The Eucharist - Embodying Christ, a Catholic viewpoint

Eramen

I was reading something in a different thread and the subject of the Eucharist popped up. I found myself a little surprised at a couple of the comments. Now I know the Protestant view is that it is symbolic of Christ, yet some Catholics are saying similar things that are really close to this Protestant stance. For me, Christ is at the Eucharist, and there in actuality. It doesn't make sense otherwise. It goes without saying that if Christ wasn't embodied at the Eucharist, I would certainly not be Christian at all because the ramifications are so immense..

The Eucharist from a Catholic point of view, isn't merely 'Christ as a wafer'. The Eucharist illustrates that substance, or the body, can undergo a process of divinization, where matter becomes penetrated with Spirit and makes us one in God. This the most basic, central truth of Christianity. It shows that God is immanent, existing in the world via his Will, even at the present moment, in the substance of human flesh as Christ.

To say that this isn't true is to be something else other than Christian. Christ is present and recreated at the Eucharist because he is Eternally Living. What is Eternal is above and over the concepts of our mind, and is above space, time and materiality. What is Living is present in us, and must be a part of the body and substance in order to be alive. In this way the Ever-Living crystal of the Soul is with us at all times. She is offered unceasingly to us through God. The fragrant Soul can be brought into the Heart of our being at anytime, descending to us as though a spiritual eagle from the Cloud of God.

In the Eucharist mere substance is made Godly. Bread ceases to be bread and instead becomes bread of Life. Christ, as we know, is the bread of Life. To say that Christ isn't part of the Eucharist and that it's symbolic just downgrades man to the same level as inert matter, to what is not god-like. It pulls him away from the Highest Principle, of both himself and divinity. It says that man cannot embody Christ or live through the Son.

Therefore when we ingest the wafer bread, we are One in mind, body and essence with the Son. We are in true Communion. Christ is not the bread then, He is in us - recreated in the Now of every single moment. In this Temple of the body Christ lives.

“Because the same One, who is begotten and born of God the Father, without ceasing in eternity, is born today, within time, in human nature, we make a holiday to celebrate it. St. Augustine says that this birth is always happening. And yet, if it does not occur in me, how could it help me? Everything depends on that.” – Meister Eckhart

Peregrinus

As we know, there’s a long history of enmity between Catholics and Protestants - enmity which, if we are honest, has much to do with struggles for power and domination, and often rather little to do with matter of faith.

This creates a very polarised discourse in which differences in belief and practice between the two traditions are magnified, even distorted. So, for example, some Protestants (and not a few Catholics) say that the Catholic belief is that Christ is “physically present” in the Eucharist. In fact the Catholic church does not teach this, and never has. Conversely, many Catholics (and some Protestants) will assure you that Protestants regard the Eucharist as “merely symbolic”. This is flat-out untrue of the major Protestant traditions that we encounter in Ireland, and even among traditions which do reject any notion of real presence I’ve lost count of the theologians who become apoplectic at the use of the word “merely”.

It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on what various Christian traditions hold in common. Most of the major Christian traditions in Ireland affirm the Real Presence and use, not identical, but quite similar language to explain what they mean by that.

- Catholics describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a “substantial”, “spiritual” or “sacramental” reality - but not as a “physical” reality. They are likely to speak of the breach and wine “becoming” the body and blood of Christ. The term “transubstantiation” is used to express the Catholic position in Aristotelian philosophical language. (But, while Aristotelian philosophical language was once state-of-the-art as far as describing the nature of reality, it hasn’t been much used for the last four centuries or so, so explaining Eucharistic beliefs with Aristotelian language is not that helpful to most people.)

- Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of the consecrated bread and wine. They are more likely to speak of the bread and wine “being” the body of Christ, rather than “becoming. The Lutheran position is sometimes called "consubstantiation", in distinction from the Catholic “transubstantiation”, although most Lutheran theologians reject the term as inaccurate or confusing. (Again, it draws on Aristotelian language.)

- Formal Anglican teaching affirms the Real Presence while rejecting “transubstantiation” but - as is characteristic of Anglicanism - within the church there’s a range of views on how this should be understood. Some Anglicans hold a position which is basically the Catholic position; others hold a Lutheran position. Still others prefer to affirm and contemplate the mystery of the Real Presence rather than trying to explain it. And probably some are in the “merely symbolic” school.

- Methodists affirm the Real Presence, but say that this is a “holy mystery”. They also affirm that, in celebrating the Eucharist, we do not merely remember the sacrifice of Christ but we “re-present” it.

- Calvinists - and this view would be influential among Presbyterians in Ireland - sees the Real Presence as a spiritual reality. Sometimes it’s referred to as a “pneumatic presence” (from the Greek pneuma, spirit). The flesh and blood of Christ are offered to all in the sacrament, but the individual encounter with Christ requires a response of faith from the believer; hence it’s ultimately the faith of the individual which “completes” the Real Presence.

- The view that the Eucharist is essentially a memorial meal, but not more, is called the Zwinglian view (from the Swiss reformer Huldrych Zwingli). In Ireland this position is most commonly found in Baptist and some Evangelical congregations. Probably people in this tradition would be uncomfortable affirming any kind of “Real Presence” language.

OK, most of those statements are probably gross over-simplifications, and within each tradition there is some diversity of views. But it’s probably true to say that the great bulk of Christians in Ireland do belong from traditions which affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but they employ a variety of ways of talking about what this means.

Eramen

Great post Peregrinus. Perhaps it's more the American forms of Protestantism that advocates it as being symbolic? Though undoubtedly, this view is spreading informally among European Christians too. I've heard this symbolic view many, many times at this stage.

Communion with God is not possible if one takes the stance that Christ cannot be emulated and embodied. Christ is the way, the light, and the path to God as highlighted in the gospels. To live in Christ by being Christ-like the meaning. To not seek life in Him is to taste death, not in some Hell of the future, but right here in the present. This is why the sacrament of the Eucharist carries great significance for all of us.

It's ultimately what prompted me to weigh in with my post.

Peregrinus

Eramen wrote: »

Great post Peregrinus. Perhaps it's more the American forms of Protestantism that advocates it as being symbolic? Though undoubtedly, this view is spreading informally among European Christians too. I've heard this symbolic view many, many times at this stage.

