People seemed to take Him seriously.

...just as is the statement that He is the Lamb of God.

Jesus is the Lamb of God. This also is not a metaphor. Did John "metaphorically" see a Lamb in Heaven "standing there as if it had been slain"?

He never said the wine was His blood

You don't use a KJV?

"Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. "

eating any manner of blood

As has already been stated (I think). The prohibition of drinking blood was precisely because the blood contained the life of the animal. Interesting that Christ said that if you don't drink His blood "you have no life within you"? Kinda gives "receiving Christ" new meaning huh?