Hey, I've got a whole new can of worms to open up!
Why do you think that one has to be ordained in the line of apostolic succession for the consecration of the bread and wine to "take"?
Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| 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 |
Remember the verse where the KJV differs from the others? From 1 Cor, I believe. Whoever eats OR drinks unworthily is guilty of the Body AND Blood of the Lord.
Ring a bell?
SD
They were not committing a sacrilege. Lev 17:14 discusses Jew's taking of blood. John 6:53-58 make it proper to drink the blood of the Victim to receive life.
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."
The language used for "eat" is throughout the Bible, but the nowhere in the NT is one of the many words used for "eat" used in conjunction with eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. John uses in John 6:53-58 the only form of eat that refers to mastication as opposed to general eating. The Greek word is trogo (sorry, can't get the diacritics to show up) which is used to depict one who is engaging in the process of masticating the food he is consuming. Why did John not use the more generic word for eating - phago? Because there was to be no doubt about what we were to do. And note that phago and trogon were not interchanged in verses 53-58. I believe there can be no doubt as to what John met.
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.
Luke 22:19 uses the Greek word anamnesis ("remembrance") which is used in connection with the sacrifice, at the least within a context that is sacrificial in nature. When Christ tells the apostles to "... do this in remembrance of me...", it is more than a commemoration of the Last Supper that Christ is referring to.
St. Paul drives that points home:
24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
- 1 Cor 11:24-25 (DRB)
Looking at the construct of Luke 22:19, we can see that anamnesis refers to sacrifice:
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
- Luke 22:19 (DRB)
The sentence "This is my body, which is given for you" is DIRECTLY connected to the command "DO THIS" in the second sentence.
Please review the Greek used in Matthew, Mark and Luke in regards to the Last Supper. None used Greek words to describe the Last Supper that refer only to the REMEMBRANCE of the events. There are *9* different Greek words which refer to some type of remembrance, but the only one used, anamnesis, has an exclusively sacrificial connotation. Why did Luke not choose to use mnemosunan? Because he wanted to memorialize the consecration for the serious act of sacrafice that it was.
Please read 1 Cor 10 and tell me if you believe that the Eucharist is eschatological salvation or judgment or both. St. Paul warned the Corinthians to become much more serious about the Eucharist, to treat it as a holy meal, and if they do not, they will be profaning something very holy and suffer the same fates as recounted in Exodus 32, Numbers 25, Numbers 21.
John 6 makes clear what Jesus said we must do "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood".
No? Are we limited then to just what we can measure?
No, the problem I have with it is that "substance" has a number of conflicting definitions.
That which underlies all outward manifestations; substratum; the permanent subject or cause of phenomena, whether material or spiritual; that in which properties inhere; that which is real, in distinction from that which is apparent; the abiding part of any existence, in distinction from any accident; that which constitutes anything what it is; real or existing essence.
Body; matter; material of which a thing is made; hence, substantiality; solidity; firmness
The first is more metaphysical, the second is clearly physical.
I prefer Kant's thing-in-itself and thing-as-it-appears. I think it more clearly delineates the difference between that which can be known and that which is empirically unknowable.
Correction - it is one of the Manifold reasons that title hangs over the Catholic Church.
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.
And the catholic church is wrong about it.
I can't because I don't have a bible with me. I think you have been given a couple verses that said essentially that someone was guilty of the "body and blood" of Christ, though only bread was involved? I haven't done any study on the matter so I am "outgunned".
I asked what you believe because it seems that some here do not accept that there is scriptural support for the real presense to begin with. You seem to be saying that there is, but that there is no support for taking only one element at communion. Is the argument merely that we are inconsistent? Or are you saying that the correct course would be to take bread and wine as body and blood?
Huh? I thought you said "We don't teach that a physical change happens." If no physical change happens, then how can God be physically present there?
I have not read it from a textbook or direct source, but I believe I have seen you post it before and have not had a problem with it. Is it your opinion that it contradicts the RC understanding of the role of Scripture? I tend to doubt it.
When I use the term "enthusiasm," I do mean the kind of physical or vocal activity one sees at a charismatic event, but what struck me palpably the first time I went to mass: the sudden and deep quiet that came over the congregation at the consecration. The coughing that one hears when a group is required to stay quiet, such as one witnesses at a concert, and which was going on up to that moment, stopped and the quiet I mentioned descended continued for some minutes, as when everyone in a group suddenly becomes absorbed in what is happening. I have not witnessed this is a Presbyterian, Baptist, or Methodist service. although I have seen it in in Lutheran and Episcopal services.
At bottom, it depends on whether one believes or at least suspends disbelief in the Real Presence. One will act in taking communion in accordance with one's belief about its meaning. As to Catholic who actually receive the Sacrament, I have noticed a change in attitude as an increasingly large percentage of those attending go to communion. (A few years ago I saw some idiot chewing gum on his way to communion!) It used be that many held back, out of a feeling of unworthiness, and that those who went were manifestly more "ready" to receive. As for "factory"-like manner, I was sometimes--in the old days--alarmed to see some of the priests deposit the Host on tongues of the communicants is a very cavalier manner, in great contrast with the demeanor of the people receiving.
OK, then. Then your cat is the thing-in-itself, but the thing-as-it-appears is a dog.
SD
#55? ;o)
Huh? I thought you said "We don't teach that a physical change happens." If no physical change happens, then how can God be physically present there?
There is no "physical change," that is, no change in any measureable way. There is the change whereby God becomes present. And this presence is in the form of bread which certainly is physical, in the sense that you can see it, touch it, etc.
What is it? It is Christ. Where is it? Right there.
SD
You could knock me over with a feather. ;-)
SD
200 years ago this was the major problem in the Church -- people having too much respect for the Sacrament.
SD
Hey, I've got a whole new can of worms to open up!
Why do you think that one has to be ordained in the line of apostolic succession for the consecration of the bread and wine to "take"?
You could knock me over with a feather. ;-)
I don't have a clue about what Dave is saying here, anybody out there make any thing of this, someone tell me what Dave is talking about here, I got a $1.00 bill here if anyone can tell me what Dave is talking about :)
BigMack
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.