Eucharist

[Terry Sampson]

Miscellanea:

• Roman Catholic. Liturgy of the Eucharist (U.S. Conference of Bishops site: Liturgy of the Eucharist
  
• Lutheran (American Lutherans differ according to Rites, initial Synodical, or subsequent division and separation various issues.) Differences in the Order of Worship exist, but I would be surprised to hear that the differences are radical. Because of potential differences, I have not bothered to post any portion of the Order of Worship that pertains to Divine Worship/Holy Common/Eucharist.
• My lack of familiarity with the Anglican/Episcopalian communities discourages me from exploring the portion of their Order(s) of Worship that pertain to Divine Worship/Holy Common/Eucharist.
• Because the portion of Christian ("High Church") Orders of Service/Liturgies that pertain to Holy Communion/Eucharist exist because of Jesus' instructions to his disciples, given during a Passover meal, my curiosity led me to explore what a common Passover meal may have been like in Israel during the time period of or about the early 30s C.E. [i.e. Common Era].
  
• Harel13 directed me to the Wikipedia page addressing the Haggadah which is the Hebrew name for the written order of actions to be taken during the Passover meal. However, I thought it was interesting to note that a standardized, written Haggadah could not have existed before 170 C.E., and may not actually have been compiled many years later.
• Comparing an Haggadah with the events described in the gospels reveals the brevity of the gospel accounts of the Passover meal, even if Jesus' last supper with the disciples and common practices of the time differed from later Haggadic standardization. In other words, Jesus and his disciples didn't just "recline at the table", eat some matzah, share a cup of wine, sing a song and leave the house.
• I can live with that: the gospels focus our attention on two brief events that occurred during a larger, longer event. The Passover meal was the larger, longer event, i.e. the context. The two brief events were: the breaking of one matzah and the drinking of one cup of wine. In the Haggadah, there are three matzahs stacked, the second is broken in half, and there are four cups of wine. Correlation of the events of the last supper and some variant of a Haggadic prescribed Passover meal seems tenuous at best; more so, in the absence of the Haggadah.
  
• That said, I am intrigued, nevertheless, because in the Haggadah, the second matzah is broken and
  • during the last supper with his disciples,
    • Matthew 26:26 ... Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
    • Mark 14:22 ... he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”
    • Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
• I note that in the discussions of the Haggadot that I have looked at, each of the four cups of wine drunken during the meal is associated with one of God's four "I wills" recorded in Exodus 6:
  • 6 Therefore, say to the children of Israel, 'I am the Lord, and I will take you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will save you from their labor, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. 7 And I will take you to Me as a people, and I will be a God to you, and you will know that I am the Lord your God, Who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. Why Do We Drink Four Cups Of Wine On Passover?
• But in the gospel accounts, we read:
  • Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
  • Mark 14:23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
  • Luke 22:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
• In the Haggadah, the cup poured after the meal is--I believe--the third cup, which would be associated with the third of God's "I will" statements: "I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments", sometimes called "the cup of redemption". [Corrections welcome.]
  • If so, I think it's interesting to note that Jesus says he will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the day that he drinks it in the kingdom of God. This same cup is the cup that he offers to the disciples with the establishment of his covenant. It would seem to me. then, that they did not drink the fourth cup, which appeasr to be a significant departure from tradition, as would Jesus' other innovation assigning new meaning to the broken matzah.
  • By what authority does Jesus take the traditional Passover meal--which all Jews knew is a remembrance and celebration of God's actions on their behalf when He delivered them from Egyptian captivity--and assign new meanings to portions of the meal?

(To be continued)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

On what grounds do you conclude that?

For Roman Catholics? The Council of Trent established (or affirmed) the Roman Catholic Church position on this, particularly in response to the Protestant/reformist agendas.

I'm slightly confused by your question, though. Do you think belief in transubstantiation is not an RCC position? Or were you just curious? Or...??

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What..???

I can dig them out, but there has been a lot of studies on orthodoxy and heretical beliefs within the Catholic Church.

The Trinity, and how it was interpreted was commonly misunderstood, but transubstantiation had about a...hmm...25% rate of being misinterpreted by Catholics?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What..???

This is not what I remember, but for sake of discussion...

Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ

 

[Terry Sampson]

I'm slightly confused by your question, though. Do you think belief in transubstantiation is not an RCC position? Or were you just curious? Or...??

Ackkk! Well you should be confused by my mistake. Went back an reread your post and realized that you weren't saying that transubstantiation is heretical, RCs who don't believe in transubstantiation are. Sorry.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ackkk! Well you should be confused by my mistake. Went back an reread your post and realized that you weren't saying that transubstantiation is heretical, RCs who don't believe in transubstantiation are. Sorry.

