Ignatius on the Eucharist

[francisdesales]

I think your not reading what I'm writing. I do not deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist... To do so would be like denying God dwelling in the holy of holies before the temple curtain was torn. :-?

What I am opposed to, is the idea that a wafer takes on the form of meat and the wine takes the form of blood and we call that the Eucharist. I digress, ...

Digress? Jeff, how about "contradict"?

The Eucharist IS the "wafer" that has been "Eucharisted", as Justin says. As Ignatius says.

Sorry if I seem confused on your stance - but the quote above is not helping.

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

Trajan considers the confession of Christianity as a crime worthy of death, but forbades a search for Christians and the acceptance of anonymous denunciations. Whoever shows by sacrificing to the gods that he is not a Christian is to be released. Where the adherence to Christianity is proved the punishment of death is to follow. The action he prescribed rests on the coercive power of the police, the right of repression of the magistracy, which required no settled form of procedure. In pursuance of these orders measures were taken against Christians in other places also. The most distinguished martyrs under Trajan were Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem. Legend names many others, but there was no actual persecution on a large scale and the position of the Christians was in general satisfactory.

Though not as active as Nero, Trajan was no saint…

Here’s the deal Joe. I understand your position and I appreciate your zeal for your religion. However, I don’t read Ignatius with the same lens you or the RCC does.

As I stated earlier, Ignatius writes to babes in Christ very plainly so that he will not be misunderstood. Clearly he states what the flesh and blood of Christ are. There is no denying that.

While yes, I understand what John wrote in his letter (John 6:54), you are also well aware that Jesus told his true disciples in regard to the matter;
John 6:63 (kjv) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Just as God provided manna in the desert to those pulled out of bondage so they would not perish in the wilderness, Jesus gives us his spirit that we might walk within this vessel of flesh that we now reside while we sojourn the present earth with the vision of the promised land which flows with milk and honey that is yet one day to come to be on earth, as it is in heaven; for Christ spoke those words with his flesh, and we are to not only speak those words, but we are to live out the words of Christ in our flesh. Remember, Israel was called out to be a nation of priests, a light to all the nations. With the new covenant came the new exodus. We are those people.

Back to Ignatius, though moving to his letter to the Romans.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html

I have no reservations that Ignatius, when he wrote to the Romans was focused and drew near to the Alter. It becomes quite apparent that he prepares himself for the Roman Arena; he identifies with the Alter and is focused on the act of sacrifice.

Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my sepulchre and may leave no part of my body behind, so that I may not, when I am fallen asleep, be burdensome to any one. Then shall I be truly a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not so much as see my body. Supplicate the Lord for me, that through these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God.

While I believe his response is a natural response, we certainly see a shift from what we read from the apostles and from the Didache. As I explained in another thread, the Didache represents the Lords’ Supper / Eucharist in the form of a Jewish meal festival which is in perfect harmony with the Old Testament festivals which were to prepare us for Christ’s death.

Ignatius places his emphasis within the context of Alter language. Combine this thought with the fact that Dioecism was a problematic heresy within Christianity, and it’s easy to see why the emphasis on the bread becoming the literal body of Christ is so misunderstood within Catholicism. It appears to me that extreme logical conclusions have that effect within a debate, such as when St. Augustine debated Universalism and deduced that infants that were not baptized were destine to Hell without reservation.

 

[stovebolts]

I think your not reading what I'm writing. I do not deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist... To do so would be like denying God dwelling in the holy of holies before the temple curtain was torn. :-?

What I am opposed to, is the idea that a wafer takes on the form of meat and the wine takes the form of blood and we call that the Eucharist. I digress, ...

Digress? Jeff, how about "contradict"?

The Eucharist IS the "wafer" that has been "Eucharisted", as Justin says. As Ignatius says.

Sorry if I seem confused on your stance - but the quote above is not helping.

Regards

Eucharist;
2169. eucharistia
eucaristia eucharistia yoo-khar-is-tee'-ah

from 2170; gratitude; actively, grateful language (to God, as an act of worship):--thankfulness, (giving of) thanks(-giving).


:o

 

[Vic C.]

... Eucharist;
2169. eucharistia
eucaristia eucharistia yoo-khar-is-tee'-ah

from 2170; gratitude; actively, grateful language (to God, as an act of worship):--thankfulness, (giving of) thanks(-giving).

