Eucharist

[sojourner]

Because the whole idea of it is, at least to myself and my Jewish brethren, so obnoxious and so un-Jewish that it may as well be literal cannibalism. The fundamental idea behind it is disturbing.

Let's look at it from this POV: Why do Jews eat bread and drink wine at Synagogue?

 

[Rival]

Let's look at it from this POV: Why do Jews eat bread and drink wine at Synagogue?

You mean kiddush? There's Shabbat kiddush and other kinds. There's no bread and wine at the schul like there is bread and wine at the church. Bread is not strictly required nor is wine. Kiddush can be said over liquor and cake.

Kiddush - Wikipedia

 

[sojourner]

You mean kiddush? There's Shabbat kiddush and other kinds. There's no bread and wine at the schul like there is bread and wine at the church. Bread is not strictly required nor is wine. Kiddush can be said over liquor and cake.

Kiddush - Wikipedia

And it's meaning?

 

[Rival]

And it's meaning?

It's a sanctification blessing over whatever the occasion happens to be, done via the meal.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because the whole idea of it is, at least to myself and my Jewish brethren, so obnoxious and so un-Jewish that it may as well be literal cannibalism. The fundamental idea behind it is disturbing.

I don't know if I replied, but do you seriously think catholics eat human flesh and drink human blood?

I can see why the theology would be somewhat disturbing but catholics ACTUALLY drinking human flesh and blood?

That's what cannibalism is. The disagreement shouldn't be whether catholics drink human flesh and blood; they are not. It's more about an actual human being given to be slayed on the cross and the worship of that human being as a sacrifice for a person's sins. Whether wine is said to be blood or not is irrelevant unless you believe they are literally drinking blood and human flesh.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

No, but we are taught by various people that is what you RC catholics think.

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

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.

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.

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.

Here is my similar thought: I think there is nothing wrong with the term 'Symbolize' unless we get it backwards and think that the bread and wine symbolize objects instead of actions. The objects are symbols of actions. The body and blood are not important by themselves, but people like me get confused about it and treat them superstitiously. In addition we project even worse superstitions onto others, and that is easy to do.

For most of my life I have thought of RC catholics as quite superstitious people who believed that the wine and bread were transformed in their mouths to flesh and blood. Why wouldn't I believe this about people I didn't know and who had all of that weird stuff going on with the exorcisms and the priests swinging those fragrant censors, shiny robes, crowns and having huge gold crosses and jewels. We don't get that behavior at all. We do like the large ornate buildings and cathedrals though. We're Ok with those.

 

[Terry Sampson]

(Continued from #121)

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 refresh our memory [or to inform those who do not know], l point out that remembering and celebrating the actual deeds of God in liberating the Jews and leading them out of Egypt was a Divine Command; moreover, it was NOT a command that required the existence of a Tabernacle or Temple, to wit:

• Exodus, Chapter 12:
  • Verses 1 through 13. Commanded actions prior to Israel's liberation: the basis on which the Passover meal was and is founded.
  • Verses 14 through 17. Commanded remembrance and celebration of the Passover, i.e. "an everlasting statute".
    • 14 And this day shall be for you as a memorial, and you shall celebrate it as a festival for the Lord; throughout your generations, you shall celebrate it as an everlasting statute.
      15 For seven days you shall eat unleavened cakes, but on the preceding day you shall clear away all leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leaven from the first day until the seventh day that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
      16 And on the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day you shall have a holy convocation; no work may be performed on them, but what is eaten by any soul that alone may be performed for you.
      17 And you shall watch over the unleavened cakes, for on this very day I have taken your legions out of the land of Egypt, and you shall observe this day throughout your generations, [as] an everlasting statute.

Here, I acknowledge departing from other Christian attempts to explain and/or justify Jesus' actions, which I believe tend to rest on claims that (a) he was the promised Messiah and/or (b) that he was God Incarnate. I take my stand on the following quote from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Moed Katan 16b, which briefly discusses the meaning/implication of 2nd Samuel, Chapter 23:3:

• The passage continues: “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, He that rules over men must be righteous, ruling in the fear of God” (II Samuel 23:3). The Gemara asks: What is this verse saying? What does it mean? Rabbi Abbahu said: This is what the verse is saying: The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me: Although I rule over man, who rules over Me? It is a righteous person. How is it possible to say that a righteous person rules over God, as it were? As I, God, issue a decree and the righteous person nullifies it.

 

[Terry Sampson]

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.