No dramas. They way I wrote it was a little clumsy!

 

[Harel13]

Because the portion of Christian ("High Church") Orders of Service/Liturgies that pertain to Holy Communion/Eucharist exist because of Jesus' instructions to his disciples, given during a Passover meal, my curiosity led me to explore what a common Passover meal may have been like in Israel during the time period of or about the early 30s C.E. [i.e. Common Era].

Actually quite different from what's described in the Haggadah, as you pointed out. The modern Haggadah includes passages describing the Jewish hope for the redemption and the building of the Temple, with the latter unnecessary at the time of Jesus.
Per what's described in the Talmud, an ancient Seder was a feast with wine, the Matzah (unleavened bread), the Korban Pesach (Passover sacrifice) and the Maror (bitter herbs) included. The meal was eaten while reclining. The Hallel (Praise) was said and the rest of the time was spent retelling the story of the Exodus in great detail.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Actually quite different from what's described in the Haggada

Thanks, says Terry, as he breathes a sigh of relief that he wasn't wrong.

The Hallel (Praise) was said and the rest of the time was spent retelling the story of the Exodus in great detail.

"Reclining", as I understand, because free men reclined, and slaves or servants stood, no?

The Hallel (Praise) was said

The Hallel being, as Wiki tells me, a verbatim recitation of Psalms 113-118.

Per what's described in the Talmud,

So, does anyone know or have an idea when the standard or common practice began of

• having "three matzahs" and "four cups of wine";
• breaking the second matzah in half, replacing half in the stack and hiding the other half; and
  
• associating names and the "I will"s of Exodus 6:6-7 with each of the cups?

 

[Buckeyemel]

I know this will always be a silly debate.

Do you catholics and non-catholics actually believe you/they are drinking real blood and eating real flesh (cannibalism)? Please say no.

I asked a priest this but I wanted to hear what you guys thought.

 

[Buckeyemel]

When Jesus is talking about it in the New Testament, He is breaking the bread and pouring the wine in SYMBOLISM, I have attended many denominations of Christian churches, Baptist, Methodist, non-denonminational, and more others than I can count, but they have always taught it as a symbol of Christ's body and blood. Never that it actually IS. We obviously know it is NOT Him we are eating and drinking. It is the meaning we give the things we do that makes it important. The symbolic nature behind it. We take communion to reflect on our lives, ask forgiveness and come before Christ, in rememberance of Him as our intercessor, it is not really about whether we truly think we are eating Him or not.

I know this will always be a silly debate.

Do you catholics and non-catholics actually believe you/they are drinking real blood and eating real flesh (cannibalism)? Please say no.

I asked a priest this but I wanted to hear what you guys thought.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'd like to think of myself as a realist. I personally wouldn't start with "real blood" and "real body" when introducing a five-year old to the Eucharistic concepts. Lord knows what they'll tell their friends at school at show-and-tell time.

Haha. Just reading this again. I'd probably explain it from the Passion view. Jesus actually passed around wine and broke actual bread. So the child would understand that. Then say the bread is Jesus life and wine is Jesus death and by mass one is resurrected.

Put more emphasis on Jesus passion then connect the two when he gets older.

 

[Harel13]

Thanks, says Terry, as he breathes a sigh of relief that he wasn't wrong.

"Reclining", as I understand, because free men reclined, and slaves or servants stood, no?

Yeah, exactly.

The Hallel being, as Wiki tells me, a verbatim recitation of Psalms 113-118.

With a blessing before and after.

So, does anyone know or have an idea when the standard or common practice began of

• having "three matzahs" and "four cups of wine";
• breaking the second matzah in half, replacing half in the stack and hiding the other half; and
  
• associating names and the "I will"s of Exodus 6:6-7 with each of the cups?

Good questions, I don't. Try maybe the Judaism DIR?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When Jesus is talking about it in the New Testament, He is breaking the bread and pouring the wine in SYMBOLISM, I have attended many denominations of Christian churches, Baptist, Methodist, non-denonminational, and more others than I can count, but they have always taught it as a symbol of Christ's body and blood. Never that it actually IS. We obviously know it is NOT Him we are eating and drinking. It is the meaning we give the things we do that makes it important. The symbolic nature behind it. We take communion to reflect on our lives, ask forgiveness and come before Christ, in rememberance of Him as our intercessor, it is not really about whether we truly think we are eating Him or not.

Not sure why you need to caps. I can read your emphasis in your tone not your caps (or bold). It throws me off and most times I stop reading and go to another post.