I think there’s two factors at work here.

The first is the polarised discourse I’ve already referred to. People whose religious identity is stronger than their intellectual engagement with religion - i.e. most of us - tend to understand their religious identity by contrasting it with the religious identity of those people over there. Hence Protestants can gravitate towards a Zwinglian understanding of the Eucharist, and Catholics towards a “physical reality” understanding, even though this is mostly not what their respective churches teach.

The other is materialism - the belief or assumption that only the material, the physical, is truly or completely real. This is a pretty strong element of modern culture, and even people who officially reject the idea are deeply influenced by it. The “physical reality” Catholics are affected by materialism in that, once they believe that the Real Presence is truly real, it’s very easy for them to slide into the materialist belief that it must, therefore, be material or physical in nature. Likewise the “purely symbolic” Protestants are implicitly reasoning that, because the consecrated elements are not physically body and blood - anyone can see that they are still bread and wine, and detailed examination, e.g. under a microscope, merely confirms this - therefore the presence of Christ cannot be real; it must be symbolic, or analogical, or metaphorical, or what you will. (It’s not a coincidence, I think, that a “purely symbolic” Zwinglian understanding of the Eucharist is a modern innovation - no Christian tradition espoused such a view, as far as we know, before the start of the modern era.)

Eramen wrote: »

Communion with God is not possible if one takes the stance that Christ cannot be be emulated and embodied. Christ is the way, the light, and the path to God as highlighted in the gospels. To live in Christ by being Christ-like the meaning. To not seek to live in Him is to taste death, not in some Hell of the future, but right here in the present. This is why the sacrament of the Eucharist carries great significance for all of us.

Yes. To my mind the Real Presence has to be seen as an aspect of the Incarnation - our understanding that God has entered into and remains within his own creation, and therefore we encounter God in created things.

georgieporgy

For the benefit of uninformed readers I think it should be stated clearly that the position of the catholic church is that Jesus, who became man, died and rose again from the dead, and ascended to heaven ('true God and true Man) is present in the Eucharist in the exact same way that he is present in heaven. Hence the term "real" presence, not pretend presence or maybe presence , or fanciful difficult to understand legalese presence .

That fact is not influenced in any way by the faith, or lack of faith, of any individual.

An individual may however be ignorant of that fact.

Peregrinus

georgieporgy wrote: »

For the benefit of uninformed readers I think it should be stated clearly that the position of the catholic church is that Jesus, who became man, died and rose again from the dead, and ascended to heaven ('true God and true Man) is present in the Eucharist in the exact same way that he is present in heaven . . .

I don't think this can be right, georgyporgy, or at least the way in which it can be right requires further explanation - which, of course, is the very think you are seeking to avoid. Heaven is a state of being which has no specific locality and no specific time, whereas when we celebrate the eucharist we do so in a specific place and at a specific moment. "Present" at a give place and time can't mean "exactly the same thing" as present in a state of being.

I think the way to understand this is that, in the Catholic perspective, "Real Presence" means exactly what it say on the tin. The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is real. Absolutely, totally real. As real as anything you have ever thought of as real, and probably much more real than some of things you think are real. And certainly as real as the Presence of Christ in heaven.

If you want to explain it further (or if you want it explained further) then I'm afraid we're into the realm of philosophy. ("What is reality?") Theologians, of course, are happy to go there, and in my earlier post I outlined a couple of ways in which theologians from various traditions have tried to illuminate the reality ofthe Real Presence. The individual beleiver may or may not find this helpful; most, I suspect, find that after a few minutes their heads start to hurt.

However much we want to go into the theology and the philosophy here, there is a point beyond which we can't go. Ultimately, the reality of God is beyond our understanding, at least in this life. And so when we affirm the Real Presence we are affirming a mystery; that's an act of faith, not an intellectual conclusion. Engaging with the theology and philosophy of the Real Presence may (or may not) be a fruitful way for the individual to contemplate the mystery of the Eucharist but, in the end, it remains a mystery.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

As we know, there’s a long history of enmity between Catholics and Protestants - enmity which, if we are honest, has much to do with struggles for power and domination, and often rather little to do with matter of faith.
- Catholics describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a “substantial”, “spiritual” or “sacramental” reality - but not as a “physical” reality. They are likely to speak of the breach and wine “becoming” the body and blood of Christ. The term “transubstantiation” is used to express the Catholic position in Aristotelian philosophical language.

Most Catholics I have discussed this issue with, tend to concur with the Anglican view that the Eucharist is a representation of Christ, not the actual body. I would agree with that position.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

Most Catholics I have discussed this issue with, tend to concur with the Anglican view that the Eucharist is a representation of Christ, not the actual body. I would agree with that position.

That's not, at least formally, "the Anglican view". From the 39 Articles:

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ."

The polarised discourse that I mentioned earlier tends to create the impression that there are only two possible beliefs here; the Catholic belief, and the belief that the eucharist is purely a symbol or representation of the body of Christ. In fact, there's a wide spectrum of possible beliefs, and there are Christian believers in a variety of traditions at all points along that spectrum. And the points they're at don't necessarily line up cleanly with the formal teaching of the church or denomination they identify with.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ."

Christianity is for the masses. To believe anything, people should first have some understanding of what it means, otherwise it becomes an elite religion to be understood by a few theologians who basically interpret the rules as they see it. Your nebulous definition (above) could mean anything.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

Christianity is for the masses. To believe anything, people should first have some understanding of what it means, otherwise it becomes an elite religion to be understood by a few theologians who basically interpret the rules as they see it. Your nebulous definition (above) could mean anything.

It's not my "nebulous definition"; it's a direct quote from the Thirty-Nine Articles, which is as close as your going to get to a statement of the "Anglican position" on the real presence.

Can Christians live faithful and faith-filled lives without troubling themselves about what the wording of the Thirty-Nine Articles, or the corresponding confessional statements of whatever denomination they belong to? Of course they can.