:o

Been there already, Jeff. You'd think it would be that easy. ;-)

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Eucharist;
2169. eucharistia
eucaristia eucharistia yoo-khar-is-tee'-ah

from 2170; gratitude; actively, grateful language (to God, as an act of worship):--thankfulness, (giving of) thanks(-giving).

Where is that from? The Greek words eucharistein and eulogein recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially during a meal - God's works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. When a priests speaks the words over the bread and wine, he actually says the Jewish blessings (or a variant there of) that Jesus most likely said, which is why the bread and wine are "eucharisted", as francisdesales said: "Blessed are you, Lord of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life... ..Blessed are you, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become our spiritual drink."


Anyways, check this out, from Wikipedia, of all places:

Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostolic Fathers, mentions the Eucharist as "the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ",[16] and Justin Martyr speaks of it as more than a meal: "the food over which the prayer of thanksgiving, the word received from Christ, has been said ... is the flesh and blood of this Jesus who became flesh ... and the deacons carry some to those who are absent."[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

 

[francisdesales]

Though not as active as Nero, Trajan was no saint…

I don't recall saying he was... Why are you making mention of this? All I said was that Trajan was not actively persecuting Christians, seeking them and dragging the ordinary people out of their homes, which would be indicative of a full-blown persecution. My point is that Ignatius was more the exception in his day.

Here’s the deal Joe. I understand your position and I appreciate your zeal for your religion. However, I don’t read Ignatius with the same lens you or the RCC does.

Jeff, I am sorry to read that, as you make me sound like some fundamental wacko. I read the simple literal writing and I have "zeal" for my "religion" and naturally, your "lenses" would be correct when compared with the "RCC". I read the simple sayings of Christ, and my "religion" needs someone such as yourself to "correct" the 2000 year "lenses".

Thanks, Jeff, for your offer, but your argument is not very convincing.

As I stated earlier, Ignatius writes to babes in Christ very plainly so that he will not be misunderstood. Clearly he states what the flesh and blood of Christ are. There is no denying that.

Yes, the Flesh and Blood of Christ is the Bread and Wine that has been consecrated at the Eucharist. The elements. But somehow, Ignatius must invent such language for the simpletons, while the true "gnostic" Christians with their superior knowledge can ascertain that such language is beyond their "conscience" and cannot except it, rather discounting it TOTALLY and pointing to the spiritual definitions... You are sounding more and more Docetist, Jeff.

Yes, they would agree. The Logos didn't come in the flesh, such langauge is for the simpletons, as we all "know" that the spiritual is the only thing that matters...

Jeff, quite simply, the simple langauge cannot be discounted, as such teaching would be an outright lie. Do you propose to claim that Ignatius was inventing such things as "The flesh of Christ is the Bread" for the babes, knowing full well it wasn't? Naturally, a man such as Ignatius who courageously went to his death to be ground as wheat by the lions would feel the need to invent such things to throw the babes off the track of the "REAL" understanding...

Amazingly, St. Irenaeus wrote about such attitudes in "Against Heresies" 75 years later.

The fact of the matter remains that the Eucharist is physical and spiritual. The bread and wine are truly Christ. These elements contain a spiritual component, because Christ's presence is really there.

While yes, I understand what John wrote in his letter (John 6:54), you are also well aware that Jesus told his true disciples in regard to the matter;
John 6:63 (kjv) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Yes, those with fleshy minds (those who follow the ways of the world or rely on their "scriptural expertise" rather than faith in God) cannot come to the knowledge of the truth. Only the Father draws men to faith and only the Spirit enables men to believe. IF Jesus refers to His physical flesh as being unworthy of profit, then He suffered and died in vain (and the Docetists again rejoice in what you imply...)

Just as God provided manna in the desert to those pulled out of bondage so they would not perish in the wilderness, Jesus gives us his spirit that we might walk within this vessel of flesh that we now reside while we sojourn the present earth with the vision of the promised land which flows with milk and honey that is yet one day to come to be on earth, as it is in heaven; for Christ spoke those words with his flesh, and we are to not only speak those words, but we are to live out the words of Christ in our flesh. Remember, Israel was called out to be a nation of priests, a light to all the nations. With the new covenant came the new exodus. We are those people.

