ElaineJ Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I know there have been a lot of questions about faith issues lately, but you all were so helpful in answering my last one that I'm wondering if I can throw one more out there. I'm trying to understand the implications of the idea of Christ being really present in the eucharist. It is an idea which really speaks to my heart, but I am not sure what my mind makes of it, if that makes sense. What causes this transformation in the eyes of the various traditions that hold this view? Is it the prayer of the priest/pastor of the church? If so, do Catholics believe that only the prayers of their priests are effective in this regard, Orthodox only the prayers of their priests, Anglicans only the prayers of their preists, etc...? In other words, can only one branch of the faith truly have the presence of Jesus in the elements? I am a Christian myself, if that affects the way you would answer this question. Thanks! Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I can't answer your specific questions as to what different traditions think causes the transformation. What I will say is this. I think theology is often a human attempt to take what God left a mystery and spell out specifics. I think humans like that because we like to get our minds around something with a lot of concrete details. It is enough for me to know that the Scripture says: in Matt. 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. What Jesus said is true. Exactly how it is true isn't told to us. I am content to leave it at that and take in what He intends as I am eating and drinking. I don't really need to know, do I? I just receive in faith. Now I can say that that perspective means I don't really "fit" anywhere. My own faith tradition treats it as merely symbolic. However, Jesus didn't say "This symbolizes my body," and I think that there more mystery there than what my own faith tradition tends to hold. Yet, i doubt if my willingness to "let it be what it is without having to explain it" would enable me to receive it in other denominations that have it all spelled out in terms of what you must believe either. However, I am comfortable saying, "It is what Jesus said it is, and I don't need to understand all the details to receive." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
********* Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Laurie4b, what a fantastic post. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElaineJ Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 That's true, Laurie. I know I can get too caught up in the whys and hows sometimes. Thanks for your thoughts. Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 For Catholics I think the moment of transubstantiation occurs when the priest says, "This is my body" (for the cup "this is my blood"). Priests say Mass even when they're alone, so a congregation is not necessary for this to occur. My understanding is you need to be a priest according to the line of apostolic succession from the apostles (so I believe the orthodox would fulfuill this requirement?), and of course you have to believe that is what you are doing. My impression is that Anglicans/Episcopals (and most other protestant denominations) believe Jesus' presence to be symbolic, not Real, so therefore they wouldn't be effecting transubstantiation, regardless. Not sure why the Protestants dropped this belief when they split. Maybe because it's one of the most important ones that Catholics hold? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Catholics call the changing of the bread and wine into the body and blood Transubstantiation (CCC 1376). Whole books have been written about it. The CC says it occurs at the moment of consecration, during the prayers of the priest. For Catholics, the Eucharist requires apostolic succession to be valid, meaning a church does not have to be in full communion with Rome but must have retained the sacrament of Holy Orders and the line of validly ordained bishops to be able to administer the Eucharist (CCC 1399 and 1575/1576). Edited October 22, 2011 by Asenik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElaineJ Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 Thanks, Asenik. So if I'm reading the second half of your post correctly, that means that for a Catholic the eucharist of the EO church would be valid (truly have Jesus' presence) but that would not be true of Protestant denominations holding a belief in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Is that corrrect? And does CCC refer to the catecism? Thanks again. Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuntieM Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Laurie4b, what a fantastic post. :) :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Martin Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Laurie4b, what a fantastic post. :) :iagree: too. Very well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Thanks, Asenik. So if I'm reading the second half of your post correctly, that means that for a Catholic the eucharist of the EO church would be valid (truly have Jesus' presence) but that would not be true of Protestant denominations holding a belief in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Is that corrrect? And does CCC refer to the catecism? Thanks again. Elaine Yes. When the churches separated and removed themselves from apostolic succession, they no longer retained the authority necessary. EO possesses a sacramental understanding and retained the sacraments of Holy Orders and the