Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 370
- Technical Topics 370
Comments
Thanks to you and others for the welcome to the forum. Regarding Protestant sects and consubstantiation, I'll see if I can answer you. My understanding of Catholic theology regarding Eucharist is that somehow the elements become the physical presence of Christ once they are received by the individual. No Protestant group that I know of holds this view. There are groups (some Lutheran, as well as Reformed Christian among them) who believe that in the elements there is a very real but spiritual presence of Christ. I personally tend to hold this belief - coming to it after taking a church history class in Bible college. Our church takes the memorial/symbolic view (as do most Baptist churches). They believe that Christ is certainly present, but He is present in the body of believers, not in the actual elements. When the elements are passed by the deacons, the focus is on remembering what Christ did for us in His death & resurrection, and our unworthiness, and our hope for the future return of Christ.
Hope that helps,
CLawrence
i know my welcome is a bit deyaled here, i'm a weee bittt slow....lol
anyways, thanks for your input!
hope to hear from you more often in the posts!
take care and God bless
First thing this Encylopedia does is list the 6 contrasting views of the Eucharist. Of those six views, 2 distinct views are presented. The first they label the spiritual presence: The second, they label "pious silence", and ascribe it to the Lutheran and Orthodox view: Now though they have grouped Lutherans with the Orthodox, due to their emphasis on the "sacred mystery" and the desire not to use human language to describe what happens exactly, there is still a difference between us and the Lutherans as to the exact nature of the very real divine presence. We say the bread and wine IS the body and blood; they say the body and blood is under, above, and in the bread and wine. Just for clarification, according to the above link, which view do you hold exactly? For if it is the view of "spiritual presence" as defined above, I would be very curious to know how your study of church history supported this decision, when early patristic theology from the very 1st century of the Christian era, support the very real divine presence focused in the actual bread and wine.
Thanks for your reply.
Thank You So Much
Pete :) :) :)
I know this was addressed to CLawrence but I thought I would weigh in on the subject{if you dont mind} Posted below you will find the doctine of "spiritual presence" as defined by John Calvin.His view I think,adequately expresses what most protestants believe about the "spiritual presence" of the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion.
The key to unlocking the meaning of this doctrine as presented in this article is the proper understanding of the word "spiritually." Often this word is either passed over and never dealt with or it is taken to be ambiguous. It too frequently is taken as being in opposition to the Lutheran idea of the physical, bodily presence of Christ. In such a case Christ is thought to be present in Spirit, but not in his true body. However, this is a terrible misunderstanding of the word, and clearly is not what the article means to indicate. This is demonstrated by Calvin's discussion of the presence of Christ in his Institutes. In Book IV, 17, 7 he writes,
I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth.
Such an unwarranted understanding of this word also butchers the plain meaning of scripture when Paul admonishes us through the Corinthians that the cup is "a participation in the blood of Christ," the bread is "a participation in the body of Christ," and that we must be careful to discern the body and blood of Christ, lest we fall under his judgement. (1 Cor 10:16; 11:27-29)
However, Calvin does clarify what is meant by this word "spiritually." In Institutes IV, 17, 12 Calvin compares the Reformed understanding of how Christ's actual body and blood are communicated to us in this sacrament with the Lutheran and Roman views. He begins his argument by affirming that Christ's body is in heaven at the right hand of God. However, this does not negate the fact that believers, through this sacrament, actually eat the very flesh and drink the very blood of that same body. It simply determines the manner in which Christ's body and blood are communicated to us. Not "as if the body of Christ, locally present, were to be taken into the hand, and chewed by the teeth, and swallowed by the throat," but "the Spirit of Christ, who unites us to him, and is a kind of channel by which everything that Christ has and is, is derived to us." Calvin continues at length:
For if we see that the sun, in sending forth its rays upon the earth, to generate, cherish, and invigorate its offspring, in a manner transfuses its substance into it, why should the radiance of the Spirit do less in conveying to us the communion of his flesh and blood? Wherefore the Scripture, when it speaks of our participation with Christ, refers its whole efficacy to the Spirit. Instead of many, one passage will suffice. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 8:9-11), shows that the only way in which Christ dwells in us is by his Spirit. By this, however, he does not take away that communion of flesh and blood of which we now speak, but shows me it is owing to the Spirit alone that we possess Christ wholly, and have him abiding in us.
So we conclude that when we read the adverb "spiritually" in this passage it is not to be taken as in some way opposed to the real, physical or material body and blood of Christ, but as an indication of how that body and blood are communicated to us, through the mediation of the Holy Spirit. The Confession does not object to the notion that we really feast on the true body and blood of Christ, but that his body is located anywhere but in heaven. His body is not located in the elements themselves, nor in thousands of churches at the same time, as Luther understood, but rather his body remains in heaven where Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father. Nevertheless, we understand that the true, physical, glorified body and blood of our savior, while located in heaven at the Father's right hand, are truly distributed to us and we feed on them to our spiritual nourishment by the mysterious and powerful working of the Holy Spirit.
No problem.Apparently I was able to help you a little...lol... ;DHope so anyway. God bless.