A lot of Protestants believe the Eucharist is symbolism even to the point of having grape juice and not wine. I say instead they should have bread and wine so those who can't drink the latter can take the former. Many non liturgical churches don't like mirroring themselves with Catholics. I notice it makes believers hate catholics rather than just disagree with them . It's sad.

My thought from being in both churches is that the Eucharist is Christ not a symbol. The problem is you guys are stuck on language issues. The Eucharist is the church. If you know how it applies and reflected to the church you'd understand it better.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I go off experiences first. The Bible doesnt hold importance in my life.

Have you experienced Catholic mass? (Not interact or watched but personally experienced)?

I have been present. This sacred practice is shrouded in mystery, hence people understand it in different ways and honor it with different practices. I don't remember if I ate or not with my mouth, however that may not matter. I once visited a very new messianic assembly where the eucharist was not taken by individuals. Instead one representative person ate it, and everyone else shared in their experience. In the officially catholic assemblies my two or three different experiences vary a bit. During part of the service people approach the altar in a line and take the eucharist there, never in the seats like they do in modern protestant churches. I've also been in Episcopal and Methodist services once or twice which have similar practices to roman catholic ones. Newer non-catholic denominations (formed after 1960) often pass the communion wine in tiny cups and shreds of bread to the people where they are instead of having people approach the altar. It represents a different way of thinking about communion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have been present. This sacred practice is shrouded in mystery, hence people understand it in different ways and honor it with different practices. I don't remember if I ate or not with my mouth, however that may not matter. I once visited a very new messianic assembly where the eucharist was not taken by individuals. Instead one representative person ate it, and everyone else shared in their experience. In the officially catholic assemblies my two or three different experiences vary a bit. During part of the service people approach the altar in a line and take the eucharist there, never in the seats like they do in modern protestant churches. I've also been in Episcopal and Methodist services once or twice which have similar practices to roman catholic ones. Newer non-catholic denominations (formed after 1960) often pass the communion wine in tiny cups and shreds of bread to the people where they are instead of having people approach the altar. It represents a different way of thinking about communion.

Most of the time I took communion by line. I did went to a high Mass, I think it's called. We line up side by side to kneel. The priest goes from one side to another behind a rail to give the Eucharist. The rest of Mass the priest back during consecration. He faced us doing sermon. All of it was in Latin.

I understand to a degree why protestants don't care for transubstantiation but not to the point where wine and bread is given as grape juice or water.

I'm not sure why anyone would debate over whether the Eucharist is symbolism or not. No Catholic eats actual human flesh and actual human blood.

Where in the world do they get that from?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Where in the world do they get that from?

Though you deserve an explanation I should refuse to explain it here in this profane place, but considering the nasty history between the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the so called Protestants. We're talking about a huge mess. Its a pile of **** that requires such a giant diaper to cover. Considering that and the persistence of confusion about this topic why not explain what I think about it?

What I say to you is not official dogma, and I don't know what the dogma is. In Christ there are two realities. One is fading, and one is becoming more solid. When you take the eucharist you are supposed to say "This is the blood and body of Christ" not "This symbolizes the body of the man Jesus who died." There is a difference. The church is the body of Christ. Therefore when you say you are eating his body and drinking his blood you are specifically not drinking the body of a human or drinking human blood, nor are you eating your fellow parishioners blood or flesh. Think of eucharist as a treaty between yourself and all others taking it. It is a bond between and them that you would die for them and they for you.

This world is fading, and will be transformed to reflect the reality of heaven: peaceful, orderly, loving. When you take eucharist there are many lessons contained in it, but one of them is that you reject this world for a better one and commit to bringing it here to replace what is. In the new world you have a new name, your Christian name. It is an expression of your hope and dedication that this world will be changed to reflect the heavenly one. Thus when you take eucharist it makes perfect sense to say "This is the body and blood of Christ" and makes zero sense to say "This symbolizes the body of Jesus who died." It doesn't symbolize the body and blood of Jesus. No, but the body and blood of Jesus symbolizes what you are doing in the eucharist.

This explains, pretty darn well I think, the confusion about the terminology.

 

[1213]

Is that why you don't have an avatar? Because non-Catholic Christian's are afraid God might be upset with them having graven images?

That is funny. I didn’t know someone would think those avatars as graven images. But, if you think they are graven images, why do you have one?

I don’t have avatar, because I have no time for that and I think it is not important.

 

[Cooky]

That is funny. I didn’t know someone would think those avatars as graven images. But, if you think they are graven images, why do you have one?

I don’t have avatar, because I have no time for that and I think it is not important.

I just noticed that a lot of really biblical posters don't do avatars... I always wondered.