But, as regards having "some understanding" of Christian beliefs, if people are reflecting on the signficance of the Eucharist we do them no favours by pretending that the only possible understanding of the Eucharist are (a) that Christ is "physically present" in the Eucharist, or (b) that the Eucharist is "purely symbolic" of Christ, or the these are the only understandings that are widely held. Simplifying the matter in that way may be appropriate for a class of seven-year olds being introduced to the question, but an adult who wants to explore this deserves a more honest account of Christian beliefs.

georgieporgy

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

I don't like quoting scripture too much on internet blogs. I assume all catholics worth their salt are well versed in it, and I know protestants are. But I do so now so we can examine ourselves to see if we are approaching this subject with our eye on the ball.

lmaopml

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not my "nebulous definition"; it's a direct quote from the Thirty-Nine Articles, which is as close as your going to get to a statement of the "Anglican position" on the real presence.

There are 'differences' between how one views the real presence. I guess we've been arguing over that for a long time. It's pretty crap that..

Can Christians live faithful and faith-filled lives without troubling themselves about what the wording of the Thirty-Nine Articles, or the corresponding confessional statements of whatever denomination they belong to? Of course they can.

They can, and they do too.

But, as regards having "some understanding" of Christian beliefs, if people are reflecting on the signficance of the Eucharist we do them no favours by pretending that the only possible understanding of the Eucharist are (a) that Christ is "physically present" in the Eucharist, or (b) that the Eucharist is "purely symbolic" of Christ, or the these are the only understandings that are widely held.

I think most people who post here are interested and would be aware that they hold a different view to others, and reconciling that is on the agenda - with the help of God.

Simplifying the matter in that way may be appropriate for a class of seven-year olds being introduced to the question, but an adult who wants to explore this deserves a more honest account of Christian beliefs.

They certainly do...I think St. Paul simplified the Cross for the most childish adult, and it's always pertinent to this particular topic for all who claim to hear.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

It's a popular quote, but to really read it and see the 'child' we are is pretty difficult to do at times, well for me anyway.

I think it's cool to see differing traditions, but I also think it's cool to know and proclaim the Gospel from ones very own toes too, and to know and say where you stand, not as opposed to, but in conversation with.

The real presence can't be explained any better than it has already been appointed to be and proclaimed still. Many have heard it. Many love it, many have faith. Does this mean that those who eat the 'bread of life' are 'saved' - well no, that's not what the Church teaches either...you're quite right, it's not 'magic' - never was. It's way more than that.

The Holy Eucharist, the source and summit of faith - go figure!

indy_man

georgieporgy wrote: »

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

I don't like quoting scripture too much on internet blogs. I assume all catholics worth their salt are well versed in it, and I know protestants are. But I do so now so we can examine ourselves to see if we are approaching this subject with our eye on the ball.

But a Catholic with scripture is doubly powerful, the mystical along with the scriptural, wow... I digress though. Regarding the Eucharist, I can't wait to welcome the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ into my soul tomorrow at mass as per DeMontfort.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM#Supplement

angelman121

Does the 'presence' wear off ? Does Christ leave after a while and need to be reinstated again and again ? how strong is the belief, the faith in such a system that needs constant reassuring?

Should the first communion also be the last? If communion is established, does it not weaken the bond or strength of the bond if it has to be established on a daily or weekly bases? Is god/Christ unreliable?

What's your view on this?

I'm no longer a practising catholic, not since I was a child and had no choice. I have moved beyond faith and belief to 'knowing'
Communion is constant, it is the life force that is within and around us, we breath and soak it into us with every breathe and between breathes, it is living and we/I can feel it and become one with/in it. No symbols, rituals or ceremony is needed.

Happy Every Day
P

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

Most Catholics I have discussed this issue with, tend to concur with the Anglican view that the Eucharist is a representation of Christ, not the actual body. I would agree with that position.

That's not the Anglican view. Anglicans believe Christ is present in the Eucharist. Just that the bread and wine doesn't physically become flesh and blood, which maintaining the appearance of bread and wine, which is the Roman Catholic understanding.

In the words of an Anglican hymn, "Christ is here, we know not how".

Peregrinus

angelman121 wrote: »

Does the 'presence' wear off ?

No.

angelman121 wrote: »

Does Christ leave after a while and need to be reinstated again and again ?

No.

angelman121 wrote: »

how strong is the belief, the faith in such a system that needs constant reassuring?

Huh? Where’s this coming from? Do you think all religious practice that is repeated more than once is evidence of a weak faith? Scripture reading, for instance? Prayer? If you don’t think that, you must have some reason for thinking that this particular practice is repeated in order to comfort and assure those of weak faith. Are you going to share with us what your reason for thinking this?

angelman121 wrote: »

Should the first communion also be the last? If communion is established, does it not weaken the bond or strength of the bond if it has to be established on a daily or weekly bases? Is god/Christ unreliable? What's your view on this?

My view is the view of the early church which, we know from Acts, was characterised by meeting regularly for the breaking of bread. Before the Gospels were written, before the letters of Paul were written, Christians were celebrating the eucharistic meal; it’s the first distinctive Christian practice that we know of. And if you asked them whether they were doing that because they had a “weak faith” that needed “constant reassuring”, I’m pretty sure they would have said no, we do it because we remember that the Lord told us to, unambiguously and emphatically, the night before he died. And we take what he said seriously.

angelman121 wrote: »

I'm no longer a practising catholic, not since I was a child and had no choice. I have moved beyond faith and belief to 'knowing'
Communion is constant, it is the life force that is within and around us, we breath and soak it into us with every breathe and between breathes, it is living and we/I can feel it and become one with/in it. No symbols, rituals or ceremony is needed.

Well, I wish you great spiritual fulfilment. But - no offence - your comments here suggest that having moved on from Christian faith to “knowledge” is not, in itself, any guarantee that you understand Christian faith.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

That's not the Anglican view. Anglicans believe Christ is present in the Eucharist. Just that the bread and wine doesn't physically become flesh and blood, which maintaining the appearance of bread and wine, which is the Roman Catholic understanding.

Sigh.

That is not the Roman Catholic understanding. The Roman Catholic church explicitly denies that the change in the Eucharist is "physical". The change is described as "substantial", "spiritual" or "sacramantal".

