Sorry I’ve been AWOL lately. I’ve been reading some interesting stuff though, so I thought I should share.
On my trip to the Midwest this summer, I scored a couple of books. Troy gave me a copy of When Time Shall Be No More, which I am slowly working my way through. At Jennifer’s house I picked up The Spirit of Early Christian Thought. I’d been hoping to find a kind of sequel to Yoder’s Politics of Jesus, since he focuses so exclusively on the church of the New Testament. It left me with the question hanging: So then what happened?
I’ve read the first two chapters of Wilken’s book, and I am pleased to report it is a much easier read than Yoder’s. He doesn’t make it easy on himself by spending the first chapter describing early Christians’ debates with Greek philosophers, but he explains their conflict in fairly simple language. What’s striking, really, is how familiar it all is. The philosophers believed the universe operates according to laws, and they didn’t like how the Bible described the creation of the universe, and later the descent of God become man, as acts of a personal will that seemed to have no regard for natural laws. They also accused Christians of being “fideists” meaning they believed only on faith and ignored demonstrations of reason.
So far, it sounds a lot like debates with modern scientific secularists. But what’s different is that the philosophers also accused Christians of being too worldly, of thinking they could come in contact with God through sensory experiences and rituals. The Greeks believed you had to shut out your physical senses in order to perceive spiritual truth.
Nowadays, this argument seems to have gone from being between Christians and outsiders to being between different types of Christians. I was thinking of this after reading the second chapter, which deals with the worship practices of the Roman-era church. The earliest source he cites on the subject is Justin Martyr, who died in about 175 A.D. Apparently most apologists of that era didn’t discuss rituals, probably thinking the Greeks would find them strange and creepy. But Justin outlined a service that clearly follows the basic outlines we know: Scripture reading, homily, prayers, communion, and offering. Of communion he says:
This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins for rebirth, and who lives as Christ taught us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink, but as Jesus Christ our Savior who became incarnate by God’s word and took flesh and blood for our salvation. So also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him from which our flesh and blood are nourished by being renewed, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.
Reading this passage was interesting because, after watching the church’s monthly communion the Sunday before last, I suddenly got on fire for the Real Presence. The Mennonites’ Zwinglian heritage always bothered me, because what I know of Zwingli’s method of determining church practice was pretty weird: if it’s not mentioned in the New Testament, don’t do it. Moreover, when it comes to communion in particular, what modern arguments I’ve heard against the Real Presence either come from anti-Catholic nuttery of the Jack Chick variety, or from a modern version of the Greek attitude I described above: “spiritual” things don’t really happen in the physical world. And to be honest, I think I always hoped that the Real Presence was waiting for me after baptism. The idea that if I’m baptized in this church, a mere symbolic feast was waiting for me, I found unbearably depressing.
I put these objections separately to Telford and John Paul, and got roughly the same answer from both. I did not hear a defense of Zwingli’s communion theology (Telford said it came from Zwingli’s “messed up” incarnational theology); I essentially got a defense from inertia. Their churches have always done communion that way, there are lots of good things about those churches, so why rock the boat?
I don’t think the Mennonites would accept such arguments from somebody else. Just imagine if some cardinal were to say, “Oh, we don’t really believe that papal infallibility stuff, but everyone’s comfortable with it so we might as well leave it.” More to the point, Zwingli’s communion theology split his people not only from Catholicism but from other Protestants; and if the split on this point was his fault, it is not just an error but a sin that needs to be repented of. The fact that the aforementioned anti-Catholic nuttery seems to have fed so much of the current Protestant attitude on the subject only makes perpetuating the sin more blameworthy. It also seems to me that we’re missing out on something, that nourishes and renews our flesh to live out the Christian life.
I’ve been wondering, since those conversations, how many other people at PMC share their non-Zwinglian attitude, or never really thought about communion one way or the other. PMC is highly educated and mostly current or former seminarians, so nobody takes Zwingli’s simplistic attitude toward Scripture. Anti-Catholicism is conspicuously lacking also: I’ve heard several prominent Catholics praised from the pulpit, including the late Pope. The actual practice of communion, as with so many other things, is somewhere between high and low church. At Christian Assembly communion was done only a few times a year, without any particular ritual attached, and by passing around trays of crackers and grape juice. At PMC communion is formally done with a liturgical recap of the Last Supper, followed by everyone lining up to receive it at the altar, as is done in Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican churches. The main Zwinglian touches are that lay volunteers can administer it, that it’s only done once a month, and that the bulletin labels it “A Feast of Memory.” (It’s also open to all comers, though I don’t think I can blame that entirely on Zwingli; I don’t think he believed in open communion either.)
I’ve been wondering how far I can go with this stuff. I’m not in a great position to be a “prophetic voice” to PMC, seeing as I’m not a member and have not even been baptized, my main claim to fame being that I’m the girlfriend of a district elder. When I think of it, though, I don’t really care whether they go for the fancy mystical explanations, or all the bells and whistles associated with the high-church eucharist. I don’t give a toss about the whole transubstantion/consubstantion/whatever debate. I’m more with the Eastern Orthodox in thinking that the physics don’t need explaining. But what I would like to see is at least an invitation to Jesus to be present in the elements. God does not, of course, have to be invited to show up, but I should certainly think it helps. The a priori rejection of his presence seems like a pretty good indication that he won’t be there.
Well, this weekend will be taken up with the church’s annual retreat, so maybe I’ll have time to gage popular opinion on the issue. Who knows, maybe somebody will come up with a convincing defense of Zwingli after all.