This would be closer to the view I hold - and yet more than what my church actually teaches. I was raised in the Lutheran church (Missouri Synod) and then began going to a "non-denominational" church in junior high. My views then took on the purely symbolic nature of communion, since that was what is taught in most evangelical protestant type churches. While at Bible college (Moody in Chicago) my Church History teacher was a member of the Reformed Christian church, and encouraged us to look into the various teachings on communion and baptism. It was during that time that I came to believe that there was more to communion than the purely symbolic. The class itself did not teach this information or any particular theology. Interestingly enough - to me - is that during my years in the Lutheran church the theology of communion was never really explained.
CLawrence
Here I think is the crux of the above excerpt you pasted: The above statement, commits the same fallacy from the Orthodox and Lutheran perspective, that the Catholic church commits; namely it attempts to describe the process by which the local presence of Christ's body and blood become effective in the bread and wine. Calvin seems to have in fact employed metaphysical terms just as the Catholics do, the only difference seems to be, that whilst the above explanation speaks of a transfusion of substance, the Catholic church believes in a complete transformation of substance.
As such, i believe the article was incorrect when it stated in the introduction, that the concept of “spiritual presence” is not opposed to the Lutheran doctrine, for in going on to explain how the Eucharist becomes the true and real divine body and blood, using metaphysical terms, and analogies to the sun, it has contradicted a fundamental defining factor of the Orthodox and Lutheran view of “pious silence”. In this sense, the concept has more in common with the Roman view.
Thanks for your clarification. Yes indeed, any study of church history would prove that the notion of divine presence was indeed thoroughly promoted and supported by the early church - Im not sure if there was ever in fact, anyone opposed to it until many, many centuries (and even that particular opposition is negligible) - I might have to double check that.
Im going to go dig up some old patristic quotes on the issue of divine presence now, and i'll paste them soon.
Btw, what are your views on the nature of the Eucharist - i.e. A mere memorial meal in commemoration of a beloved one, or a memorial sacrafice offered as a gift to God?
Iqbal,
I'm not sure I've ever really thought about it as a gift/sacrifice offered to God. Historically, the event comes from the celebration of the Passover meal, and in that context would be focused on a future event, the coming of the Messiah. When Christ came and instituted the celebration it looks forward to the future as well - to His return. I guess I see it more as a gift to me than the other way around. It was His sacrifice for my sins that I remember, and the hope that He offers to which I look forward. It isn't just a memorial to me - but I definitely see it more as a reminder of what Christ did and will do for me.
CLawrence
P.S. I checked out the introduction forum, and it seems as if most of the members there are quite young. Is that the case over most of the forums?
I would say the vast majority are High School age but there are many others in their twenties,thirties,forties,
etc. The oldest person I've seen here on the forum was a 59 year old woman.No matter what the age group I'm sure the members{there are tons of guests who stop by frequently as well}will benefit from your wisdom and christian experience.God bless you. :)
Thanks for your reply regarding the age breakdown of participants on these forums. I find it encouraging to see so many young people (boy, that makes me sound old!) interested in discussing their faith with others of like mind.
CLawrence
In addition to all that ive stated in my previous posts, id like to put forth the words of a famous Protestant scholar Joachim Jeremias, who states in his book, The Eucharistic words of Jesus, "The command for the repetition of the Lord's Supper can be translated: "Do this, that God may remember me.' How are we to understand this? Here, a old Pasover prayer is illuminating. On Passver evening, there is a prayr inserted into the 3rd benediction of the grace after the actual meal, in which God is asked to remember the Messiah. . . . In this common prayer, which is also used on other festival days, God is being petitioned at every Passover concerning 'the remembrance of the Messiah'" (page 252).
The importance of the question as to whether this is to be considered a memorial sacrafice in the context of the words Christ employed when He instituted the practise, is that if it indeed is to be considered such, than we do have a theologically valid reason for the use of the altar upon which the sacrafice is offered; the liturgy, which employs the function of the temple where the sacrafice is made; and the Priest; who is to offer the sacrafice - and this was the very issue which had me involved in this particular thread in the first place.
Thanks for your input.
I don't think I can answer this question at this point. I have never heard that particular translation of Jesus' words to the disciples when He instituted the Eucharist, so I can't comment on them without looking into the original language, translation, etc. I will attempt to do so this coming week.
Regarding the altar, I believe there is a basis still for using one when celebrating communion - because it was on the altar that sacrifice was made to maintain man's relationship with God - and Christ was the final sacrifice - through whom we can indeed have relationship with the Father. It is interesting because we celebrated communion this Sunday, and our Pastor pointed out the altar, and how it was sanctified for that particular purpose.
As far as a theological need for the priest, etc., this is one area where Protestants differ from Catholic & apparently Coptic Orthodox churches. We believe the Bible teaches the priesthood of believers with Christ as our Great High Priest - we see no need for a man to act as intermediary between us and God - Through Christ we have direct access to the Father (see Hebrews 10:19-23)
Iqbal, thank you for the challenge to look into my beliefs regarding communion, I will try to examine the text this week.
