The real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

[RandyPNW]

The grammar of "This is my body" is not rocket science. The subject of the sentence is a personal pronoun, the verb is "TO BE" and the body is a predicate nominative.

When Memorialists state this sentence means "represents" this rips apart the most elemental rules of grammar. When the verb TO BE is replaced with "represents" the predicate structure is destroyed and replace with a direct object. The word body is no longer a predicate nominative but a direct object which takes on other aspects of interpretation.

Different verbs change the meaning in language. This is typical American Evangelicalism. To change the meaning of a statement, they change the verb. And of course, add to Scripture.

You're trying to apply English grammatical rules to idiomatic language used by another culture that defies rules that in our culture might want to disallow such a sense. Translated into English it still means the same thing. Jesus is saying his flesh is bread and his blood is drink, indicating that *after his death* it will be so. It was not at the time even though Jesus says it as such.

Jesus is calling into use a ritual that will depict something not yet current and yet demonstrated as if it is already present. And that's because what he was at the moment will be prepared for food and drink in the future. They are just, in a sense, rehearsing it or celebrating what will happen but has not yet happened.

We get similar strange language use in John's use of the prolepsis in the book of Revelation. There, John speaks of things happening currently for him, seeing it happen in a vision, even though what he sees represents something that hasn't happened yet.

For example, John sees, in vision, Christ coming on the clouds. But we know that hasn't happened yet, even though by our grammatical rules it *must* be happening currently. And yet it isn't yet occurring, and only occurs currently in the vision.

So much for English grammatical problems. We might not want to believe that something is happening in the present tense when in the culture of prophecy, things seen in vision currently can actually not yet have taken place and will be fulfilled in the future.

 

[RandyPNW]

So then the only thing Jesus means to say is essentially in the Lord's supper is.... "THINK ABOUT ME WHEN I AM GONE?" Very simplistic.

No, you're short-circuiting the idea. It is what is being remembered about Jesus that is being represented, and rehearsed to be remembered. Remember, Jesus had not yet died, and yet he wanted his disciples to know that his body and blood were the vehicles for their own Salvation in the future. They could participate in him spiritually, and yet their Salvation would not be complete until after the Cross.

So it's not just, "Think about me when I'm gone." Rather, it is, "Continue to walk in me because after the Cross you will have Salvation, and you must draw upon that for the rest of your life." It is essential that we remember this important aspect of our Salvation, which is to abide in him.

What really depreciates this ceremony is to turn it into strictly a mystical ceremony, as if the ritual empowers somebody to live in Christ. It is only a memorial to remind us that Christ has given his life to us so that we in turn should not just take it, but remember it always.

The ritual is strictly an aid to this end, for the purposes of remembering. Living in Christ comes only by faith, which requires no ceremony at all. Salvation is a free gift received by faith, apart from any ceremony whatsoever.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So much for English grammatical problems.

So in English a noun is a noun but in Greek it is something else. In Greek a verb is a verb, but in English it is something else. This is just plain gibberish. Take a class in Greek and be informed.

Rather, it is, "Continue to walk in me because after the Cross you will have Salvation, and you must draw upon that for the rest of your life."

Chapter and verse please.

Why do you just make up your own interpretations which are not apart of the text. Typical American evangelical interpretation of Scripture.

I am out of this conversation. Serious problems with interpretation of Scripture here.

 

[Philip_B]

I can't be more plain about the fact Jesus said "do this in memory of me."

Luke 22.19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

How do we remember him? We remember that he died to give us the benefit of his life and blood. We also remember that in giving himself up for us he also gave himself *to us.*

Ellicot's Commentary: This do in remembrance of me.—Literally, as My memorial, or, as your memorial of Me. The words are common to St. Luke and St. Paul, but are not found in the other two reports. The word for “remembrance” occurs, in the New Testament, only here and in Hebrews 10:3. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it is applied to the shew-bread (Leviticus 24:7), to the blowing of trumpets (Numbers 10:10), in the titles of Psalm 38:1 (“to bring to remembrance,”) and Psalm 70:1. The word had thus acquired the associations connected with a religious memorial, and might be applied to a sacrifice as commemorative, though it did not in itself involve the idea of sacrificing. CLICK

I agree that this memorial is not about looking back at ancient sacramental history as looking back at the death of Christ after he had died.