It's not a physical change, in the Catholic view; it's metaphysical change.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

As we know, there’s a long history of enmity between Catholics and Protestants - enmity which, if we are honest, has much to do with struggles for power and domination, and often rather little to do with matter of faith.
This creates a very polarised discourse in which differences in belief and practice between the two traditions are magnified, even distorted. So, for example, some Protestants (and not a few Catholics) say that the Catholic belief is that Christ is “physically present” in the Eucharist. In fact the Catholic church does not teach this, and never has. Conversely, many Catholics (and some Protestants) will assure you that Protestants regard the Eucharist as “merely symbolic”. This is flat-out untrue of the major Protestant traditions that we encounter in Ireland, and even among traditions which do reject any notion of real presence I’ve lost count of the theologians who become apoplectic at the use of the word “merely”.

It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on what various Christian traditions hold in common. Most of the major Christian traditions in Ireland affirm the Real Presence and use, not identical, but quite similar language to explain what they mean by that.

- Catholics describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a “substantial”, “spiritual” or “sacramental” reality - but not as a “physical” reality. They are likely to speak of the breach and wine “becoming” the body and blood of Christ. The term “transubstantiation” is used to express the Catholic position in Aristotelian philosophical language. (But, while Aristotelian philosophical language was once state-of-the-art as far as describing the nature of reality, it hasn’t been much used for the last four centuries or so, so explaining Eucharistic beliefs with Aristotelian language is not that helpful to most people.)

- Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of the consecrated bread and wine. They are more likely to speak of the bread and wine “being” the body of Christ, rather than “becoming. The Lutheran position is sometimes called "consubstantiation", in distinction from the Catholic “transubstantiation”, although most Lutheran theologians reject the term as inaccurate or confusing. (Again, it draws on Aristotelian language.)

- Formal Anglican teaching affirms the Real Presence while rejecting “transubstantiation” but - as is characteristic of Anglicanism - within the church there’s a range of views on how this should be understood. Some Anglicans hold a position which is basically the Catholic position; others hold a Lutheran position. Still others prefer to affirm and contemplate the mystery of the Real Presence rather than trying to explain it. And probably some are in the “merely symbolic” school.

- Methodists affirm the Real Presence, but say that this is a “holy mystery”. They also affirm that, in celebrating the Eucharist, we do not merely remember the sacrifice of Christ but we “re-present” it.

- Calvinists - and this view would be influential among Presbyterians in Ireland - sees the Real Presence as a spiritual reality. Sometimes it’s referred to as a “pneumatic presence” (from the Greek pneuma, spirit). The flesh and blood of Christ are offered to all in the sacrament, but the individual encounter with Christ requires a response of faith from the believer; hence it’s ultimately the faith of the individual which “completes” the Real Presence.

- The view that the Eucharist is essentially a memorial meal, but not more, is called the Zwinglian view (from the Swiss reformer Huldrych Zwingli). In Ireland this position is most commonly found in Baptist and some Evangelical congregations. Probably people in this tradition would be uncomfortable affirming any kind of “Real Presence” language.

OK, most of those statements are probably gross over-simplifications, and within each tradition there is some diversity of views. But it’s probably true to say that the great bulk of Christians in Ireland do belong from traditions which affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but they employ a variety of ways of talking about what this means.

I think this is a very good and interesting post.
I always wonder about the various beliefs in different religions. All of these communities have very learned, intelligent, well educated people who are each convinced that their beliefs are correct. They can all present very convincing arguments to back up their views. The thing is though, they can't all be right. So where does that leave us?
We have Peregrinus presenting an excellent overview of the various Christian positions. However, no religion can actually "affirm" something like the real presence, because that presence cannot be verified by anybody, using any means. So it is purely based on faith. If one has that faith, they will believe it, if they don't, then it is just a group of lovely words assembled by philosophers which actually mean nothing.
I don't think the vast majority of Irish Catholics understand transubstantiation. They don't really give it much thought.

ppars

Peregrinus wrote: »

That is not the Roman Catholic understanding. The Roman Catholic church explicitly denies that the change in the Eucharist is "physical". The change is described as "substantial", "spiritual" or "sacramantal".

It's not a physical change, in the Catholic view; it's metaphysical change.

No bread or wine remains. If any bread or wine did remain, it would be a form of idolatry. Christ is really and truly present, but has the "physical" properties / appearance of what we usually associate with bread and wine.

It was only during the Eucharist when the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognised him.

“And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he spoke to us on the way and opened the Scriptures to us?” So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the Eleven and those with them who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!” Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”

georgieporgy

Safehands wrote: »

I think this is a very good and interesting post.
I always wonder about the various beliefs in different religions. All of these communities have very learned, intelligent, well educated people who are each convinced that their beliefs are correct. They can all present very convincing arguments to back up their views. The thing is though, they can't all be right. So where does that leave us?
We have Peregrinus presenting an excellent overview of the various Christian positions. However, no religion can actually "affirm" something like the real presence, because that presence cannot be verified by anybody, using any means. So it is purely based on faith. If one has that faith, they will believe it, if they don't, then it is just a group of lovely words assembled by philosophers which actually mean nothing.
I don't think the vast majority of Irish Catholics understand transubstantiation. They don't really give it much thought.

That's not quite true. The one religion that maintains the Real Presence for us in the world has verified it on numerous occasions. Here's a list of over 100 examples. It's a long list, so to help you choose, I suggest Lanciano and Santarem as interesting to start with.
http://catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

Safehands

georgieporgy wrote: »

That's not quite true. The one religion that maintains the Real Presence for us in the world has verified it on numerous occasions. Here's a list of over 100 examples. It's a long list, so to help you choose, I suggest Lanciano and Santarem as interesting to start with.
http://catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

Sorry Georgie, but that is just ridiculous. If that is your idea of verification of the real presence, then you are clutching at very thin straws. Lanciano is an interesting story but so is Cu Chulainn and Fionn Mc Cumhaill and the salmon of knowledge. Doesn't mean they are true though.
Look, a real miracle would be something like a man losing his legs in an accident and waking up the next day with new legs and having it all verified by doctors Or a plane crashing into the side of a mountain, exploding in flames and 200 people walking away without a scratch. Those events would be hard to explain and may constitute a miracle.
Rays of light coming from a box in the middle of the night witnessed by one or even two people, is not a miracle. Sorry!

georgieporgy

one can only lead a horse to water....

Safehands

georgieporgy wrote: »

one can only lead a horse to water....