CLawrence
The point is not that we need an “intermediary figure”, but simply that God intended that certain specific functions such as the offering of sacrifices, were to be performed by certain elect. Christ is indeed our High priest, but again the concept of a high priest is not foreign to the Old Testament (Aaron being the first) which still stresses the distinct ministerial priesthood. I guess the strongest argument that the incident of Korah's rebellion, and the moral of that story, is still relevant and significant in the New Testament age, is the fact St Jude referred to it in chapter 11, showing how from the apostles perspective, it was a very real and present problem that the early church was dealing with.
Iqbal, I never considered "challenge" in a negative light. On the contrary, I consider challenges to my faith to be extremely positive things, for they inevitably strengthen my faith even if they change my mind about certain things! The seeking out of truth is always a beneficial thing. So thanks!
You confirmed that the theological validity of the altar rests upon the fact it was the altar upon which the sacrifice/offering was made as depicted in the Old Testament; but was it not also, the temple priest who had the unique function of offering this sacrifice upon that temple altar?
True, it was the temple priest that made the sacrifice upon the altar - however, God no longer requires sacrifices upon the altar, since Christ was the final sacrifice. Now we offer our very lives as sacrifices to God, and we do not need an altar to do so, nor do I believe we need a priest. Similarly, we do not need temples, as our lives are the temples in which the Holy Spirit resides. The Old Testament is full of practices which were only foreshadowings of the Covenant which was to come - external activities which now take place within the body of the believer. Indeed, the first Eucharist was not offered on an altar, but at a dinner table. God the Father is interested in our hearts, outward observances are only of value to Him (in my opinion) in as much as they direct our thoughts inward to encourage faith and obedience.
CLawrence
Jaroslav Pelikan in his book: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) sstates that by the date of the “Deidache” (anytime from 60 – 160 A.D.) “ . . the aplication of the term 'sacrifice' to the Eucharist seemed to be quite natural, together with the identification of the Eucharist as the “pure offering”' as commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . . The liturgies were already using similar language about the ofering of the gifts, the prayers, and the lives of worshipers, and also about the offering of the sacrifice of the liturgy, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ had never lacked a liturgical framework of reference . . .” (Pages 146-147)
I would also like to quote The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, pp.475-6, 1221: “It was widely held from the first century that the Eucharist was in some sense a sacrifice….The suggestion of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is contained in much of the language of the N. . . the words employed in the institution, 'memorial,' 'covenant,' 'poured out,' all have sacrificial connotations. . . “ (page 1221) Again, I believe you’re mixing two very separate issues that have nothing to do with eachother. Our bodies being temples, has nothing to do with the Eucharist, nor did it have anything to do with the Levitical sacrificial system. We are speaking about the Eucharist as a sacrafice in virtue of its direct and immediate relation to the very sacrifice of Christ, of which our bodies being sacrifices has nothing to do with.
Indeed the Old Testament was a shadow of things to come, but only to the extent and nature that the New Testament explicates and explains for us. The fulfillment of the Levitical sacrifices was not in our bodies becoming sacrifices, but in Christ being sacrificed for us on the cross, and that sacrifice being commemorated through a memorial sacrifice that we are to offer in a sacrificial manner as Christ inteneded, and as the early church indeed performed. On the first page, I pasted a sample of early church quotations showing how the early church itself performed the Eucharist, by use of the altar, and the function of the ministerial priest. I will repaste them once more here for convenience sake again: +++ Amen I agree with you 100%. But you must agree, that if the Bible teaches us to enact the Eucharist in a particular way, then we should not be ignorant of this, and we should perform it in the appropriate manner, out of respect and obedience. Well that’s obvious – for the first Eucharist was instituted by Christ Himself, the very One who IS both High priest and the temple of God. Does the temple of God need to go to a temple of God, to offer His own body and blood? Of course not, that’s simply absurd. This therefore, cannot be used as a justification that the altar and ministerial priesthood are invalid practises for the New Testament church. Indeed thus far, I have given you many points as to why they are still valid, both scriptural and historical:
a) The fact Christ intended the Eucharist to be offered as a sacrifice, not simply a meal.
b) The fact the early church since its inception always understood the Eucharist to be a sacrifice.
b) The New Testament reference to Korah’s rebellion, emphasizing the importance of the distinction between universal and ministerial priesthood.
c) The New Testament references to the altar of the New Testament church.
d) The New Testament allusions to a distinct ministerial priesthood.
e) The fact the early church recognized the distinct ministerial priesthood and function of the altar, and the liturgy.
Actually, I do agree that we should not be ignorant regarding what the Bible teaches. What I am not sure about is whether we agree regarding the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. You believe the Bible teaches that it is a sacrifice to God - as of right now I believe it is in memory of Christ's sacrifice for me. More later after I have a chance to look into it further.
CLawrence
As an orthodox Christian, I believe all my beliefs and practises are rooted in the early apostolic church, so Im curious as to the basis upon which you would regard one aspect of history i.e. divine presence, yet disregard another i.e. sacraficial nature of Eucharist.
I appreciate your continued patience,
Peace