If you have been validly baptized, then yes, you are. However, it is clear to me that Christ comes to abide in me ESPECIALLY (but not only) via the Eucharist, around the Table. That is why the Bread and Wine consecrated are a sign of unity within the Church.

I have no reservations that Ignatius, when he wrote to the Romans was focused and drew near to the Alter. It becomes quite apparent that he prepares himself for the Roman Arena; he identifies with the Alter and is focused on the act of sacrifice.

While I believe his response is a natural response, we certainly see a shift from what we read from the apostles and from the Didache. As I explained in another thread, the Didache represents the Lords’ Supper / Eucharist in the form of a Jewish meal festival which is in perfect harmony with the Old Testament festivals which were to prepare us for Christ’s death.

Of course. And as I said already, the Jews quickly recognized that the OLD Testament rituals pointed to the NEW Testament rituals, a deeper reality. Now, a communion offering was an eating of CHRIST, the Victim who is offered to God and we enjoy communion WITH God. If this was lost on the Jewish Christians, you'd be hard pressed to explain this unanimity that you keep ignoring.

Ignatius places his emphasis within the context of Alter language. Combine this thought with the fact that Dioecism was a problematic heresy within Christianity, and it’s easy to see why the emphasis on the bread becoming the literal body of Christ is so misunderstood within Catholicism.

ALL heresies are problematic.
MANY Church Fathers speak of sacrifice and altar language...

And this naturally proves the Catholic Church has been wrong for 2000 years...

You haven't explained away the simple verses in any case. Rather, you must take a long and indirect route across other writings to "prove" that Ignatius didn't actually think that the Eucharist was Christ's flesh - although he says that EXPLICITLY. As did Jesus. But that isn't good enough for you.

Sorry, Jeff, you are trying to make Ignatius conform to your already-set beliefs, rather than reading what he actually wrote. And we have not even scratched the surface of other writings of this era that state the same thing in different words. Either the Church Fathers liked to speak in riddles, or they spoke quite plainly and you prefer not to hear what they say.

It appears to me that extreme logical conclusions have that effect within a debate, such as when St. Augustine debated Universalism and deduced that infants that were not baptized were destine to Hell without reservation.

[/quote]

Perhaps you are aware that St. Augustine was virtually alone in this line of thought? We are speaking apples and oranges, now. The Eucharistic presence was univerally believed.

Either the Spirit lied to the Church for 1600 years, or the Spirit of God was never given to the Church to begin with.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

... Eucharist;
2169. eucharistia
eucaristia eucharistia yoo-khar-is-tee'-ah

from 2170; gratitude; actively, grateful language (to God, as an act of worship):--thankfulness, (giving of) thanks(-giving).

:o

Been there already, Jeff. You'd think it would be that easy. ;-)

Yea, naturally, we aren't thankful to have God's ACTUAL presence with us...

Ever wonder why Christians were accused of being cannibals by the Romans? Naturally, when someone is eating bread and drinking wine, onlookers would come to the conclusion that they were cannibals, right?

Regards

 

[Veritas]

Fantastic quotes. I'm amazed at your perspective. But - and I'm almost afraid to say this - the next hairy subject that will eventually have to be tackled is: Who is empowered to effect this change of elements? I don't want to veer off onto that subject at this time, but it is an integral part of me and francis' beliefs, and something that needs to be eventually addressed..

Oh... what does Ignatius say on it? I would imagine we disagree on who is empowered. I would say that the "benefits" of the Lord's Supper do not depend on the faith of the person administering it - instead, they depend on the power of God's Word and promises, which would be effective whenever the Lord's Supper is administered in accordance with Christ's Word and will. I think that Christian churches that publicly deny the Scriptural teaching that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the sacrament, are not administering the Lord's Supper "in accordance with Christ's Word and will."

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Fantastic quotes. I'm amazed at your perspective. But - and I'm almost afraid to say this - the next hairy subject that will eventually have to be tackled is: Who is empowered to effect this change of elements? I don't want to veer off onto that subject at this time, but it is an integral part of me and francis' beliefs, and something that needs to be eventually addressed..