The thing that bothers me about the concept of the Real Presence is that, as presented by Roman Catholics, it would seem that the Christ *has no choice but to be there*, where- and whenever a Catholic priest (and only a Catholic priest) invokes His presence. The moral stature of the priest does not matter. The make-up of the congregation does not matter. Only the ritual ceremony (and the recipe of the wafers, strangely enough–no rice flour for those allergic to wheat) matters, and it is apparently infallible. If we were to witness this in any other cultureal setting, wouldn’t we dismiss it as conjuring?
The Catholic response that I’ve seen to questions of this ilk, from at least one contributor to another blog, is that Protestant communions are no more than “play acting.”
I see these differences as a major obstacle to Christian unity, at a time when Christianity is under global threat by a credible enemy.
Comment by Rob — October 12, 2005 @ 7:33 am
Well, Telford made the same point about the difference between liturgy and conjuring, but he didn’t see it as an argument against the Real Presence. It just means that God isn’t bound to appear whenever the words are invoked. That’s why I phrased it as an invitation: all we can do is ask.
I don’t expect that even if the congregation comes around to my point of view, this will somehow reconcile us with Rome. There are a lot of other issues to work out. But like I said, Zwingli’s hardheadedness also divided him from Luther and Calvin, which is not exactly helping matters.
Comment by Camassia — October 12, 2005 @ 7:56 am
Very interesting post. Perhaps you can touch off a sacramental realism revival among the Mennonites!
My ill-informed view on the controversy between Zwingli and the other Reformers is that Z. was too imbued with the spirit of incipient rationalism. Even Calvin had a high view of the Sacrament of the Altar.
As far as the doctrine of the Real Presence implying that Christ “has no choice” but to be there, I think a better way of looking at it is to say that Christ has promised to be there, and he keeps his promises. I should say we’re lucky that it doesn’t depend on the moral virtue of the minister (or the congregation!). Otherwise we’d be in quite a fix. (That was also the error of Donatism, for what it’s worth.)
Comment by Lee — October 12, 2005 @ 8:58 am
P.S. I thought the Wilken book was fantastic. He’s an ex-Lutheran who poped.
Comment by Lee — October 12, 2005 @ 8:59 am
I’m really surprised and saddened in Rob’s reaction to the Sacrament as “conjuring.” I’m an Anglican priest, and (tho unlike the Roman Church we do not define how) we also believe that Christ becomes present in the bread and wine despite the moral stature of the priest, but to me this is the absolute opposite of “conjuring” or not giving Christ a “choice.” It is 1) an immense comfort because if I had to be morally pure enough to merit Christ coming to me and my congregation we would all be in very serious trouble, and 2) a deeply humbling evidence of the fidelity of Jesus to his Word to sinners.
When I stand in front of the elements that are mere bread and wine when put on the table, and I pray the words that the Church has given me to tell God’s great Story over them, and dare to take the very promise of Christ on my lips and trust Him to fulfill it once again as He has done throughout the ages for his unworthy hungry people…. and he DOES…. well, I am so in awe that sometimes, even after 11 years of doing this, my hands tremble as I extend them over the bread. This is a Person, a Living Person, who loves us so much He scandalously has purposed never to exercise a “choice” to withhold the Presence he’s promised us, no matter what. How could I even imagine that to obey that purpose is to “conjure” Him?
Sorry for the purple prose, Rob, but this is one of those issues that touch at the very heart of the Christian vision of reality for those of us who believe in the Real Presence, and I can’t give an accurate picture of my reaction without being purple prosey. And I’m willing to confess that I have myself made comments about the Eucharistic practice of my more Zwinglian brothers and sisters that probably reveal my own failures to understand what touches the very heart of the Christian vision of reality for them.
Comment by Beth — October 12, 2005 @ 9:03 am
Maybe it would be best to put it this way: Jesus promised to be present whenever his followers gather for communion, but it’s up to him to determine who his actual followers are. The traditional Catholic position is that you’re not really a follower if you’re not under Rome, so Protestants could gather and do an exact imitation of the Catholic eucharist and still not get the Real Presence. But of course we live in more ecumenical times now, so for most people it’s not so clear-cut. As John said when we were discussing this, all we can do is try our best to follow Jesus. The thing that bothers me is that coasting along on a divisive doctrine you don’t really believe in, not to mention denying yourself a chance at union with God, doesn’t strike me as trying your best.
Comment by Camassia — October 12, 2005 @ 9:21 am
Beth–
Thank you for the “purple prose” (which I didn’t find to be so terribly purple, actually). I certainly don’t deny that Christ is “there”, since He promised to be there any time two or three believers came together in His name. What looks like conjuring to me is His *special* presence *as a result* of a *specific ritual*. And this without even getting into the idea of transubstantiation.
Isn’t He already “there”, prior to the ceremony? If so, how is He somehow “more there” during it? We should feel closer to Him as a result of taking Communion, but I don’t see how this ritual can have any affect at all on the side of Eternity, unless the ritual somehow has the power to compel the fulfillment of the promise.
Comment by Rob — October 12, 2005 @ 9:44 am
I’m certainly open to the Real Presence idea, but here’s what stops me:
1. The New Testament seems so full of metaphors and other figures of speech that I can’t bring myself to literalize “this is my body” without a twinge of intellectual dishonesty. I feel like the literalizing Nicodemus saying, “How can a man be born again when he is old?”
2. Early accounts of the Eucharist place it in the context of a meal (“love feast”), not in a ceremony.
3. If something that significant were true, it seems that the New Testament authors would mention it a lot, which they don’t.
