RCC to go back to Traditional Practice of Communion

[ChemMJW]

I thought it was Max's thread...

Please do not misunderstand. This was not an order, but rather a statement that we have reached an impasse, with no solution in sight. It is clear that neither side is moved by the other side's arguments.

You have not stated your views clearly.

I have stated them as clearly as I know how. If they are not clear enough for you to understand, then I cannot do anything else for you. Simply saying "your views aren't clear" is not a substitute for demonstrating that the views aren't correct. I have no power to make you understand what I mean. I can only type things out to the best of my ability.

Indeed, with great fanfare you attempted to show how St. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians were easily shown to be unclear. When pressed on this, you started to claim I was purposely misspelling words to annoy you. You have not responded to the point regarding St. Paul's words, and its corollary, how it makes all words unclear.

The misunderstanding concerning the passage you quoted from Corinthians is the only thing I regret in this thread. It was a terrible example on your part, and my response to it was perhaps even worse.

Let me try to state again, briefly, what I was trying to accomplish using the example you provided:

1. I am working under the framework that you accept only communion under both kinds because that is what Jesus mentioned, and he did not mention any other type of communion. Is this correct?
2. If your belief rests on what Jesus explicitly mentioned, then you are restricted to the words he explicitly used.
3. The passage you quoted does not mention actually eating the bread in any directly quoted words of Jesus.
4. That Paul mentions eating the bread is irrelevant, for the sake of this discussion. Paul's opinion on what Jesus meant is, from a purely objective point of view, no more valid than my opinion or Buddha's.
5. The fact that eating and drinking are the natural actions to associate with bread and wine is also irrelevant. Remember, if you demand that one accept Jesus's words at face value, then you can't appeal to non-literal interpretations just because it suits the point you want to make. Either Jesus explicitly commanded us to eat and drink, or he didn't.

Therefore, I pointed out that, according the the direct quotation of Jesus's words, communion is apparently the act of breaking a piece of bread while sitting around with your disciples. This is simple fact, based on a literal understanding of Jesus's words.

Now, of course I don't believe that that is what the verse actually means, although it is clearly what the verse says. Also, I should point out that only in the Gospel of Matthew does Jesus literally command his disciples to eat and drink. In Mark and Luke, Jesus only literally tells his disciples to take the broken break; again, no command to eat. However, differences between Jesus's literal words are and what they mean are not problematic for my understanding of the Bible. You, however, have spent this entire thread making arguments based directly on what Jesus says, and therefore it is incumbent upon you to explain why it is okay to abstract from Jesus direct command to take the bread and wine to a perceived necessity of actually consuming the bread and drinking the wine, whereas I may not abstract from consuming the bread and wine to just consuming one or the other.

On a more fundamental level, the issue at hand is whether "communion" means memorializing Jesus's passion and death (my view), or whether it means checking off a set of ritual actions on a list (the logical end of your view).

Then there is "theological justification." When pressed that "theological justification" could open a whole can of worms, this was dropped, too.

This needs no further discussion, because your point is utterly silly. Of course "a whole can of worms" could conceivably be opened. Everybody knows that. That question is, so what? Each individual "worm" must be dealt with on a case by case basis, perhaps by additional theological reasoning, which you seem so loathe to accept. Do you reject theology as a valid way to gain knowledge of God?

Finally, when you stated that receiving in both kinds is the norm, and you were questioned about why, if both kinds are the norm, the RCC does not follow the norm anywhere except in "experimental" situations, why both kinds are the norm for the RCC.

In fact I have answered this question every single time you have brought it up. Simply asking it again will not get you a different answer. I have stated repeatedly that I do not know why, specifically, communion is in practice received under only one kind, but I have posited that it is for practical rather than theological reasons. That you find this answer unpalatable doesn't make it any less an answer.

Nothing forces you to participate.

Alas, you are completely correct here. Consider it to be my own version of rubbernecking. I simply can't force myself to look away.

And no one's mind was changed (indeed, you were really the only one who was different from the rest--so this really means YOUR mind was not changed)

How silly, Max. If there are two sides to a discussion, then either side could change its view to the opposite view. It doesn't matter at all if the starting distribution of views is 1 to 999. Your mind was not changed to my view. My mind was not changed to your view. What I wrote was perfectly correct.