Oh... what does Ignatius say on it? I would imagine we disagree on who is empowered. I would say that the "benefits" of the Lord's Supper do not depend on the faith of the person administering it - instead, they depend on the power of God's Word and promises, which would be effective whenever the Lord's Supper is administered in accordance with Christ's Word and will. I think that Christian churches that publicly deny the Scriptural teaching that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the sacrament, are not administering the Lord's Supper "in accordance with Christ's Word and will."

1) You are right: The "benefits" of the Lord's Supper do not depend on the faith of the person administering it *. However, you must have something to administer first! That is what I getting at. Boy oh boy, if the benefits depended on the faith of the person administering it, we'd all be in deep doo doo.

2) Perhaps you could expand for me on what you mean when you say "Christ's body and blood are truly present in the sacrament"... ...??

(* Ex opere operato is a Latin theological expression meaning literally "from the work having been worked" and with the specific meaning "by the very fact of the action's being performed." It refers to the idea that the sacraments work from the mere fact of having been administered, rather than from the status of the minister of the Sacrament. However, only a validly ordained priest can bring about the actual change in elements before they are administered..)

 

[francisdesales]

Oh... what does Ignatius say on it? I would imagine we disagree on who is empowered. I would say that the "benefits" of the Lord's Supper do not depend on the faith of the person administering it - instead, they depend on the power of God's Word and promises, which would be effective whenever the Lord's Supper is administered in accordance with Christ's Word and will.

Craig,

Yes, you are correct, the "benefits" of the Lord's Supper do not depend upon the faith of the minister - however, God's Word and will is to work through those whom He chooses to administer the sacrament - as Ignatius states. The Bishop is not some super-holy person, but someone who God has chosen to represent visibly a center of unity to administer the sacrament (among other things). Just as in the OT, there were ministrial priests, so too, in the New Covenant. The People of God (all of us) are priests in a sense that they offer their personal sacrifices to the Lord, but when we come together in the Liturgy and worship, we participate in one action that exists in eternity, the self-giving of Christ to the Father - mediated by the action of the priest through whom Christ works. This is clear in the words of the Didache, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius, writers of the turn of the century.

It is God working through the minister that makes the sacrament effective, not the ability of the priest (which is why women are not priests).

I think that Christian churches that publicly deny the Scriptural teaching that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the sacrament, are not administering the Lord's Supper "in accordance with Christ's Word and will."

I would agree, but some people do not want to abide by the literal and simple sense of Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers. Heck, Jews ACTUALLY THERE left Jesus because they didn't want to abide by the simple language of Christ. I think enough of Ignatius' quotes clearly point out his belief, despite the attempt to make him say something else.

And "THIS IS MY BODY", "THIS IS MY BLOOD" Was Christ just kidding around or making cryptic statements right before His death, HOPING the Apostles would figure out the hidden meaning later??? Not likely given the witness of the Church to follow.

Regards

 

[lovely]

Joe,

Could you explain to me more your understanding of the bread and wine being both physcial and spiritual. I read your posts, but I am still not fully understanding this idea. Jesus came in the flesh so that we could partake of Him, I agree with that, but why is it important for the bread and wine to be a continued flesh and blood in a memorial?

Currently, I struggle with the fact that I have always been taught that the Communion Table is important spiritually...I have never had the sense that we were partaking in an unworthy manner...but, it seems to contradict the Word to me. Jesus very directly says that the bread is His flesh, and the wine is His blood.

To boil it down, why would we have a continued need for His flesh, and His blood,if He came in the flesh and died once for all? Why would God have to change this food in us to the actual flesh? Secondly, do you believe that it is changed in protestants as well? Why?

Thanks, and the Lord bless you.

 

[Veritas]

However, only a validly ordained priest can bring about the actual change in elements before they are administered..

I was going to disagree with this right off... but francis did bring this up:

It is God working through the minister that makes the sacrament effective, not the ability of the priest (which is why women are not priests).

Which does make me think about whether or not God can work through these women of certain denominations that are in "priest" positions. But... I'm still going to disagree on the grounds that if the particular church is adminstering the Lords supper in accordance with scripture (teaching that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the sacrament) then it is valid.