Again, I’m more than willing to be wrong on this. I like liturgical churches and am forced to admit that the Zwinglian communion service often does leave me flat.
Comment by SteveJ — October 12, 2005 @ 9:53 am
Personally I don’t see the problem with the idea that Jesus exhibits different levels of “thereness.” It’s true we say he’s “there” in church, that he’s with us all the time in fact, but that’s clearly a different degree of thereness than when he was walking around Gallilee, or when he comes again in glory. The thereness of communion seems to be somewhere between the two states.
The way Wilken explains the meaning of the ritual to the earliest church is that it transcended the restrictions of time and allowed Christians to re-present Christ’s sacrifice to God. According to him, this was not a radically new idea, but is in fact rather similar to the Jewish celebration of Passover (which the Last Supper was also celebrating, after all), which likewise treats the Exodus as an eternally present event in which modern people can participate. I guess another way of looking at it is that you keep returning to the well of your salvation to draw more from it. It treats communion as a physical happening, but it’s not “literal” in the modern sense either; it’s what they called a mystery.
I also don’t have a big problem with the fact that the New Testament doesn’t discuss it a lot. The reason I’m not convinced by Zwingli is that I don’t think the NT was meant to be a comprehensive guide to church life. The epistles were written to tackle specific issues in specific churches (well, other than Revelation, but that’s another subject). Gospels and Acts, meanwhile, were probably written only a few decades before Justin wrote his account of church life. I suppose it’s possible that such a violent sea-change occurred and passed unremarked, but it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the revisionists here.
Comment by Camassia — October 12, 2005 @ 10:32 am
Camassia:
I don’t have a problem with the different levels of “thereness”, per se, either. I have a problem with the different levels of thereness being linked to specific human acts at specific times.
Comment by Rob — October 12, 2005 @ 11:03 am
That seems like an odd objection. The whole Bible records God reacting to human actions. Does the fact that Jesus healed people only after they asked him to mean that they were “conjuring” him? I think it’s just saying that relationship with God is a two-way street. Ask, and you shall receive. Knock, and the door will be opened. I don’t think you HAVE to do something for God to appear to you (he has certainly surprised some people), but there’s definitely a strong interactive theme there.
Comment by Camassia — October 12, 2005 @ 11:27 am
If “A” is a human ritual and “B” is the Real Presence of God, and you then propose the equation: If “A” then “B”, this bothers me.
It seems to me that there is suddenly something here which was not here until an act was performed, and it looks too much like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
If not, what is the basis of the Roman Catholic claim that the Protestant communion is just “play acting”, or ineffectually going through the motions?
Comment by Rob — October 12, 2005 @ 11:54 am
From The Scots Confession:
As the fathers under the Law, besides the reality of the sacrifices, had two chief sacraments, that is, circumcision and the Passover, and those who rejected these were not reckoned among God’s people; so do we acknowledge and confess that now in the time of the gospel we have two chief sacraments, which alone were instituted by the Lord Jesus and commanded to be used by all who will be counted members of his body, that is, Baptism and the Supper or Table of the Lord Jesus, also called the Communion of His Body and Blood. These sacraments, both of the Old Testament and of the New, were instituted by God not only to make a visible distinction between his people and those who were without the Covenant, but also to exercise the faith of his children and, by participation of these sacraments, to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union, and society, which the chosen have with their Head, Christ Jesus. And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food for our souls. Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into Christ’s body, and of wine into his natural blood, as the Romanists have perniciously taught and wrongly believed; but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments is wrought by means of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, once broken and shed for us but now in heaven, and appearing for us in the presence of his Father. (cont.)
Comment by Marvin — October 12, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
Notwithstanding the distance between his glorified body in heaven and mortal men on earth, yet we must assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s body and the cup which we bless the communion of his blood. Thus we confess and believe without doubt that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s Table, do so eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus that he remains in them and they in him; they are so made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone that as the eternal Godhood has given to the flesh of Christ Jesus, which by nature was corruptible and mortal, life and immortality, so the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ Jesus does the like for us. We grant that this is neither given to us merely at the time nor by the power and virtue of the sacrament alone, but we affirm that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s Table, have such union with Christ Jesus as the natural man cannot apprehend. Further we affirm that although the faithful, hindered by negligence and human weakness, do not profit as much as they ought in the actual moment of the Supper, yet afterwards it shall bring forth fruit, being living seed sown in good ground; for the Holy Spirit, who can never be separated from the right institution of the Lord Jesus, will not deprive the faithful of the fruit of that mystical action. Yet all this, we say again, comes of that true faith which apprehends Christ Jesus, who alone makes the sacrament effective in us. Therefore, if anyone slanders us by saying that we affirm or believe the sacraments to be symbols and nothing more, they are libelous and speak against the plain facts. On the other hand we readily admit that we make a distinction between Christ Jesus in his eternal substance and the elements of the sacramental signs. So we neither worship the elements, in place of that which they signify, nor yet do we despise them or undervalue them, but we use them with great reverence, examining ourselves diligently before we participate, since we are assured by the mouth of the apostle that “whoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
Of course this makes excellent sense to me, a cradle Presbyterian. But I think it might make sense anyway, because it seems to honor both the is and the is-notness of metaphors in general, and the “This is my body” metaphor in particular. Or, to quote Calvin (faithfully interpreting Augustine?) it honors both the unity and distinctiveness of the sign and the thing signified. Perhaps your congregation should sacramentally flee Zurich for Edinburgh!