Ah yes! but a smart horse may know that the water is just a mirage...

Peregrinus

In the present context I don't think it matters, actually, whether the eucharistic miracles to which georgieporgy links are absolutely straight-up genuine, or utter delusions, or anything in between.

Even if we assume they are actually straight-up genuine, they are clearly exceptional events. They are demonstrably not what happens at the consecration in tens of thousands of masses celebrated every day in Catholic churches throughout the world. Even if we grant that it's true that something absolutely amazing happened at Lanciano in AD 750, that would not prove that anything amazing happened in my parish church last Sunday. In fact, the evidence that something happened at Lanciano was conspicuously lacking at my parish church. Whatever did or didn't happen at Lanciano, then, we have no reason to think also happened at my parish church (and every reason to think that it didn't).

But the beliefs of the Catholic church that we are scrutinising here are beliefs about what happens at every single eucharist. Lanciano cannot verify them.

georgieporgy

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the present context I don't think it matters, actually, whether the eucharistic miracles to which georgieporgy links are absolutely straight-up genuine, or utter delusions, or anything in between.

Even if we assume they are actually straight-up genuine, they are clearly exceptional events. They are demonstrably not what happens at the consecration in tens of thousands of masses celebrated every day in Catholic churches throughout the world. Even if we grant that it's true that something absolutely amazing happened at Lanciano in AD 750, that would not prove that anything amazing happened in my parish church last Sunday. In fact, the evidence that something happened at Lanciano was conspicuously lacking at my parish church. Whatever did or didn't happen at Lanciano, then, we have no reason to think also happened at my parish church (and every reason to think that it didn't).

But the beliefs of the Catholic church that we are scrutinising here are beliefs about what happens at every single eucharist. Lanciano cannot verify them.

As you know, everybody is entitled to their own view. And I have no problem with you holding the religious beliefs that you do. However, if you quote Catholic doctrine with a view to edifying others, it is important that you do so accurately.
Your posts, whilst eloquent and detailed, (leaving metaphysics and philosophy aside) are nevertheless somewhat vague and unclear,- if not plain wrong.
It's possible I have misread you and am misjudging you. If so I apologise. It might help if you provided a link to the CCC when you make official pronouncements on what the Church teaches with regard to the Real Presence so we can reassure ourselves that it is the Church's opinion you are giving and not merely your own.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

clairefontaine

I'd like to know how believers in transubstantiation reconcile it with cannibalism.

Peregrinus

georgieporgy wrote: »

As you know, everybody is entitled to their own view. And I have no problem with you holding the religious beliefs that you do. However, if you quote Catholic doctrine with a view to edifying others, it is important that you do so accurately.
Your posts, whilst eloquent and detailed, (leaving metaphysics and philosophy aside) are nevertheless somewhat vague and unclear,- if not plain wrong.
It's possible I have misread you and am misjudging you. If so I apologise. It might help if you provided a link to the CCC when you make official pronouncements on what the Church teaches with regard to the Real Presence so we can reassure ourselves that it is the Church's opinion you are giving and not merely your own.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

I haven't posted anything, georgieporgy, which is any way inconsistent with the text you quote here.

If I have posted anything which you think may be inconsistent with authoritative Catholic teaching, if you can point me to what it is, I'll try to point you to authoritative support for what I say.

Peregrinus

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'd like to know how believers in transubstantiation reconcile it with cannibalism.

Oh, that's easy. Cannibalism is the consumption of human flesh physically. In the eucharist we take Christ spiritually, sacramentally, substantially and really - but not physically.

You're by no means the first to have that concern, though. From the Gospel of John, Chapter 6:

Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves . . . I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink . . . "

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” . . . Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Safehands

[QUOTE=georgieporgy;8922350
The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.[/QUOTE]

A couple of years ago I attended the Irish Museum of Modern Art.
Sitting on a shelf was a pint glass of water. I wondered what it was, so I read the artist's explanation for the exhibit. It was in fact, a tree, not a glass of water. Even tough it looked like a glass of water and any physical examination of it would reveal a simple glass of water, the artist explained that it was a tree and he gave his reasons for this claim.
Once something is declared to be on a metaphysical level, it cannot be disproved. So from that point of view the host can be whatever anyone wants it to be, so long as they present a good argument for their beliefs. Just like that glass of water was a tree in the artist's eyes, who am I to disagree?

I know quite a few believing Catholics who would not sit down and watch the Star Wars movie, because it is too far fetched, yet they absolutely believe in transubstantiation. Interesting, isn't it?

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

I know quite a few believing Catholics who would not sit down and watch the Star Wars movie, because it is too far fetched . . .

Star Wars far-fetched? Die, heretic scum!

clairefontaine

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, that's easy. Cannibalism is the consumption of human flesh physically. In the eucharist we take Christ spiritually, sacramentally, substantially and really - but not physically.

You're by no means the first to have that concern, though. From the Gospel of John, Chapter 6:

Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves . . . I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink . . . "

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” . . . Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Sorry but that makes no sense. Transubstantiation is the belief that the eucharist is transformed into flesh.

I'm glad to see some of the disciples had some sense.

katydid

clairefontaine wrote: »

Sorry but that makes no sense. Transubstantiation is the belief that the eucharist is transformed into flesh.
.

Transubstantiation is the belief that the Eucharist is transformed into flesh and blood while retaining the outward appearance of bread and wine. An important addition.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sigh.

That is not the Roman Catholic understanding. The Roman Catholic church explicitly denies that the change in the Eucharist is "physical". The change is described as "substantial", "spiritual" or "sacramantal".

It's not a physical change, in the Catholic view; it's metaphysical change.

The substance changes. It no longer remains bread and wine. Substance is a physical concept. The outward appearance remains that of bread and wine.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Substance is a physical concept.

Not in the Aristotlelian language used to talk about transubstantiation, it isn,t. "Substance" is the inner nature of something; "accidents" are the perceptible externals which point us towards an understanding of the "substance". Everything you can see, touch, etc is an "accident" - colour, texture, shape, fabric, etc. All the physical properties of a thing are "accidents".

Confusion arises because, in our own time, we use the word "substance" to refer to the material part of a thing. The substance of the chair I am sitting on, for instance, is wood. But in Aristotelian language, the characteristic of being made of wood is an accident of the chair, not its substance.