The Bishop is not some super-holy person, but someone who God has chosen to represent visibly a center of unity to administer the sacrament (among other things). Just as in the OT, there were ministrial priests, so too, in the New Covenant. The People of God (all of us) are priests in a sense that they offer their personal sacrifices to the Lord, but when we come together in the Liturgy and worship, we participate in one action that exists in eternity, the self-giving of Christ to the Father - mediated by the action of the priest through whom Christ works. This is clear in the words of the Didache, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius, writers of the turn of the century.

And I actually agree with this, but I certainly do not think the Catholic Church has a corner on the market in having persons who adminster the sacrament in accordance with God's will.

2) Perhaps you could expand for me on what you mean when you say "Christ's body and blood are truly present in the sacrament"... ...??

I just believe what is said in scripture. I believe He is present. When I commune, I believe I receive into my mouth, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And I think its a divine mystery beyond human comprehension or explanation. I don't think its a sacrificial act on our part but that it is God's gift through which He acts to impart His forgiveness and strength.

 

[lovely]

Craig,

I think I agree with you, though I admit I am yet fully convinced in my own mind, but I wonder about who administers it. Why do you feel that their belief is important...how can you know the person is even saved truly? And, if you were a dad, would you want to administer it to your family, or would you want someone else to?

I know, I have more questions than intelligent contribution at this point. :roll:

 

[stovebolts]

Alright Joe, I’m getting tired of this useless accusation and banter back and forth. It’s not what I expected from you. I fear that your zeal is overlooking my plain words as you attempt to paint my position as one in association with a Docetist or a Gnostic. What’s next? Marconian?...

Of course. And as I said already, the Jews quickly recognized that the OLD Testament rituals pointed to the NEW Testament rituals, a deeper reality. Now, a communion offering was an eating of CHRIST, the Victim who is offered to God and we enjoy communion WITH God. If this was lost on the Jewish Christians, you'd be hard pressed to explain this unanimity that you keep ignoring.

The Old Testament sacrificial rituals, Tabernacle and later the Temple pointed to heavenly realities, but were not the realities themselves (Exodus 25:40) which is affirmed through the advent of Christ. (John 1, emphasis on verse 14 with a highlight of the word dwelt [Strongs 4637. Skenoo; to tent or encamp, i.e. (figuratively) to occupy (as a mansion) or (specially), to reside (as God did in the Tabernacle of old, a symbol of protection and communion):-- dwell.]) While you’re at it, contrast John 1:14 with Leviticus 26:11 [in full context of course]. I’d like to hear your take.

That being said, not all sacrifices were eaten. Take for example the sin offering for the congregation; it was completely burned as a whole burnt offering. The fat was burned on the Alter, the blood was sprinkled about and the rest was taken outside the camp to a ceremonial clean place to be completely burned. (Leviticus 4:13-21). Contrast this with Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10)

As far as the Passover lamb, as you know, its blood was spread on the doorposts and eaten in haste. What wasn’t eaten was completely burned. (I’m expecting you to be very familiar with this story (Exodus 12)). It’s remembrance was to be an everlasting ordinance (Exodus 12:26-28) as a memorial (Exodus 12:14). While the text clearly states in verse 27, “It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S Passoverâ€Â, I would associate this with Christ’s words, “This is my Body…â€Â. Again, this is New Exodus language. In your opinion, is this view skewed?

One thing I find helpful to keep in mind concerning the sacrifices that were commanded, all offerings that were eaten and shared communally, were eaten while rejoicing in the presence of YHVH in full fellowship. (Deuteronomy 12:12).

 

[stovebolts]

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


When I read this, I see many of the problems that the church at Corinth faced as secular and cultural belief's overtook the purpose of their gatherings.

1. They argued about whose baptism they were baptised with. 1:12
2. There is acceptable fornication going on. 5:1-2
3. They are suing each other over disputable matters that should not be occurring. 6:7-8
4. They were leaning toward works in the Law, not faith. 7:20
5. They fell into idolatry. 10:14
6. They were sharing communion with the demons. 10:20
7. There were divisions and heresies among them 11:18-19
8. When they came to the Lord's Table, it became a social statement on who's who. 11:20


It is my understanding that as these issues continued, it becomes part of church history where the Bishops took it upon themselves to regulate the Eucharist to ensure that it was administered in a proper fashion. I believe this idea undermines the Apostles teachings and violates Jerimiah 31:33-34, after all, wasn't the curtain torn granting access for all to the Holy of Holies? (Mark 15:38).