??? *guffaw*

 

[Brickjectivity]

??? *guffaw*

True story! I like that it doesn't satisfy either protestants or the catholics. They'd all be like "That is not how we did I when I was a child."

 

[Terry Sampson]

Where in the world do they get that from?

Informally and privately, I refer to it as "magical thinking". I remember once, attending a public Catholic Charismatic worship service that was held in a large chapel on the campus of Loyola University in San Francisco. Off in a corner, standing on the floor, was statue of Saint Joseph or Saint Jude, the right arm of which was raised, two fingers up and the remaining fingers and thumb closed, as in a "two-finger blessing" pose. It was early, before the service, and an elderly Hispanic woman was walking by. One of the two extended fingers was broken off which must have been why the statue was not in a niche somewhere. The woman noticed the broken finger, went over, and bent and kissed the broken finger, lamenting the poor saint's missing digit.

Now that's a woman who quite possibly believed that what you call symbols were the real deal. We're talking devout, but not substantially educated.

 

[sojourner]

It's a sanctification blessing over whatever the occasion happens to be, done via the meal.

And what are the words in the blessing?

 

[Terry Sampson]

True story!

Get yourself invited to a Jehovah's Witness annual "Memorial" gathering someday. And have explained to you that when the crackers and grape-juice are passed around, only those who will be among the final 144,000 after the Tribulation partake. The remaining folks who will only be in the Great Crowd just watch as the crackers and grape-juice pass them by.

 

[Rival]

And what are the words in the blessing?

It depends on the kiddush and the nusach. There's one for Shabbat, one for the eve of a holiday etc. You can read them on Wikipedia, or any Jewish site.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To tell you honestly, I wouldn't have had a problem with symbolism either. Now I understand it's not symbolism because of the context. If you heard of the accidents and the presence of jesus? Well, when catholics are saying "Is" they are referring to the presence not the accidents bread and wine. So, the mix up is that NC see accidents and Catholics see presence. So, when they say "Is" they're seeing physical and spiritual as one. NC divide the spiritual and material thinking if you have material it is no longer spiritual. Which is odd to me in and of itself inside and outside religious views.

Here is my similar thought: I think there is nothing wrong with the term 'Symbolize' unless we get it backwards and think that the bread and wine symbolize objects instead of actions. The objects are symbols of actions. The body and blood are not important by themselves, but people like me get confused about it and treat them superstitiously. In addition we project even worse superstitions onto others, and that is easy to do.

I see it as the objects, actions, context, and tradition all in one; no division. So the wine and bread are important to the meal. The body and blood are important to christ's passion. Since they are one, it can't be symbolism. One doesn't represent the other but they are both interconnected (similar to trinity concept).

I know many superstitions can hurt and others not. Some have some truths and others are completely out there. I mean, I literally had to ask the priest did he actually drink and eat blood and flesh. I wasn't raised in the church but now I know they're not delusional.

Since I wasn't indoctrinated I never was "embedded" in the idea catholics see and drink one thing when they literally do not. People stick to what they are raised with really.

For most of my life I have thought of RC catholics as quite superstitious people who believed that the wine and bread were transformed in their mouths to flesh and blood. Why wouldn't I believe this about people I didn't know and who had all of that weird stuff going on with the exorcisms and the priests swinging those fragrant censors, shiny robes, crowns and having huge gold crosses and jewels. We don't get that behavior at all. We do like the large ornate buildings and cathedrals though. We're Ok with those.

Pretty much. Since I wasn't raised catholic, I see "pass that"if one likes. We can either believe what we were taught or influenced or look into it ourselves for the positivity in it not just the negative critiques. Like, I do agree that christ is the Eucharist. I agree with a lot of superstitions from my no-catholic practices as well. But I don't agree with what it stands for so I choose not to follow it. But if I never knew anything about it, yeah. I'd think it quite silly. Now that I know, I don't touch it but I do defend it cause my experiences wasn't horrible like other people fortunately/unfortunately.

 

[sojourner]

It depends on the kiddush and the nusach. There's one for Shabbat, one for the eve of a holiday etc. You can read them on Wikipedia, or any Jewish site.

Ok. Let’s take the one for Shabbat; it’s the one I’m most familiar with. It says: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has brought forth bread from the earth. Blessed are You, Adonai our God, Sovereign of all, Creator of the fruit of the vine.