Eucharist. CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. :). This is all pretty serious, complicated stuff. I think it is hard to explain the details, even for theologians. It ends up falling into the category of what my EO friends call a mystery. The Eucharist is central to the Mass, central to Catholic life and worship. It is such a powerful thing that words fail me. Edited October 22, 2011 by Asenik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 My impression is that Anglicans/Episcopals (and most other protestant denominations) believe Jesus' presence to be symbolic, not Real, so therefore they wouldn't be effecting transubstantiation, regardless. Episcopalians do believe in the Real Presence but leave it undefined. It is not consubstantiation (like Lutherans) or transubstantiation (like Catholics) or merely memorial (like other Protestants)-- It fits perfectly with what Laurie said. This part-- Now I can say that that perspective means I don't really "fit" anywhere. My own faith tradition treats it as merely symbolic. However, Jesus didn't say "This symbolizes my body," and I think that there more mystery there than what my own faith tradition tends to hold. Yet, i doubt if my willingness to "let it be what it is without having to explain it" would enable me to receive it in other denominations that have it all spelled out in terms of what you must believe either. However, I am comfortable saying, "It is what Jesus said it is, and I don't need to understand all the details to receive." We believe we are in apostolic succession, too--but that, like so many things, is up for debate among others. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I think Asenik summed it up. Laurie, I totally understand what you're saying, and for a while thought like that. What changed for me was when I asked my then Protestant pastor what he believed, and if how he himself didn't believe, what made me think the host (bread) was consecrated when he did it? So it sounds like rules and regulations, but it's actually freeing knowing that my priest, who has apostolic succession, fully believes in the Real Presence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElaineJ Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 Unfortunately I need to get off the computer for the moment but I will definitely come back and check responses to this thread and want to thank everyone who joins the conversation for their contributions. I don't want you all to think I'm just asking a question and running away. :001_smile: Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandra Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Just throwing this in -- from ARCIC Aanglican Roman Catholic International Commission -- i.e. ecumenical talks): http://www.pro.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_eucharist.html This shows what they have agreed to agree on -- and, of course, lots of questions are not answered! In the Orthodox Church, we offer the gifts to God that God has given us and ask Him by His Holy Spirit to make them the body and blood of Christ. We don't know how He does this. It is a holy mystery. Kind regards, Patty Joanna Patty Joanna's comments pretty much sum up what was taught in my conservative Anglo-Catholic church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nono Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Episcopalians do believe in the Real Presence but leave it undefined. We believe we are in apostolic succession, too--but that, like so many things, is up for debate among others. :D Chris, I remember this nugget from school, but I have no idea if it is correct. For a time, the way Holy Orders was conferred in the Episcopal (or Anglican can't remember) church changed. So from the RC perspective, the chain was broken. We were told that after a time, it changed back to the original form. Whether or not a spiritual link is good enough, without direct physical continuation of the exact form, is an interesting debate. We had strong supporters on both sides in our RC community. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Episcopalians do believe in the Real Presence but leave it undefined. It is not consubstantiation (like Lutherans) or transubstantiation (like Catholics) or merely memorial (like other Protestants)-- It fits perfectly with what Laurie said. This part-- We believe we are in apostolic succession, too--but that, like so many things, is up for debate among others. :D Ummmm, Lutherans do NOT believe in consubstantiation. The LCMS has specifically rejected it and states they believe in sacramental union and the real presence- and the hows and whys are a mystery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The church my family attends believes in Real Presence. It's one of a few reasons I can't join. Essentially, the belief creates a closed table and *that* is a huge issue for me. HUGE. GINORMOUS. I believe God is Really Present, though. Which highlights the frustration behind the above paragraph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Chris, I remember this nugget from school, but I have no idea if it is correct. For a time, the way Holy Orders was conferred in the Episcopal (or Anglican can't remember) church changed. So from the RC perspective, the chain was broken. We were told that after a time, it changed back to the original form. Whether or not a spiritual link is good enough, without direct physical continuation of the exact form, is an interesting debate. We had strong supporters on both sides in our RC community. :) Yes, this is the issue. From a Catholic perspective, it