Hence the claim of transubstantiation does not involve a claim that there is any physical change in the consecrated elements. On the contrary, the accidents (including all the physical properties) are said to be unchanged.

lmaopml

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not in the Aristotlelian language used to talk about transubstantiation, it isn,t. "Substance" is the inner nature of something; "accidents" are the perceptible externals which point us towards an understanding of the "substance". Everything you can see, touch, etc is an "accident" - colour, texture, shape, fabric, etc. All the physical properties of a thing are "accidents".

Confusion arises because, in our own time, we use the word "substance" to refer to the material part of a thing. The substance of the chair I am sitting on, for instance, is wood. But in Aristotelian language, the characteristic of being made of wood is an accident of the chair, not its substance.

Hence the claim of transubstantiation does not involve a claim that there is any physical change in the consecrated elements. On the contrary, the accidents (including all the physical properties) are said to be unchanged.

The very best of philosophers found explaining this 'mystery' difficult, and we sometimes employ old language to express it, that was perhaps understood by many at one time, but very many more just had 'faith' and philosophical language didn't penetrate - they heard, they prayed they understood, they loved - and some knew because they felt.

However, the Eucharistic Churches of old have managed to pass on the notion that a mystery can be explained and also not 'fully' understood, it's not meant to be - we're happy with that, and that's the way of it. That's what unites them in very many ways I think. It's like explaining God is impossible to fully know except for what IS known or revealed.

The Holy Eucharist is for a Christian of the old religions, well.....it's more than what the manna from heaven was for the ancient Isrealites, it's like tasting what it means to 'be' at all, it's all about Christ and redemption, and family, and adoption and faith and hope and love and all of those things combined together - and giving thanks for it. It's food for the soul and sustains us on a journey full of very many choices and decisions while we wander in this particular wilderness. Every Christian knows they are in the wilderness with the same choices and being fed the same food too - but we choose what we do, and we own it.

Safehands

lmaopml wrote: »

The very best of philosophers found explaining this 'mystery' difficult, and we sometimes employ old language to express it, that was perhaps understood by many at one time, but very many more just had 'faith' and philosophical language didn't penetrate - they heard, they prayed they understood, they loved - and some knew because they felt.

However, the Eucharistic Churches of old have managed to pass on the notion that a mystery can be explained and also not 'fully' understood, it's not meant to be - we're happy with that, and that's the way of it. That's what unites them in very many ways I think. It's like explaining God is impossible to fully know except for what IS known or revealed.

The Holy Eucharist is for a Christian of the old religions, well.....it's more than what the manna from heaven was for the ancient Isrealites, it's like tasting what it means to 'be' at all, it's all about Christ and redemption, and family, and adoption and faith and hope and love and all of those things combined together - and giving thanks for it. It's food for the soul and sustains us on a journey full of very many choices and decisions while we wander in this particular wilderness. Every Christian knows they are in the wilderness with the same choices and being fed the same food too - but we choose what we do, and we own it.

There's Nothing simple about any of this is there? To try to understand it involves quite a lot of pretty deep thinking. I wonder is Christianity supposed to be so complicated. To really appreciate it, a person would want to be a philosopher. The vast majority of Christians do not think that deeply. So what are they supposed to think?

lmaopml

Safehands wrote: »

There's Nothing simple about any of this is there? To try to understand it involves quite a lot of pretty deep thinking. I wonder is Christianity supposed to be so complicated. To really appreciate it, a person would want to be a philosopher. The vast majority of Christians do not think that deeply. So what are they supposed to think?

I think you underestimate the 'vast majority' of people - they are philosophers...every person is, every person has more depth than any other knows really.

Everybody understands something true, and something not true - something they need to think about doing in their heart or something that they knew they never considered with it.

It's not that complicated - really.

The Eucharist is like being present at that time when Christ was on the Cross, it's all about faith - and what one thinks of that situation, what do you do, do you kneel, or what do you do, to the one who was there from the beginning and still is.

Safehands

lmaopml wrote: »

I think you underestimate the 'vast majority' of people - they are philosophers...every person is, every person has more depth than any other knows really.
It's not that complicated - really.

Most people are absolutely not philosophers. They are told something when they are young and they believe it or not. The believers I have met never think about it too deeply.

The way it has been explained here makes it sound very complicated. Far easier to say it changes into the body of Christ, the actual body, its not true but that doesn't matter. If the priest says it they will believe it.

lmaopml

Safehands wrote: »

Most people are absolutely not philosophers. They are told something when they are young and they believe it or not. The believers I have met never think about it too deeply.

The way it has been explained here makes it sound very complicated. Far easier to say it changes into the body of Christ, the actual body, its not true but that doesn't matter. If the priest says it they will believe it.

In my experience people are far more clever than at first one might think or prejudge in your case - apart from typical 'smarts' there are also people who have a range of gifts that have not been measured on the scale of what is 'smart' or 'not smart'. Although, I think we may very well catch up with them in time...

Like a scale counts - not here in Christianity it doesn't. Your measuring stick is not mine.

There are also people who don't tag people at all one way or the other - in my opinion and life experience they are the smart people. That's the heart and soul of a Christian - it's in giving that we receive. No more, no less, it's not 'that' complicated.

Peregrinus

Well, in this particular case the complexity is probably increased by the fact that the Catholic church set out its authoritative teaching on the subject in Aristotelian language just at the moment when Aristotelian language was about to be superseded among philosophers and scientists. What they said in 1600 would have been readily understood, if not by everybody, then certainly by educated people, whereas to use the same language today is practically to speak in code. They couldn’t have foreseen that at the time.

But an even bigger problem is that this particular issue – the exact nature of the real presence - has become a sticking point between Christian denominations and, such is human tribalism, this makes it seem hugely important to us. You’ll look in vain for any hint in the gospels or in the letters of Paul that having an informed understanding of the exact nature of the real presence is a matter of any consequence at all.

“This is my body” is not the only claim to presence that is attributed to Christ in the Gospels. There’s also, for example, the equally well-known “where two or three gather in my name, I am there among them”. We could subject this to a similar painful analysis. Is it metaphorical? (“It’s like he was actually there!”) Or is it an assertion of something more – some actual presence of Christ? If so, is that a spiritual presence? A mental presence? An incarnate presence? Is Christ present in the persons of those who gather, or in their encounter with one another? Etc, etc, etc.