Comment by Marvin — October 12, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
Honestly Rob, I don’t see the difference between saying that and the (I assume uncontroversial) claim that God answers prayers. It’s not like God didn’t exist before he was summoned, he just wasn’t in that particular location in that particular way. It’s true that we can’t order him about, but we assume he’ll respond to us because that’s the kind of God he is. In this case it was God himself who set the terms of the engagement, so it is as much a question of us obeying him as vice versa. To be fair to the Zwinglians, I don’t think they are play acting, since most of them don’t seem to go through the whole Last Supper reenactment. What some Catholics accuse Protestants of doing is hardly relevant to the discussion anyway, since as has been abundantly testified here, many Protestants believe in the Real Presence.
Also, how is the line you quoted — where two or three gather in my name, I am there — less an act of conjuring? If he is not any more “there” when they gather than when they’re separate, why did he specify that?
Actually Marvin, both Telford and John seemed to personally believe in the Calvinist version of communion. I expect if the church goes anywhere, it would be there. It still seems a tad manichean to me with its spirit/matter division, but like I said, I don’t sweat the physics.
Comment by Camassia — October 12, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
Camassia:
Part of my point was that, since He is already “there” when two or three come together for the purpose of worshipping Him, how is He suddenly “more” there, or somehow “otherwise” there, seemingly *because of* something *else* that is ritually done? And I’m not entirely clear on where He did specify that. I know that He said “Do this in remembrance of me.” That sounds symbolic to me. I know that he said it to Jews–who had a horror of eating even animal blood. I don’t see any record in the New Testament of the scandal that would have been caused if those first Christians, or worse, others in the communities, had believed that they were literally consuming human flesh and blood.
Of course, there are Protestants and then there are Protestants and various articles of faith amongst the many sects. But my Catholic friend did not differentiate between them: their communions were all equally bogus to him, for not being under the Church.
Can you tell me where, in the New Testament, we have a direct and unequivocal teaching of the Real Presence, or, equally to the point, of transubstantiation?
Comment by Rob — October 12, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
Camassia’s already said everything I would say in answer to #7, basically, but: I think it merits noting that there are two totally different ways of even approaching the questions going on. It’s hard for me even to imagine framing the question of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist by beginning with assuming we’re talking about human actions in “a ritual” or “a ceremony” as causative in themselves. Once the question has been framed that way, you’re already out of a sacramental worldview, so it’s no wonder there’s some mutual incomprehension.
Comment by Beth — October 12, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
This may or may not be a comfort, but according to Crossan (here I go with him again!), the difference in understanding of
the Eucharistic meal has been divided into two major camps from almost the beginning–right after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Crossan notes that one position took ascendance in the Roman Church, but he would like to see both considered, neither
at the expense of the other.
1) Jesus’ presence here and now in the community of believers gathered to share their worldly goods with each other; 2) Jesus as the Sacramental oblation for the remission of sins. (This may be way too condensed, but at the moment I don’t have time to look up the section I’m condensing.)
Comment by Bag Lady — October 12, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
“But what I would like to see is at least an invitation to Jesus to be present in the elements.”
Why does Christ need to be present in the elements? Why can he not be present amongst the community as they partake? I think an emphasis on the elements is one of the things that has made ‘real presence’ (often) be little more than a debate.
Comment by graham — October 12, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
Rob, you still didn’t address my point. If God promised that his presence will increase with the gathering of two or three people — a human action — then why can’t he become yet more present through another human action? You can’t dispute the idea that God becomes more “there” in response to human actions with a line that says exactly what you’re disputing.
As to the New Testament, I already answered that. No, I can’t come up with uncontestable proof that Jesus promulgated this doctrine. When it comes down to it, I can’t come up with uncontestable proof of anything from that era. But like I said before, since the Real Presence doctrine was in place so early, it seems to me that the burden of proof rests with those contesting that interpretation. Your evidence against it so far seems to be that a) it doesn’t make sense to you, and b) some Catholics are snotty about it. Both of these are regrettable but they seem ultimately to be solipsistic reasons.
I hope this isn’t an indication of how a church discussion would go.
Comment by Camassia — October 12, 2005 @ 6:45 pm
“…then why can’t He become more present through another human action?”
Camassia:
Because He is not divisible, and doesn’t come in portions. I don’t find the results of textual analysis to be any more “solipsistic” when the text is the Gospel, than when the text is “Moby Dick”. Certainly scorn received from a second party (my Catholic friend) is not solipsism–quite the opposite. But consensus opinion is not proof of anything either. Was Jesus wrong, simply because the religious establishment of His day rejected His message and conspired with the secular powers to have Him and His disruptive teachings removed from the scene?
I still maintain that the weight of evidence in favor of the bread and wine having been understood from the beginning as metaphors and mnemonic aids, if you will, in service of the memory of His salvific sacrifice, made for us, is that the fact that there is no hint of scandal over the supposed consumption of blood, or what would amount to cannibalism, either in the New Testament, or in any other early writings of which I am aware. If He had directed His followers to burn the tranformed bread and wine on an altar, this would fit with what we *do know* about things of that era. But to suggest that He directed His Jewish followers to consume *actual* blood and human flesh and they just said “Okay” and never flinched, goes against what we know about both Jews and precedent in Jewish sacred law. I think that He would have had to explain very carefully why this was okay, not only in its overall significance, but in its immediate particulars. That He did not need to, I think speaks for itself.