wasn't breaking away from the Roman Church that caused Anglicans and other Protestants to lose apostolic succession. In the case of Anglicans who maintain an apostolic structure, the Catholic view is that they lost apostolic sucession somewhat later than the break under Henry - it was under Edward. The argument relates to what was considered a defect or form in the ordination rite which they felt indicated a lack of intent. That is, in the process of ordination of the new bishops, those performing the ordination did not intend do what the Church had always done. It isn't a slam dunk argument by any means, there are some real issues with it. It also totally ignores the fact that almost every modern Anglican bishop has what the Catholic Church would consider valid lines through the Old Catholics or other groups. But it does mean that officially, the CC does not believe that an Anglican priest can preside at a Eucharist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I can't answer your specific questions as to what different traditions think causes the transformation. What I will say is this. I think theology is often a human attempt to take what God left a mystery and spell out specifics. I think humans like that because we like to get our minds around something with a lot of concrete details. It is enough for me to know that the Scripture says: in Matt. 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.†27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. What Jesus said is true. Exactly how it is true isn't told to us. I am content to leave it at that and take in what He intends as I am eating and drinking. I don't really need to know, do I? I just receive in faith. Now I can say that that perspective means I don't really "fit" anywhere. My own faith tradition treats it as merely symbolic. However, Jesus didn't say "This symbolizes my body," and I think that there more mystery there than what my own faith tradition tends to hold. Yet, i doubt if my willingness to "let it be what it is without having to explain it" would enable me to receive it in other denominations that have it all spelled out in terms of what you must believe either. However, I am comfortable saying, "It is what Jesus said it is, and I don't need to understand all the details to receive." In general, I would say that the Real Presence is an example of what happens over and over again in orthodox Christian theology - the assertion of the radical unity of the spiritual and physical world, and the invitation for us to participate in that union. Not in an abstract way where we are "spiritually" united, because that is only a union of the spirit, a kind of dualism. The doctrine of the Real Presence is the corolloray for us of the Incarnatioon and Ressurection, in a personal, participatory way. We know these things happened in the middle East a long time ago, and we can be part of them, spirit and body, right now. (And in the same way, other sacraments also include the physical, because for Christians the physical is real and can be used by God as a concrete means of Grace. As physical beings, we need God in both spiritual and concrete ways.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nono Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Yes, this is the issue. Thanks! It's amazing how much I paid attention in Religion class. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The church my family attends believes in Real Presence. It's one of a few reasons I can't join. Essentially, the belief creates a closed table and *that* is a huge issue for me. HUGE. GINORMOUS. I believe God is Really Present, though. Which highlights the frustration behind the above paragraph. Closed table-what do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Closed table-what do you mean? Probably that they only offer communion to those of their own groups. Mostly these days this is Catholics, the Orthodox, and some Lutherans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Probably that they only offer communion to those of their own groups. Mostly these days this is Catholics, the Orthodox, and some Lutherans. I've usually heard it as "closed communion" not closed table, but that's my assumption, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElaineJ Posted October 23, 2011 Author Share Posted October 23, 2011 This is very insightful, I think! Yes, part of what I'm feeling is that Christianity always encompasses both the spiritual and physical in a complete and perfect manner and a purely symbolic interpretation of the eucharist just doesn't seem to "fit". Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElaineJ Posted October 23, 2011 Author Share Posted October 23, 2011 Thank you. I can't seem to get your link to work, though? I am interested in looking through the info there. Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElaineJ Posted October 23, 2011 Author Share Posted October 23, 2011 I am finally able to return to check this post and just want to thank all who took the time to answer. I love that I can come here and receive thoughtful input from so many intelligent women (and men!) of different perspectives. I appreciate you all! Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The church my family attends believes in Real Presence. It's one of a few reasons I can't join. Essentially, the belief creates a closed table and *that* is a huge issue for me. HUGE. GINORMOUS. I believe God is Really Present, though. Which highlights the frustration behind the above paragraph. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.