 

[Veritas]

Craig,

I think I agree with you, though I admit I am yet fully convinced in my own mind, but I wonder about who administers it. Why do you feel that their belief is important...how can you know the person is even saved truly?

True.. I agree we can't ever know "fully and truly" who is saved like God can. I was thinking more along the lines that whoever is adminstering it is also teaching it. And so if people aren't taught they are recieving the true body and blood of Christ... then there will be a barrier they will put up between them and God.

And, if you were a dad, would you want to administer it to your family, or would you want someone else to?

If I were a dad, I guess I would prefer to have my family commune with other families of believers in a church. I definately wouldn't see a problem with adminstering to my own family and the other families in that church. And, if I was forced to (in the event of being alone for some reason and having no church) I guess I don't see a problem with just adminstering it to my own family... ...its just that if there is a church to be a part of I'd want to be a part of it. I'd want to share communion with my fellow believers.

 

[lovely]

True.. I agree we can't ever know "fully and truly" who is saved like God can. I was thinking more along the lines that whoever is adminstering it is also teaching it. And so if people aren't taught they are recieving the true body and blood of Christ... then there will be a barrier they will put up between them and God.

I see what you mean now, but I am not sure I agree, though I do believe that those who are teachers among us are accountable for what they teach, and I believe we should be studying all we can to be approved unto God. I guess I had a different view of the warning. I am going to look again, thanks.

If I were a dad, I guess I would prefer to have my family commune with other families of believers in a church. I definately wouldn't see a problem with adminstering to my own family and the other families in that church. And, if I was forced to (in the event of being alone for some reason and having no church) I guess I don't see a problem with just adminstering it to my own family... ...its just that if there is a church to be a part of I'd want to be a part of it. I'd want to share communion with my fellow believers.

Yes, I agree we should gather with other believers too. They are my family if they love Christ, little brother. :D I was just thinking about those times when it's not possible. We agree.

Thanks Craig, the Lord bless you.

 

[francisdesales]

Joe,

Could you explain to me more your understanding of the bread and wine being both physcial and spiritual. I read your posts, but I am still not fully understanding this idea. Jesus came in the flesh so that we could partake of Him, I agree with that, but why is it important for the bread and wine to be a continued flesh and blood in a memorial?

I will try. I will use an analogy that is Scriptural and one that you can relate with...

My wife and I have already expressed our vows of marriage once 20 years ago. I already know she has promised her love of me and I of her. And yet, we strive to continue to "relive" those promises of love and fidelity throughout our life, whenever possible. Those were not esoteric promises - they were promises we live with and direct our lives everyday (hopefully!) Thus, our once-made promises are re-lived, we participate in that over and over - "in the flesh".

As to the Eucharist, it's the same thing. Sure, we made a baptismal promise to Christ, but we relive that over and over with the "groom", Jesus Christ, in the flesh (since HE is of flesh, as well). We share communion with Him in a most personal way, a sharing of self (and the late John Paul 2 made a profound comparison between the husband and wife's holy sexual relationship and the receiving of Christ in the Eucharist. Both are TOTAL self-giving to the other) with the other, one in which we do not do with ANY other. We do this completely as husband and wife, and in the Eucharist, Christ ALSO does not hold back. He comes to us in the FLESH, since HE IS MAN! If Christ came to us ONLY in the spiritual manner, He would not be fully coming to us. He would be holding back part of Himself.

Remember, Jesus REMAINS physical and spiritual. Thus, if He doesn't come to us physically, He is not fully with us.

Here is something interesting for you that might help...

"If I am asked how the bread is changed into the Body of Christ, I answer: 'The Holy Ghost overshadows the priest and operates in the same manner in the elements which He effected in the womb of the Virgin Mary" St. John Damascus

Currently, I struggle with the fact that I have always been taught that the Communion Table is important spiritually...I have never had the sense that we were partaking in an unworthy manner...but, it seems to contradict the Word to me. Jesus very directly says that the bread is His flesh, and the wine is His blood.

To boil it down, why would we have a continued need for His flesh, and His blood,if He came in the flesh and died once for all? Why would God have to change this food in us to the actual flesh? Secondly, do you believe that it is changed in protestants as well? Why?