Comment by Rob — October 13, 2005 @ 2:35 am
I love discussions of Real Presence. They become so “personal.” But I must confess that even in my most skeptical, iconoclastic phases, I have never had trouble seeing The Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist/Holy Communion. I have also not understood the — especially — Zwinglian objection. “The finite cannot bear the infinite” was his claim, as I understand the matter. And I think most Protestants (and probably most Western Christians) proclaim “Amen.” We want things holy and unapproachable. There’s something both domesticated and assuring about this. But it just doesn’t hold if one confesses the Incarnation.
For just as it was (in some sense) “necessary” for the Son to be incarnated within the world, so it is “necessary” for the Son to be incarnated within his community. It is really the same thing.
My teacher, Robert Jenson, explains the “real presence” something like this (the flaws are mine, not his!): A body is the means by which we humans are present to one another. (Without bodies we cannot speak to or serve or enjoy one another.) Jesus was the Body by which the Son — God Himself — was present to humanity. Following the ascension, the Body by which the Son is — most concentratedly, most assuredly, most uncontrovertibly — available to his people is the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. Of course his is available in other ways — in people’s memories, in one another, as his Body the Church (and I take that not as a metaphor but as a literal statement of what the Church is). But here is present, as was Jesus, face-to-face with the believer.
His presence is not “made” in any kind of magical way. The old theories of HOW the transformation takes place are just so much hocus-pocus. It is the peculiar character of “liturgy” that it brings about what it prays and practices. So, in the proclamation of the Gospel, forgiveness comes into being and faith is formed. Is that a mechanical thing? No. And neither is the prayer by which the bread and wine are prayed over and liturgically identified — highlighted as and brought into being as — the body and blood of our Lord. (Actually, the old understanding does not separate body and blood. Scripture says most often “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood” — i.e., it does not identify bread with flesh and wine with blood. Instead the whole experience of salvation is recapitulated in the “elements.”)
Finally, I am rather suspicious of Wilken’s discussion of “representing the immolation.” Robert is a friend of mine and I accuse him of too willingly giving up his good Missouri Synod training and taking on some of the more contentious aspects of the Roman Catholic tradition. I am suspicious of any discussion of re-doing or re-playing or re-minding or re-membering when that comes into a discussion of eucharistic theology. The point is the “now,” not the transport into the past.
And I have gone on too long.
Dwight
Comment by Dwight — October 13, 2005 @ 6:58 am
Here’s why I think it’s not sufficient to say that Jesus is merely present in or amongst the community or that the sacrament is a “symbol” of Christ: God’s self-communication, for Christians, is embodied. The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. God doesn’t come to us in some ethereal realm of spirit, but in our concrete physical existence. The sacraments aren’t just “remembrances” of Jesus, but Jesus coming to us here and now to give us forgiveness and new life.
Comment by Lee — October 13, 2005 @ 7:22 am
Both Dwight and Lee stress the need for the embodiment of Christ in the communion Host. But, as they point out themselves, Christ is already emodied in the Church–and I think that “church” here can be broadly defined as that group of two or three coming together in His name, rather than just strictly as a more organized, corporate entity–what, then, is the need for still more embodiment?
The first Communion was a Passover supper–The Last Supper. The Passover was, and is, a commemorative event, not a sacrificial one. Do you all think it a mere coincidence that this particular night, and this particular meal, were chosen? “Do this in remembrance of me,” is what He instructed them.
And nobody seems to want to tackle the question of how good Jews of the First Century were induced to consume actual blood with so little fuss, if that is what it is to be believed that Jesus was literally telling them to do.
Comment by Rob — October 13, 2005 @ 9:42 am
Well, God does come in portions: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If God is an all-or-nothing presence, how can we say he’s “there” in church when his body is not there? How can he be “there” for churches all around the world at once? You seem to be expecting God to obey human physics.
Actually, as I recall there were accusations of cannibalism against Christians. But I’d have to investigate the matter further. As far as Jews are concerned, I don’t see why their taboo on eating animal blood would make them more resistant than anybody else to the idea, especially since they’d already have to get over taboos like God incarnating himself.
Also, as I described already (I do wish you’d read the comments more carefully, Rob), the Last Supper did imitate a Passover feast, but the Jewish custom is not a matter of simple remembrance either, but a participation in the event. Moreover, Wilken says the word translated into English as “remembrance” in the story actually has that same implication of re-presentation. (You’d have to talk to someone who knows Greek for the fine points.)
Anyway, you still haven’t explained Justin Martyr. Why does he accept the body and blood without blinking? The forbears who he says taught him that the bread and wine were the body of Christ would have been the same generation of church people that wrote the Gospels. How then do you pull out the Gospels as evidence that nobody believed that? That’s why I say the burden of proof is on you — not because I always believe the majority opinion (otherwise I wouldn’t be hanging with Mennonites) but because the church that produced the New Testament also produced this belief. Your main counter here seems to be an argument from absence: there wasn’t much discussion of it in the NT, and you think there should be more evidence of controversy about it. But it was still primarily an oral culture, and not everything got written down; and of the things that were, probably about 5% of them have survived to the present day. So I think we can say a lot more about what people were doing than what they weren’t doing. That’s why the Bible isn’t Moby Dick.
As for solipsism, I say that because you seem to be basing your parameters of truth on what your own mind can comprehend, and your personal wounded feelings about how Catholics have talked to you.
Comment by Camassia — October 13, 2005 @ 10:22 am
I am dumbfounded that Rob can “maintain that the weight of evidence in favor of the bread and wine having been understood from the beginning as metaphors and mnemonic aids,” when Zwingli is practically the first known Christian to deny the Real Presence. The argument from silence works at least as well for the First Century, when per Rob’s position there should have been a general outcry in the Church that heretics were importing the pagan notion that the memorial meal was Jesus’ true Body and Blood.