So, bread is a worldwide staple food that nourishes us. It is considered to be a gift from God that glorifies God and God’s gift of creation. Wine is also a worldwide staple that cheers us and makes us glad. It, also, is a gift from God that glorifies God and God’s gift of creation.

Jesus is considered (by Christian theology) to be the “staple” or fundamental of life. The texts identify him as “bread of life.” Jesus brings abundant life (and that cheers us). Being the firstborn of creation, Jesus “personifies” God and also embodies a humanity in perfection.

The Eucharist comes to us more or less from the tradition of the Roman symposium, or dinner party. In the typical symposium, bread was broken and wine was poured. There was always a libation or “toast” given over the wine. When Jesus broke the bread and said, “This is my body given for you,” it may well have been a theological teaching of Jesus-as-staple-nutrient — a nutrient for both body and soul. Wheat “gives its life” for the life of the world. Wine is poured out for our abundance. It brings a different ontology to bread and wine, recognizing the world as God’s body that is given for us and our life. So, no, we’re not eating flesh and blood. Rather, we’re sharing in the cycle of life by “taking into ourselves” the life God gives us. The earth feeds us. One day, we will feed the earth. To consume something is to make it part of oneself. In Eucharist, we’re making Jesus — the bread of life — part of ourselves.

 

[sojourner]

No, they are symbolic representations of blood and flesh. When Christ instituted the communion meal, it was bread and wine. He clearly was speaking symbolically.

I think Jesus was speaking ontologically.

 

[Rival]

Ok. Let’s take the one for Shabbat; it’s the one I’m most familiar with. It says: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has brought forth bread from the earth. Blessed are You, Adonai our God, Sovereign of all, Creator of the fruit of the vine.

So, bread is a worldwide staple food that nourishes us. It is considered to be a gift from God that glorifies God and God’s gift of creation. Wine is also a worldwide staple that cheers us and makes us glad. It, also, is a gift from God that glorifies God and God’s gift of creation.

Jesus is considered (by Christian theology) to be the “staple” or fundamental of life. The texts identify him as “bread of life.” Jesus brings abundant life (and that cheers us). Being the firstborn of creation, Jesus “personifies” God and also embodies a humanity in perfection.

The Eucharist comes to us more or less from the tradition of the Roman symposium, or dinner party. In the typical symposium, bread was broken and wine was poured. There was always a libation or “toast” given over the wine. When Jesus broke the bread and said, “This is my body given for you,” it may well have been a theological teaching of Jesus-as-staple-nutrient — a nutrient for both body and soul. Wheat “gives its life” for the life of the world. Wine is poured out for our abundance. It brings a different ontology to bread and wine, recognizing the world as God’s body that is given for us and our life. So, no, we’re not eating flesh and blood. Rather, we’re sharing in the cycle of life by “taking into ourselves” the life God gives us. The earth feeds us. One day, we will feed the earth. To consume something is to make it part of oneself. In Eucharist, we’re making Jesus — the bread of life — part of ourselves.

This is a very different interpretation to those which I have heard from Catholic and Anglican clergy. This especially does not rub well with the Catholic interpretation.

Still, I'm not bothered how you interpret it. It's your religion, it's your symbolism. It's not mine to tell you want to do with.

 

[shmogie]

@shmogie

I think you missed a quote?

Yes, you are right, I messed it up somehow. If you read what I did post you will see my response. Sorry.

 

[sojourner]

I honestly don't see it as symbolism. I just find it grossly misunderstood and/or the language use doesn't reflect the nature of communion. The Roman Church has been trying to figure out the nature of the Eucharist for years. Some other Catholic Churches leave it alone as a mystery.

Here’s St. Francis on the Eucharist:
“Let the whole world of mankind tremble the whole world shake and the heavens exult when Christ, the Son of the living God, is on the altar in the hands of a priest. O admirable heights and sublime lowliness! O sublime humility! O humble sublimity! That the Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God, so humbles Himself that for our salvation He hides Himself under the little form of bread! Look, brothers, at the humility of God and pour out your hearts before Him! Humble yourselves, as well, that you may be exalted by Him. Therefore, hold back nothing of yourselves for yourselves so that He Who gives Himself totally to you may receive you totally.”

 

[sojourner]

This is a very different interpretation to those which I have heard from Catholic and Anglican clergy. This especially does not rub well with the Catholic interpretation.

Still, I'm not bothered how you interpret it. It's your religion, it's your symbolism. It's not mine to tell you want to do with.

Fits rather well with Anglican; I was in ministry in the Episcopal Church.