Remembering, therefore, this command of the Saviour and all that came to pass for our sake,
the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven,
the enthronement at the right hand of the Father and the second, glorious coming,
Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all and for all.
Liturgy of John Chrisostom​

​

The problem I have is that if anamnesis simply means remember in the way that you remember you need to buy something next time you are at the shopping centre, you are effectively forming a position were the human being is the prime actor in the drama of salvation, where as the truth we know is that this is grace and the prime actor is always God. The prime actor in the drama recollected in the passover was of course not Moses, Not Joshua, not Pharoh, but God who names himself 'I am'.

Th Eucharist as such is not an historical reflection, so much as a calling into the present tense of the historic truth of the drama by which our salvation is procured. If it is not real in the present moment, then how can it be more than a history lesson?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

you are effectively forming a position were the human being is the prime actor in the drama of salvation, where as the truth we know is that this is grace and the prime actor is always God.

Yes. Well said.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

staff edit

Another newbie contrarian joins CF.

 

[hislegacy]

If people do not want opposing viewpoints, perhaps this is the wrong forum. There is a traditional theology forum you can post freely in with like minded members

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

If people do not want opposing viewpoints, perhaps this is the wrong forum. There is a traditional theology forum you can post freely in with like minded members

Point well taken.

 

[The Liturgist]

?? The Eucharist is never mentioned, and neither is communion, yet the reference is obvious??

From a literary stance, that makes no sense whatsoever. How can something that is not there be obvious?

From a proper exegetical stance it is incorrect

Ironically, that’s what I have been saying this entire time about your interpretation of the Institution Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians, and also His hard saying on the Eucharist in John 6, which is utterly devoid of any indication our Lord is speaking figuratively, as Martin Luther pointed out at Marburg.

How can we regard the Eucharist as being only figuratively or symbolically Bread and Wine, when our Lord said “This is my Body” and “this is my Blood” without qualifications, and furthermore said in John 6 that we would have to eat His body and drink His blood (and not to figuratively eat a symbol of His body or drink symbolically a figure of His blood)? And why does St. Paul warn us about the dangers of failing to discern His body and blood, when they are mere symbols?

But the difference is that there is an actual obvious connection between 2 Peter 1:4 and the Eucharist, and indeed, 2 Peter 1:4-9 are a compact form of the Institution Narrative and the warning against partaking in an unworthy manner found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. that is that our Lord instructed us when He instituted the Last Supper, where St. Peter was personally present, to eat His body and drink His blood. And if we do this He promises we the remission of Sins, and participation in the New Covenant, by which we receive Everlasting Life. These are the Great Promises St. Peter refers to in 2 Peter 1:4.

And since, in the person of Christ His Divinity and Humanity, united in the Incarnation without change or confusion, are entirely inseparable and indivisible, and therefore when we partake of the Eucharist, we become partakers of the Divine Nature. And the following five verses exhort us to be virtuous, in a direct parallel of 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, lest we forget that our sins have been forgiven, which would cause us to not discern His Body and Blood, and thus we cannot worthily partake of His divine nature, but eat and drink unto our own destruction.

Also, I would note I am not the first person to make this connection, for this was the prevailing exegesis of 2 Peter 1:3-9 in the Early Church, which we see in St. Cyril of Alexandria, and indeed the only opponent of this exegesis was Nestorius, because it was vital to his agenda that the unity of the human and divine natures in the Incarnation of Christ our True God be denied, so that the hermeneutic principle of Communicatio Idiomatum would become inadmissable, and consequently no one could assert that the Blessed Virgin Mary was Theotokos, because the humanity of our Lord would be regarded as completely separate from His divinity, to the extent that the man Jesus was a different person from the divine Logos, the two of them united only by a single divine will. For if the human and divine natures are united inseparably, then the interpretive rule of communicatio idiomatum becomes unavoidable, and the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, that is to say, as the Mother of God, becomes undeniable.

This is why Martin Luther etched “THIS IS MY BODY” into the table at Marburg in response to the Zwinglians, because their Nestorianism represents a direct attack on the doctrine of the Incarnation.

 

[hislegacy]

Ironically, that’s what I have been saying this entire time about your interpretation of the Institution Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians, and also His hard saying on the Eucharist in John 6, which is utterly devoid of any indication our Lord is speaking figuratively, as Martin Luther pointed out at Marburg.

How can we regard the Eucharist as being only figuratively or symbolically Bread and Wine, when our Lord said “This is my Body” and “this is my Blood” without qualifications, and furthermore said in John 6 that we would have to eat His body and drink His blood (and not to figuratively eat a symbol of His body or drink symbolically a figure of His blood)? And why does St. Paul warn us about the dangers of failing to discern His body and blood, when they are mere symbols?