As for the lack of outcry among His disciples, the explanation is found in John 6, in particular in the words of Simon Peter: “Master, to whom shall we go?” And of course, immediately following the first Eucharist, Judas left.
Comment by Tom — October 13, 2005 @ 10:27 am
Camassia:
I don’t have any problem with the idea of the Communion being a “participation in the event”–in fact, that is exactly what I’m saying that it is: a remembrance, and a reliving, of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. None of that necessitates His “real presence”, any more than the Passover meal necessitates a “real” visitation by the Angel of Death.
As for Justin Martyr–he was born a pagan, not a Jew. There is no reason to think that consuming blood would have been the breaking of a taboo for the Gentile converts like Justin Martyr. This would not have been the case for the Jews in attendance at that Last Supper. It is not believable that nobody questioned it, if “real” blood was in question.
As for solipcism–were I the only person you could find who says the kind of things that I’m saying, you might have a point there. But, this string aside, I think that there are others.
Comment by Rob — October 13, 2005 @ 10:36 am
Please, don’t get me wrong. Taking Communion is a very moving event for me. I have experienced it as a very powerful reminder of God’s love for me, coming in a great rush of grace. I was in attendance at a Catholic wedding mass a week ago, and I yearned in an almost painful way to be able to share Communion with my loved ones in the Church–but could not. It didn’t matter to me what they believed about the Eucharist. But it did matter to the Priest (who is my wife’s uncle) what I believed about it.
Father Phil and I discussed this at the reception after the wedding. We both long for Christian unity and see these disagreements over the nature of the Eucharist as the primary firewall between the various Christian churches. But it seems that the twain shall never meet. I believe this to be unfortunate to the highest possible degree.
Comment by Rob — October 13, 2005 @ 10:46 am
So, even assuming the pagans were A-OK with cannibalism (which I doubt, given that Christians were normally reluctant to discuss communion with them also), Tom’s point is relevant here: why no big debate between Jewish and Gentile Christians about this? If you’re going to argue from silence, that’s a pertinent question.
Also, like I said, the church that taught Justin was the same church that wrote the Gospels. So suppose we have a church that believes in the Real Presence writing down the oral tradition about Jesus, and it writes that when Jesus handed the bread and wine to the apostles there was no controversy about it. Hmm, not really a surprise, is it? Even if there was resistance, why record it for posterity, and exacerbate the still-tense relations between the two Christian groups? You know as well as I do that the Gospels are not meant to be precise factual records of events, but teaching tools for the early church. But your analysis here is still treating it as if it were written by a court reporter.
I suspect that by that time the Jews might have been following an even older tradition than the blood taboo: if God says do something, do it. See: Abraham and Isaac.
I am sorry this is still such a nasty subject after 500 years. I understand why what medieval Catholicism did with it all produced the reaction, but I still don’t really understand the huge resistance today. For me, any opportunity to get closer to God seems like it ought to be welcomed.
Comment by Camassia — October 13, 2005 @ 11:04 am
I *knew* that I felt Tom’s presence out there! John 6–yes, indeed. Tom is exactly right. There *is* mention of the scandal in the New Testament, and I stand corrected.
Comment by Rob — October 13, 2005 @ 11:12 am
Camassia:
In the case of the birth of Christianity, the oral tradition as the sole source of tradition was quite short-lived. The epistles of St. Paul, and other letters that are mentioned in Acts and in Paul’s epistles, were in circulation within just few years of the actual events. There may not have been a “court reporter”, but the Gospel of St. John was supposedly written by an eye-witness (which makes Tom’s point above all the stronger, of course). The “Q” document, if you subscribe to that theory, would also have been compiled quite early-on.
You seem to be saying that events as they happened would have been edited as they were written down, for reasons of propaganda: that could work both ways, of course. I don’t even want to go there.
Comment by Rob — October 13, 2005 @ 11:23 am
More than once I’ve heard people say “…’Catholics and Christians’ this or that…” without really meaning to make the distinction that is, however, implicit in the syntax, and unconsciously present in the mind of the speaker. This is a terrible state of affairs.
A very primary thing keeping Catholics and Protestants apart is their inability to share one Communion. And this is the source of my angst on the subject, and why I see it as so important. People seem to be trying to say here that there is really not that much difference between the two. Yeah, right.
Comment by Rob — October 13, 2005 @ 11:32 am
But, on the other hand, Tom, here, from Luther, is a second opinion on John 6 and the Eucharist:
“In the first place, John 6 is to be totally set on one side, on the ground that it does not utter a syllable about the sacrament. The sacrament was not yet instituted; and, a more important point, the chapter is plainly and obviously speaking about faith, as is shown by the warp and woof of the words and thoughts. For Jesus said: ‘My words are spirit and life.’, showing that He was speaking of spiritual eating, by doing which any partaker would live; whereas the Jews understood Him to mean eating His flesh, and so raised the dispute.”
In that sense, spiritual, but not material, I have no problem with the concept of “real presence”.
Comment by Rob — October 14, 2005 @ 2:57 am
You know, Rob, I would have said that *you* were the one saying here that there is really not that much difference between the two, based on your, “It didn’t matter to me what they believed about the Eucharist.”
Which, will you nil you, amounts to, “It didn’t matter to me that they were superstitious idolators.”