...But you know I'm a Catholic.
...We think differently on stuff sometimes.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Though you deserve an explanation I should refuse to explain it here in this profane place, but considering the nasty history between the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the so called Protestants. We're talking about a huge mess. Its a pile of **** that requires such a giant diaper to cover. Considering that and the persistence of confusion about this topic why not explain what I think about it?

What I say to you is not official dogma, and I don't know what the dogma is. In Christ there are two realities. One is fading, and one is becoming more solid. When you take the eucharist you are supposed to say "This is the blood and body of Christ" not "This symbolizes the body of the man Jesus who died." There is a difference. The church is the body of Christ. Therefore when you say you are eating his body and drinking his blood you are specifically not drinking the body of a human or drinking human blood, nor are you eating your fellow parishioners blood or flesh. Think of eucharist as a treaty between yourself and all others taking it. It is a bond between and them that you would die for them and they for you.

This world is fading, and will be transformed to reflect the reality of heaven: peaceful, orderly, loving. When you take eucharist there are many lessons contained in it, but one of them is that you reject this world for a better one and commit to bringing it here to replace what is. In the new world you have a new name, your Christian name. It is an expression of your hope and dedication that this world will be changed to reflect the heavenly one. Thus when you take eucharist it makes perfect sense to say "This is the body and blood of Christ" and makes zero sense to say "This symbolizes the body of Jesus who died." It doesn't symbolize the body and blood of Jesus. No, but the body and blood of Jesus symbolizes what you are doing in the eucharist.

This explains, pretty darn well I think, the confusion about the terminology.

I know the churches reason. I was part of it. "is" to Catholics is not the same Is to Protestants. No Catholic eats human flesh and blood. Do NC think that only because of the verb Is??

(I'll come back to read it again)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My point is do non catholics actually believe catholics eat human flesh and drink human blood?

Though you deserve an explanation I should refuse to explain it here in this profane place, but considering the nasty history between the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the so called Protestants. We're talking about a huge mess. Its a pile of **** that requires such a giant diaper to cover. Considering that and the persistence of confusion about this topic why not explain what I think about it?

There's nothing deep behind it. It just means do NC see the accidents of the Eucharist as human blood and flesh.

What I say to you is not official dogma, and I don't know what the dogma is. In Christ there are two realities. One is fading, and one is becoming more solid. When you take the eucharist you are supposed to say "This is the blood and body of Christ" not "This symbolizes the body of the man Jesus who died." There is a difference. The church is the body of Christ. Therefore when you say you are eating his body and drinking his blood you are specifically not drinking the body of a human or drinking human blood, nor are you eating your fellow parishioners blood or flesh. Think of eucharist as a treaty between yourself and all others taking it. It is a bond between and them that you would die for them and they for you.

The Eucharist is an actual meal: bread and wine. The priest, victor of christ, splits the bread to where the essence (not accidents) of the bread becomes christ (cornerstone of the meal) to bring Mass together. When Mass is present, it makes christ present in the Eucharist. It's about the Mass and Christ.

. Think of eucharist as a treaty between yourself and all others taking it. It is a bond between and them that you would die for them and they for you.

This is basically it. It's a treaty. "This is my body" is Mass (body of christ). "This is my blood" (Passion of christ). He not only experiences his own Passion but by breaking the bread and giving it, he is "giving" his passion for the Mass to experience as well.

This world is fading, and will be transformed to reflect the reality of heaven: peaceful, orderly, loving. When you take eucharist there are many lessons contained in it, but one of them is that you reject this world for a better one and commit to bringing it here to replace what is. In the new world you have a new name, your Christian name. It is an expression of your hope and dedication that this world will be changed to reflect the heavenly one. Thus when you take eucharist it makes perfect sense to say "This is the body and blood of Christ" and makes zero sense to say "This symbolizes the body of Jesus who died." It doesn't symbolize the body and blood of Jesus. No, but the body and blood of Jesus symbolizes what you are doing in the eucharist.

The body and blood according to the Church is the Eucharist. The priest is consecrating it so that the Mass will experience jesus passion among themselves as a unit.

The priest is just making christ present in the Christ for Mass. Consecrated bread and wine are already jesus christ (hence why they have Eucharistic observations etc). It's not really magic or anything what the priest does. It's just misunderstood because of the history and bias people have of the church-which is fine. I have my biases too about it. Though, my bias and hate for the history shouldn't change my understanding of what I'm biased about.

This explains, pretty darn well I think, the confusion about the terminology.

I think the IS thing is getting people. I don't know if people would have much of a problem if the Church said symbolize instead. Whether they use Is or not, the fact still is the same. I Just think the church (all Catholic) are more literal about it than NC churches.