Why don’t we do this? I suspect it’s basically because this is not a point of division between Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians. The presence of Christ in the community is not something we need to analyse, dissect, define and nail down in academic language in order to distinguish ourselves from Those Heretics Over There who believe something a little bit different.

That’s not to say that there’s anything wrong with theological or academic reflection on the mysteries of the faith. Just that, where it’s done partly to justify or entrench divisions among believers, that’s not very edifying. And that nothing in the gospels or the creeds leads us to think that it’s in any way central to the life of faith. A good Christian – a heroically saintly Christian – doesn’t have to know how to spell transubstantiation, never mind understand what it means.

katydid

lmaopml wrote: »

The very best of philosophers found explaining this 'mystery' difficult, and we sometimes employ old language to express it, that was perhaps understood by many at one time, but very many more just had 'faith' and philosophical language didn't penetrate - they heard, they prayed they understood, they loved - and some knew because they felt.

However, the Eucharistic Churches of old have managed to pass on the notion that a mystery can be explained and also not 'fully' understood, it's not meant to be - we're happy with that, and that's the way of it. That's what unites them in very many ways I think. It's like explaining God is impossible to fully know except for what IS known or revealed.

The Holy Eucharist is for a Christian of the old religions, well.....it's more than what the manna from heaven was for the ancient Isrealites, it's like tasting what it means to 'be' at all, it's all about Christ and redemption, and family, and adoption and faith and hope and love and all of those things combined together - and giving thanks for it. It's food for the soul and sustains us on a journey full of very many choices and decisions while we wander in this particular wilderness. Every Christian knows they are in the wilderness with the same choices and being fed the same food too - but we choose what we do, and we own it.

Maybe it's time to change the language to reflect in some way modern understanding. The "substance" Perigrinus refers to is the same concept as the "substance" in the old wording of the Creed: "of one substance with the father". The modern version is "of one being with the father". Do we need to scrap terms such as "Transubstantiation" and "Consubstantiation" and start again?

But, as you say, the bottom line is that our understanding of the significance of the Eucharist is much wider and much deeper than these semantic or metaphysical nitpickings.

The way I see it, we are all Christians. If we believe that we swallow the substance of Christ, or we believe that we swallow something which contains Christ in an indefinable way, or we believe it's purely symbolic, is it worth arguing over? For some, clearly it is. For me, as a Christian, I respect that others hold it important, although I find it sad and against what I think is the spirit of Christianity to deny the Eucharist to those who see it in a different way, as is the practice of the Roman Catholic church. It is not as if those who would partake and have a different understanding disrespect the RC understanding, and participating in the Eucharist is not an act of disrespect for them.

But I suspect that whatever the theories and the rules, Christians of all colours are happy to accept the views of other Christians with different understanding of the Eucharist because the bottom line is that the Eucharist, whatever the theology, is the core of our Christian lives. Ironically, I had to explain to/argue with a RC priest who invited me to take communion in his church, and to remind him that as a non RC, his church didn't welcome me. That good man spoke, I believe, in the true spirit of Christ.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Maybe it's time to change the language to reflect in some way modern understanding. The "substance" Perigrinus refers to is the same concept as the "substance" in the old wording of the Creed: "of one substance with the father". The modern version is "of one being with the father". Do we need to scrap terms such as "Transubstantiation" and "Consubstantiation" and start again? .

Well, there have been attempts to express similar ideas in more contemporary philosophical language – “transignification” and “transfinalisation” have been tried. And no less an authority than Josef Ratzinger – who was but a humble cardinal at the time – has tried to express the matter using the language of “incorporation”. But I’m not sure that they achieve very much. And, on the other hand, I’m fairly sure they’re not of great interest to most Christian believers. Nor do they need to be. Perhaps the point about a mystery is that you don’t have to understand so much as to enter into it.

katydid wrote: »

The way I see it, we are all Christians. If we believe that we swallow the substance of Christ, or we believe that we swallow something which contains Christ in an indefinable way, or we believe it's purely symbolic, is it worth arguing over? For some, clearly it is. For me, as a Christian, I respect that others hold it important, although I find it sad and against what I think is the spirit of Christianity to deny the Eucharist to those who see it in a different way, as is the practice of the Roman Catholic church. It is not as if those who would partake and have a different understanding disrespect the RC understanding, and participating in the Eucharist is not an act of disrespect for them.

You raise a different issue there. The RCC attitude to Eucharistic sharing is not simply a matter of belief in the real presence, or in transubstantiation. The RCC sees the eucharist as constitutive of the church. A Catholic, quite simply, is a baptised Christian whose primary Eucharistic community is the Roman Catholic church; its Eucharistic sharing that makes us a church. To take communion in this community is, normatively, to express yourself to be in communion with it; to see your participation in this eucharist as what makes you a Christian. It’s not a gesture of goodwill and friendship towards another Christian community; it’s a declaration of participation in that community. If you don’t see yourself as a member of that community (or it doesn’t see you as a member) then, generally speaking, taking communion with that community is not appropriate.

OK, there’s all kinds of qualification and exceptions and further comments that could be made, but that’s the gist of it; taking communion in the Roman Catholic community means something to that community which it may not mean to you. And as long as there is no meeting of minds about what taking communion means, that’s something of a barrier to shared communion.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there have been attempts to express similar ideas in more contemporary philosophical language – “transignification” and “transfinalisation” have been tried. And no less an authority than Josef Ratzinger – who was but a humble cardinal at the time – has tried to express the matter using the language of “incorporation”. But I’m not sure that they achieve very much. And, on the other hand, I’m fairly sure they’re not of great interest to most Christian believers. Nor do they need to be. Perhaps the point about a mystery is that you don’t have to understand so much as to enter into it.