It should matter. If you think consecration of the Eucharist is a false act of conjuring, that Christ is no more present in the Host than in a stone, that really should affect whether you want to participate in it. And it really should affect whether the Catholic Church permits you to receive the Eucharist, for your own sake more than for concern over a false sign of unity.
Comment by Tom — October 14, 2005 @ 5:57 am
I think one needs to distinguish between the question of the Real Presence and the question of intercommunion. Belief in the Real Presence extends well beyond the RCC, so it’s not as though that’s the only reason there’s no intercommunion. The Orthodox, the LCMS and other bodies that believe in the Real Presence have restrictions on who may receive, while other Protestants who hold to RP have more “liberal” communion policies. (However, I will say that given some of our inter-communion poicies I wonder how seriously a church like the ELCA takes the Real Presence anymore.)
Moreover, belief in the Real Presence is not the same thing as belief in transubstantiation, which is a theory about how Jesus is present in the elements (largely within an Aristotelian metaphysical framework that, needless to say, not everyone accepts). No church body outside of the RCC adheres to transubstantiation that I’m aware of, and I’m not even sure that it’s doctrinally binding for Catholics.
Comment by Lee — October 14, 2005 @ 7:51 am
What’s doctrinally binding for Catholics is “that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.”
I’m not sure what Catholics who don’t accept the Aristotelian concept of “substance” do with this dogma. I suppose they affirm the closest statement possible within their own metaphysics.
The Council of Trent, from which the expression comes, adds, “This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” I’ve read an argument by a Catholic theologian that, since the change that takes place is entirely unlike any other change, Aristotle would baulk at being held responsible for the metaphysics involved, and that “transubstantiation” is actually *not* a fitting or proper term for the change.
Comment by Tom — October 14, 2005 @ 9:55 am
Sure, God is present in other ways at Mass than just Jesus’ Real Presence. Not only is the Body of Christ there in His people, just as He is at the coffee and donuts afterward. Also, the Word of God, of which Jesus is the Incarnation, sits on the lectern and is proclaimed in the readings. And of course the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are present always and everywhere.
But even the kind of Christians who don’t ever go to church long to see him face to face, as He came to Israel, and as He is in Heaven.
When Jesus comes down to us, that is exactly what we get. Jesus, right there, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity — just veiled so as to appear a little more bready. (And vinous. Because it sounds rude to call Jesus wine-y.)
Eternity comes to us, or we are caught up in Eternity. “This is the night….” We are in the Upper Room, we are at the foot of the Cross, we are in Heaven with the saints and angels and our Lord.
That is why the Real Presence is important. He didn’t have to come to us that way, or to draw us to His side, so early and often. But He wanted to, and we are grateful for his graciousness.
Comment by Maureen — October 17, 2005 @ 9:35 am
The fact that rice flour cannot be used to make the communion host, shows that there is a formula, which must be followed exactly, for the desired event to happen, for the base metal to be transformed into gold, if you will. Mel Gibson apparently built his own chapel because of his belief that if the ritual is not performed in Latin, with the priest’s back to the communicants, the event does not occur. These kinds of things imply that the promise comes only with certain stipulations, requiring specific “works” that go beyond simple faith and confession of belief in God’s love and salvation through the cross of Our Lord. I believe that communion is top-down: a grace in response to supplication, not an offering back up of things which have already been given. When you take communion, you come in contact, spiritually, with that which has been given to man by God, and your faith is strengthened, and your hope is renewed, and your gratitude for God’s love is focussed in your consciousness and shared with your loved ones in whose midst these gifts are received.
Comment by Rob — October 18, 2005 @ 3:01 am
Rob, you said, “The fact that rice flour cannot be used to make the communion host, shows that there is a formula, which must be followed exactly, for the desired event to happen, for the base metal to be transformed into gold, if you will.” But you miss entirely the analysis that led to that conclusion. To confine the discussion to parts of the Western Church (the only one I know anything about): For the “real presence” tradition, the “mandate” or “command” of Our Lord was to do what he did — to take bread, for example. Bread, for Jesus, was a wheat-flour concoction. Ergo, to do what he did requires us to use a wheat-flour concoction.
We submit to that discipline not out of some felt need to buy God off, which is sometimes implied in badly framed theological tracts, but rather because Jesus said to. We use flour-bread, not because we impart some magic to flour as opposed to rice, but because why not? (To answer a common point: If you happen to be allergic to gluten, then simply forego the bread and take the cup. That’s admittedly a little more difficult among Catholics than us Lutherans — my tradition.) It’s ultimately a matter of humility.
You go on, “Mel Gibson apparently built his own chapel because of his belief that if the ritual is not performed in Latin, with the priest’s back to the communicants, the event does not occur.” But surely you don’t mean to take Brother Mel as an authoritative teacher of Roman Catholic doctrine? I have to tamp down my sarcasm when I speak of his faith, so I’ll leave it at that.
And then, “These kinds of things imply that the promise comes only with certain stipulations, requiring specific “works†that go beyond simple faith and confession of belief in God’s love and salvation through the cross of Our Lord.” And I can see how it might appear that way. But you must take seriously the greater teaching of the Church (even the Roman Church) to see that what is at operation here is “incarnation.” Just as incarnation requires a body and most prayer requires words, so the eucharist as an action and event in time among bodies requires certain things, words, and gestures. And just as language has a grammar, so do the “visible words” that constitute the sacrament. That’s all that most liturgical and systematic theologians will claim for what we’re discussing. We take certain precautions to be sure that what gets “enacted” or “visibly spoken” is grammatically correct so that what and whom we meet is Gospel and not something else.