But the difference is that there is an actual obvious connection between 2 Peter 1:4 and the Eucharist, and indeed, 2 Peter 1:4-9 are a compact form of the Institution Narrative and the warning against partaking in an unworthy manner found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. that is that our Lord instructed us when He instituted the Last Supper, where St. Peter was personally present, to eat His body and drink His blood. And if we do this He promises we the remission of Sins, and participation in the New Covenant, by which we receive Everlasting Life. These are the Great Promises St. Peter refers to in 2 Peter 1:4.

And since, in the person of Christ His Divinity and Humanity, united in the Incarnation without change or confusion, are entirely inseparable and indivisible, and therefore when we partake of the Eucharist, we become partakers of the Divine Nature. And the following five verses exhort us to be virtuous, in a direct parallel of 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, lest we forget that our sins have been forgiven, which would cause us to not discern His Body and Blood, and thus we cannot worthily partake of His divine nature, but eat and drink unto our own destruction.

Also, I would note I am not the first person to make this connection, for this was the prevailing exegesis of 2 Peter 1:3-9 in the Early Church, which we see in St. Cyril of Alexandria, and indeed the only opponent of this exegesis was Nestorius, because it was vital to his agenda that the unity of the human and divine natures in the Incarnation of Christ our True God be denied, so that the hermeneutic principle of Communicatio Idiomatum would become inadmissable, and consequently no one could assert that the Blessed Virgin Mary was Theotokos, because the humanity of our Lord would be regarded as completely separate from His divinity, to the extent that the man Jesus was a different person from the divine Logos, the two of them united only by a single divine will. For if the human and divine natures are united inseparably, then the interpretive rule of communicatio idiomatum becomes unavoidable, and the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, that is to say, as the Mother of God, becomes undeniable.

This is why Martin Luther etched “THIS IS MY BODY” into the table at Marburg in response to the Zwinglians, because their Nestorianism represents a direct attack on the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Way too long to read. However I skimmed it and could not find a direct reply to the simple FACT that Peter make NO reference to the Eucharist, nor the Lords table in either of his espistles.

What someone wrote years later makes no difference to the clear and undeniable fact that It does not exist.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How can we regard the Eucharist as being only figuratively or symbolically Bread and Wine

Is this thread progressing satisfactorily?

 

[jas3]

Way too long to read.

Are you trying to be rude? You've done this repeatedly. The post you were responding to takes less than 4 minutes to read and answers your questions both about the connection between 2 Peter 1 and the Eucharist as well as the connection between that passage and St. Cyril's writings.

 

[hislegacy]

Are you trying to be rude? You've done this repeatedly. The post you were responding to takes less than 4 minutes to read and answers your questions both about the connection between 2 Peter 1 and the Eucharist as well as the connection between that passage and St. Cyril's writings.

No, I am not trying to be rude. Thanks for the callout.

Quoting what someone wrote 400 years years later about what they thought does not change the simple fact it is not there.


Either the reference is in the Scripture or it is not.

This is a perfect example where Tradition is raised to the level of Sacred Scripture to the point of making a point on something that is just not there.

You can repeat it as often as you would like, it doesn’t change the literal fact that it is not there.

These threads would be better off in the correct forum for them. Then there would be no debate

Cryl’s writing is not Divine

 

[The Liturgist]

What someone wrote years later makes no difference to the clear and undeniable fact that It does not exist.

As a matter of actual fact, what clearly and deniably does not exist is any statement from Christ our True God to the extent that His Body and Blood are not present in the Eucharist, or that the bread and wine are mere symbols of His Body and Blood.

Way too long to read. However I skimmed it and could not find a direct reply to the simple FACT that Peter make NO reference to the Eucharist, nor the Lords table in either of his espistles.

Therein lies the danger of “skimming,” I suppose, because it took our pious friend @jas3 four minutes, if I am reading his post correctly, to read the entire post and see where the Holy Apostle Peter did, in fact, refer to the Eucharist in 2 Peter. Since you refuse to actually read my reply, you have no business disagreeing with it.

Two things concern me however: firstly, I have no idea why you even mention 1 Peter; I have not cited that Epistle in the course of this conversation. Secondly, why do you refer to the Eucharist and “the Lord’s table” as though they are two separate things?

 

[The Liturgist]

Is this thread progressing satisfactorily?