You raise a different issue there. The RCC attitude to Eucharistic sharing is not simply a matter of belief in the real presence, or in transubstantiation. The RCC sees the eucharist as constitutive of the church. A Catholic, quite simply, is a baptised Christian whose primary Eucharistic community is the Roman Catholic church; its Eucharistic sharing that makes us a church. To take communion in this community is, normatively, to express yourself to be in communion with it; to see your participation in this eucharist as what makes you a Christian. It’s not a gesture of goodwill and friendship towards another Christian community; it’s a declaration of participation in that community. If you don’t see yourself as a member of that community (or it doesn’t see you as a member) then, generally speaking, taking communion with that community is not appropriate.

OK, there’s all kinds of qualification and exceptions and further comments that could be made, but that’s the gist of it; taking communion in the Roman Catholic community means something to that community which it may not mean to you. And as long as there is no meeting of minds about what taking communion means, that’s something of a barrier to shared communion.

Hmm, interesting about the attempts to look at the language of the concept; I didn't know that. I can see how it's a minefield, and probably doesn't add a great deal to any understanding beyond that of dedicated theologians. Unfortunately though, it is the understanding of dedicated theologians that set the bar for those of us, the majority, who take a less dogmatic view. I agree that for most Christians, it is the entering into the mystery that counts.

In that spirit, the RCC notion of rejection of those whom it doesn't see as "qualifying" for the sharing of the Eucharist is even more damning, in my opinion. We are all Christian, and even if one is not "in communion" in a theological sense, it is unfraternal (if there's such a word) to turn someone away from your table even if they don't share your understanding. The Anglican church, for example, recognises that the Eucharist may not mean the same to everyone who shares their Eucharist, but welcomes them in the spirit of whatever it means to them, they are sharing in Christian fellowship.

Something tells me that Jesus wouldn't have turned away a Samaritan or a Gentile from his supper table, even the last one...

Peregrinus

Well, I'm not completely out of sympathy with you on that point.

But, in fairness, the attitude of the Catholic church is not really one of turning people away from the table. On the contrary, they really want you to join them at the table. But joining them at the table means something, in their view, something important. And you shouldn't do it unless you mean it.

Not to be either disrespectful or blasphemous, but think of it a bit like sex. They really, really want to have sex with you (I mean, who wouldn't?) but having sex should mean that you're making a commitment and sticking around, and if that's not what it means for you then, sorry, no.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I'm not completely out of sympathy with you on that point.

But, in fairness, the attitude of the Catholic church is not really one of turning people away from the table. On the contrary, they really want you to join them at the table. But joining them at the table means something, in their view, something important. And you shouldn't do it unless you mean it.

Not to be either disrespectful or blasphemous, but think of it a bit like sex. They really, really want to have sex with you (I mean, who wouldn't?) but having sex should mean that you're making a commitment and sticking around, and if that's not what it means for you then, sorry, no.

Interesting simile... :-)

I take your point, but the reality is that those people whom they do turn away are not going to "mean it" in the way they would wish them to; they "mean it" in a way that is just as meaningful to them.

My RC relatives take communion in my church when they visit me. I know they don't "mean it" in the way I do, but I am glad to share the Eucharistic feast with them on a different level, in the spirit of Christian fraternity.

The irony though, is that this rejection is very often only on a theoretical level. As I said previously, I was the one that had to politely decline a RC priest's invitation for me to take communion (I used to bring my father to the altar, as he was infirm, and after mass one day the priest asked me, in a friendly way, why I didn't take communion myself). The priest was perfectly happy for me to share the Eucharist with him and his parishioners, and in the exact words, told me that the ban was a "load of nonsense".

I suspect 99% of his congregation would have shared his views..

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

Interesting simile... :-)

I take your point, but the reality is that those people whom they do turn away are not going to "mean it" in the way they would wish them to; they "mean it" in a way that is just as meaningful to them.

My RC relatives take communion in my church when they visit me. I know they don't "mean it" in the way I do, but I am glad to share the Eucharistic feast with them on a different level, in the spirit of Christian fraternity.

The irony though, is that this rejection is very often only on a theoretical level. As I said previously, I was the one that had to politely decline a RC priest's invitation for me to take communion (I used to bring my father to the altar, as he was infirm, and after mass one day the priest asked me, in a friendly way, why I didn't take communion myself). The priest was perfectly happy for me to share the Eucharist with him and his parishioners, and in the exact words, told me that the ban was a "load of nonsense". I suspect 99% of his congregation would have shared his views..

The Eucharist and its meaning is quite a complex sacrament. The RC church introduce it to people when they are 7 or 8 years old, which is ridiculous. How can a young child possibly understand what it means?

Peregrinus

How can an adult possibly understand what it means? If the criterion is "understanding" then we're all buggered, I'm afraid.

Fortunately, understanding is not the key to the grace of the sacrament.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can an adult possibly understand what it means? If the criterion is "understanding" then we're all buggered, I'm afraid.
Fortunately, understanding is not the key to the grace of the sacrament.

Your quote Peregrinus: "Well, in this particular case the complexity is probably increased by the fact that the Catholic church set out its authoritative teaching on the subject in Aristotelian language just at the moment when Aristotelian language was about to be superseded among philosophers and scientists. What they said in 1600 would have been readily understood, if not by everybody, then certainly by educated people, whereas to use the same language today is practically to speak in code. They couldn’t have foreseen that at the time."

Try explaining any of that to an 8 year old child.

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

The Eucharist and its meaning is quite a complex sacrament. The RC church introduce it to people when they are 7 or 8 years old, which is ridiculous. How can a young child possibly understand what it means?

I suppose they can understand the essence, without understanding the complexities of transubstantiation etc. Still, seven or eight is a bit young, and, as far as I know, it's only here in Ireland that that happens. In France and Germany they make First Communion as teenagers.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

Try explaining any of that to an 8 year old child.

You can't. Nor, for that matter, could you explain Protestant and Orthodox critiques of the Catholic position.

But so what? And 8-year old child doesn't need to understand these things in order to encounter Christ in the sacrament. Nobody does.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can't. Nor, for that matter, could you explain Protestant and Orthodox critiques of the Catholic position.

But so what? And 8-year old child doesn't need to understand these things in order to encounter Christ in the sacrament. Nobody does.

It is hard to explain it to adults...never mind children.

Still, I really don't see where the seven/eight year old thing comes from. It's not the norm elsewhere; is it some societal thing in Ireland, some kind of rite of passage? Something to do with the supposed "age of reason"?