“When you take communion, you come in contact, spiritually, with that which has been given to man by God, and your faith is strengthened, and your hope is renewed, and your gratitude for God’s love is focussed in your consciousness and shared with your loved ones in whose midst these gifts are received.” This is almost essentially correct by my lights, except for three words — which I wish I could highlight: “spiritually” and “that which.” “Spiritually” suggests a disdain for the physical and embodied — and such a disdain is not Christian. (We are embodied spirits, at least.) So I would drop the word. And in place of “that which, “I would substitute “Him Who.”
Are we afraid to meet Our Lord face to face? I hope not. Is he present in the Eucharist in a way unique to that event? Most assuredly. Do we make him appear by specific words or gestures? By no means. Is his presence guaranteed nevertheless? Most certainly. Why or how do we know? Because he has promised.
One geekly thing to note about the basis for this discussion: When Jesus says “remembrance,” the Greek that is translated is “anamnesis.” It means more than to recall or to suffer an act of mental activity. It is more on the line of the Latin often used to translate it (and therein lies the root of another line of problems in Eucharistic theology), “representation” — re-presentation, re-happening, re-meeting.
It constantly amazes me that people can’t just sit back and enjoy this reality.
Dwight
Comment by Dwight — October 18, 2005 @ 10:28 am
“Are we afraid to meet Our Lord face to face? I hope not. Is he present in the Eucharist in a way unique to that event? Most assuredly. Do we make him appear by specific words or gestures? By no means. Is his presence guaranteed nevertheless? Most certainly. Why or how do we know? Because he has promised.”
Aw, come on–admit it “Dwight”: You’re really Donald Rumsfeld, am I right?
Comment by Rob — October 18, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
Dwight–
All kidding aside, I not so sure what it is that I “miss entirely” above. It is clear from what you say that the Incarnation is dependent on obedience (we must use the proper type of flour)–which is a human act, or work. But, I am told, on the other hand, that the communion entails the Real Presence because God has promised that it would. Clearly, however, the promise is a conditional one, dependent more upon the recipe of the wafer, than on, say, the sincerity of the minister performing the ritual. One wonders how the Christ was incarnated in the bread and wine at the Last Supper (our model, the formulae of which we must strictly follow) when He was, in fact, still alive, in the usual sense, at the time. Wasn’t the bread just bread and the wine only on that night?
As Luther pointed out, the words of John 6, which verses are most often quoted as a proof text against the claim that His language of “my blood” and “my body” being figurative, are spoken some time prior to the institution of the ritual, and refer quite clearly to faith, to spiritual “eating and drinking”.
What I gather from Mel Gibson’s extreme conservativism on the issue is that attitudes towards the Eucharist have changed, and can change again. Mel wants to go in one direction; I would take the other. What I would like to see Christendom move towards (and I use the archaic word Christendom purposefully at this point in history) is one Communion, based on one *common* doctrine, for all Christians to share in any church–which is to say, in the One Church, which is the True Body of Christ.
We don’t have that now.
Comment by Rob — October 18, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
Rob’s comments are illustrative of how if we don’t understand something, we tend to refuse to believe it. Which is the opposite of faith. That Christ identified his presence as both Eucharistic and where two or three or gathered is undeniable, yet if it can’t be explained to our satisfaction it is rejected. God on the dock indeed.
Comment by TSO — October 19, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
TSO–
The Church did without transubstantiation for over 1200 years, so how can you say that it was instituted by Christ in the First Century? It was St. Paul who most meticulously analyzed and defined faith for, and to, the nascent Church. What does St. Paul say about the Real Presence? Presence is presence–why is the qualifier “Real” necessary? What does it add? It’s like a used car dealer assuring you that the clunker he’s trying to get you to buy has only been driven 85,000 “actual” miles. Christ is present in the Church. His kingdom is present within every faithful Christian. He is with us always. In sharing the communion with our brothers and sisters in Christ, we *celebrate* His presence among us, and most especially, we *remember* His loving sacrifice for us, as He commanded us to do.
Comment by Rob — October 19, 2005 @ 6:35 pm
“The thing that bothers me about the concept of the Real Presence is that, as presented by Roman Catholics, it would seem that the Christ *has no choice but to be there*, where- and whenever a Catholic priest (and only a Catholic priest) invokes His presence. The moral stature of the priest does not matter. The make-up of the congregation does not matter. Only the ritual ceremony (and the recipe of the wafers, strangely enough–no rice flour for those allergic to wheat) matters, and it is apparently infallible. If we were to witness this in any other cultureal setting, wouldn’t we dismiss it as conjuring?”
To point out the giant, Catholic elephant in the room, which stands at the heart of this sacred mystery, and is possibly the most scandalizing theological point among a great number of protestants, I might point out that the Mass simply cannot be fully comprehended apart from a robust understanding of the priest’s role as an Alter Christus.
Comment by Will — October 20, 2005 @ 5:12 pm
I’m closing this thread, because a) I’ve been having a busy week and I’m tired of picking out the real comments from the mountains of spam, and b) it all seems to have turned into a debate about the specifically Roman Catholic version of the Real Presence, which is not what I wanted to talk about. If you want to go on, please take it somewhere else.
Comment by Camassia — October 21, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
Taking Communion. What’s the Best Way?
I’ve read and thought a bit about the theology of communion (see this post by Camassia for a good discussion of some of the theological issues surrounding communion), but not as much about the act—how to actually “do communion.”…
Trackback by blip — February 15, 2006 @ 8:09 am