As a husband, I am quite happy that my wife does not have the "Protestant" attitude of showing her love for me in the marriage bed only once!

"I already did that once, get away from me!" :D

We relive our vows by totally giving of our self to the other often - humans need this constant reaffirmation of love. Knowing more fully what the Eucharist (and marriage) is helps to understand what God is doing through these visible signs. Otherwise, we miss the meaning and it becomes merely ritual.

Why would God change the food to Himself? This I answered somewhat earlier, the sacramental elements call to mind what their purpose is in life. Thus, bread is for sustenance. Eating it in other company brings them together. Ever sit around the table drinking wine and bagettes with your friends???!!! And wine also is a symbol of joy. Jesus certainly could have made Himself present in any form, but the elements call to mind for us humans something more... Something that is real. God is our sustenance. God provides us with joy, even in bad times.

Thanks, and the Lord bless you.

Thanks and you too.

 

[francisdesales]

I was going to disagree with this right off... but francis did bring this up:

It is God working through the minister that makes the sacrament effective, not the ability of the priest (which is why women are not priests).

Which does make me think about whether or not God can work through these women of certain denominations that are in "priest" positions. But... I'm still going to disagree on the grounds that if the particular church is adminstering the Lords supper in accordance with scripture (teaching that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the sacrament) then it is valid.

The Eucharist is a sacrament. Jesus was a male, not a female. No doubt, there are countless women who can preach and execute the practical functions that a male priest does. But when the priest, in the "person of Christ" says "This is my Body", it should be a male saying it. Also, the priest doesn't take a cheeseburger and say "Take and eat", because that is not what Jesus did. Jesus said "Do 'this' in remembrance of me". Thus, the Church has defined what "this" is that we are to do so as to call to mind the death of our Savior.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Alright Joe, I’m getting tired of this useless accusation and banter back and forth. It’s not what I expected from you. I fear that your zeal is overlooking my plain words as you attempt to paint my position as one in association with a Docetist or a Gnostic. What’s next? Marconian?...

Sorry to disappoint you, Jeff, but did you expect me to not respond to such blatant ideas that denies Christ's physical presence in the Eucharistic Bread and Wine from His spiritual presence that He promised, despite the clear language of Scriptures and St. Ignatius? Your ideas are quite similar to Docetism, fundamentally, I'm sorry to point that out, Jeff. As to Marcionism, I suppose we could go there since you dismiss the OT Deuterocanonicals as Marcion dismissed the entire OT, but that is not the subject.

That being said, not all sacrifices were eaten. Take for example the sin offering for the congregation; it was completely burned as a whole burnt offering. The fat was burned on the Alter, the blood was sprinkled about and the rest was taken outside the camp to a ceremonial clean place to be completely burned. (Leviticus 4:13-21). Contrast this with Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10)

Which is why Christ HIMSELF is the Lamb. Quite an interesting name. Why is Jesus a Lamb, except to be offered to God and eaten by the community as part of the sacrifice for the sake of the People of God??? And why does John see a Lamb in heaven, AFTER Jesus had already died on the cross? The Covenant is established within the context of the Passover, but it doesn't follow that EVERY SINGLE aspect must be followed to the tee. We don't roast Christ first, for example...Nor do we burn the remnants. You are going too far.

As far as the Passover lamb, as you know, its blood was spread on the doorposts and eaten in haste. What wasn’t eaten was completely burned. (I’m expecting you to be very familiar with this story (Exodus 12)). It’s remembrance was to be an everlasting ordinance (Exodus 12:26-28) as a memorial (Exodus 12:14). While the text clearly states in verse 27, “It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S Passoverâ€Â, I would associate this with Christ’s words, “This is my Body…â€Â. Again, this is New Exodus language. In your opinion, is this view skewed?

THIS IS MY BODY. Said right before He died. THIS (holding the cup) IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT. This view doesn't deny the spiritual sense of the Eucharist.

One thing I find helpful to keep in mind concerning the sacrifices that were commanded, all offerings that were eaten and shared communally, were eaten while rejoicing in the presence of YHVH in full fellowship. (Deuteronomy 12:12).

I have NEVER denied that. I am only pointing out that BOTH the physical and spiritual aspects remain. You dismiss the physical because it doesn't suit your conscience. I maintain both and have never denied the spiritual.

Regards