Well, I enjoyed your posts, and those of our friends @HTacianas , and @jas3 , and @Ain't Zwinglian . It does seem that a number of people however have posted on your thread material that was off-topic according to the OP, but fortunately unlike in your previous thread on the subject none of these posts have been demeaning towards Christians who believe in the real presence.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Forgive me, what do you mean? This is your thread, not mine.

I mean that I added some clarifications to the OP and hope that the readership and contributors are doing well in comparison to the other thread.

 

[The Liturgist]

I mean that I added some clarifications to the OP and hope that the readership and contributors are doing well in comparison to the other thread.

Oh you just added those clarifications?

I will say that I am happy about the fact that no one has said anything as demeaning about us as they did in the other thread, so that has been an area of improvement.

By the way I recently posted a reply to a thread on the Novus Orrdo Missae in Sacramental Theology, which you and other Roman Catholic members, such as our friend @chevyontheriver, might enjoy replying to, as well as Orthodox and Anglican members.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Oh you just added those clarifications?

No, I added the clarifications yesterday.

 

[hislegacy]

As a matter of actual fact, what clearly and deniably does not exist is any statement from Christ our True God to the extent that His Body and Blood are not present in the Eucharist, or that the bread and wine are mere symbols of His Body and Blood.

Nor as has been demonstrated a number of times is there anything from Holy Scripture stating that there is

Remember I already showed you the error you made with the Greek. I even posted a link for people to follow so they can see it for themselves

Therein lies the danger of “skimming,” I suppose, because it took our pious friend @jas3 four minutes, if I am reading his post correctly, to read the entire post

Is he “pious” because he agrees with you? Or is he pious because he leads his life a certain way?

Either way your diatribe only needed a sk to see it was a redundant post. You keep saying the same thing over and over like it will suddenly become fact. Which it is not.

and see where the Holy Apostle Peter did, in fact, refer to the Eucharist in 2 Peter.

As stated repeatedly. The Holy Apostle Peter NEVER brought it up in his writings. I even quoted the verses verbatim for you to show me where he did. The only reply you keep giving is that he did.

That doesn’t make it true.

Since you refuse to actually read my reply, you have no business disagreeing with it.

Since you do not answer my questions after repeated request you have no business disagreeing with it.

Two things concern me however: firstly, I have no idea why you even mention 1 Peter; I have not cited that Epistle in the course of this conversation.

Firstly, as clearly stated a number of times, I bring up 1 Peter to further demonstrate that he never ever in either of his Epistles mentioned the Lords Supper, nor what you call the Eucharist.

That is the simplest answer I can give you

Again

Secondly, why do you refer to the Eucharist and “the Lord’s table” as though they are two separate things?

Secondly, that is your opinion. You call it the Eucharist, others call it the Bread, both are the same element in celebrating the Lords Supper.

Whether you use unleven bread as Jesus did, or a cracker, or leven bread or the little pressed wafer. It represents the same thing. Jesus’s body which was broken for us.

Whether you ie red wine, white wine or grape juice it still represents the Holy Blood of Jesus that was shed for us.

If you want to pontificate unchallenged, there is a forum for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

This is the General Theology forum where is it
discussed and debated.

Thank you, I hope I gave clear and concise replies to your post.

 

[The Liturgist]

Secondly, that is your opinion. You call it the Eucharist, others call it the Bread, both are the same element in celebrating the Lords Supper.

No, this is not my opinion: in your post, you wrote, and I quote, “ Way too long to read. However I skimmed it and could not find a direct reply to the simple FACT that Peter make NO reference to the Eucharist, nor the Lords table in either of his espistles.”

In what respect would you say the Eucharist is different from the Lord’s Table? And if they are not, in your opinion, different, why are you enumerating over them as two separate entities using the word “nor”?

For the record, the word Eucharist means “Thanksgiving” and is one of four terms commonly used to refer to this sacrament (or “ordinance” as some insist on calling it), the others being “Holy Communion,” “The Lord’s Supper” and “The Lord’s Table.” The terms “Divine Liturgy,” “Mass”, “Divine Service” “Missa” “Gottesdienst,” “Qurbono Qadisho” or “Raza” and “Soorp Badarak” in English, Latin, German, Syriac and Armenian respectively, refer to the service where the Eucharist is celebrated, and not to the actual sacrament, although occasionally some churches, particularly Anglican churches, will refer to the service as “the Eucharist” or “Holy Communion,” (which is also technically the name given for the service in the Book of Common Prayer).