If "we" do not abandon this thread according to your desire, it is due to "typical" character flaws of those who do not choose to abandon the thread according to your desire, which character flaws are absent from you because you by no means are trying to get the "last word" by poisoning the well for anyone else who replies to your last post.

Incorrect. "We" clearly includes me. That's why I wrote "we" as opposed to "you." I ascribe to you no general character flaws that I do not in general also ascribe to myself.

[RBerman]

On a more fundamental level, the issue at hand is whether "communion" means memorializing Jesus's passion and death (my view), or whether it means checking off a set of ritual actions on a list (the logical end of your view).

That's a false dichotomy between purpose and execution. One may say of a basketball game, "We're all here to have fun." That doesn't mean that the rules of basketball suddenly lose all meaning or relevance. The spirit of the law and the letter of the law ought to be complementary, not opposed. Besides which, the Roman view of the Lord's Supper is substantially different from the "memorial" view promulgated by Zwingli and his followers. Is it OK with you if we violate the Roman "ritual actions on a list" of how the Eucharist is to be administered?

[ChemMJW]

Besides which, the Roman view of the Lord's Supper is substantially different from the "memorial" view promulgated by Zwingli and his followers. Is it OK with you if we violate the Roman "ritual actions on a list" of how the Eucharist is to be administered?

Yes, yes, of course it is. You must understand that I am especially limited in the terms I may use in this thread, being that I am the only Catholic who has attempted to engage substantially the matter at hand. I had to write "memorialize" in order to use a general word acceptable to all. Can you imagine the ruckus it would cause if I had routinely brought in dreaded Catholic concepts associated with Communion such as the Eucharist as re-presentation / continuation of the one sacrifice at Calvary? That is why I have also been purposefully lax in this thread in referring to the bread and wine as the literal Body and Blood , because I know that not everyone here accepts that. Fundamentally, the matter at hand is not whether bread and wine are actually Body and Blood (i.e., is not a question of the varied Eucharistic theologies employed by the various confessions), but rather whether consuming both the solid matter (whatever it is) and the liquid matter (whatever it is) are necessary or whether the "memorialization" or "re-presentation" or "re-enactment" is the key thing. Maxentius claims, as far as I can tell, that the physical act of consuming both species is key (thus my reference to checking off items in a list), based on a (in my opinion rather dubious) appeal to Jesus's direct words, whereas I do not support that claim.

[RBerman]

Yes, yes, of course it is. You must understand that I am especially limited in the terms I may use in this thread, being that I am the only Catholic who has attempted to engage substantially the matter at hand. I had to write "memorialize" in order to use a general word acceptable to all. Can you imagine the ruckus it would cause if I had routinely brought in dreaded Catholic concepts associated with Communion such as the Eucharist as re-presentation / continuation of the one sacrifice at Calvary? That is why I have also been purposefully lax in this thread in referring to the bread and wine as the literal Body and Blood , because I know that not everyone here accepts that. Fundamentally, the matter at hand is not whether bread and wine are actually Body and Blood (i.e., is not a question of the varied Eucharistic theologies employed by the various confessions), but rather whether consuming both the solid matter (whatever it is) and the liquid matter (whatever it is) are necessary or whether the "memorialization" or "re-presentation" or "re-enactment" is the key thing. Maxentius claims, as far as I can tell, that the physical act of consuming both species is key (thus my reference to checking off items in a list), based on a (in my opinion rather dubious) appeal to Jesus's direct words, whereas I do not support that claim.

OK. I don't believe Maxentius claimed that the physical act is more important than understanding the meaning of the sacrament. You just seem to be in the position of the basketball player (to continue my analogy) who double-dribbles, and when called on it, says, "Oh, but I'm here to have fun, so it's fine." The issue in this thread was not the meaning of the sacrament so much as the rule, and it's not fair to act as if discussion of the letter of the law means you don't care about the spirit of the law.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

That Paul mentions eating the bread is irrelevant, for the sake of this discussion.
Paul's opinion on what Jesus meant is, from a purely objective point of view, no more valid than my opinion or Buddha's.

Have the Latins actually come down to this?

Lord Have Mercy...

Arsenios

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, yes, of course it is. You must understand that I am especially limited in the terms I may use in this thread, being that I am the only Catholic who has attempted to engage substantially the matter at hand. I had to write "memorialize" in order to use a general word acceptable to all. Can you imagine the ruckus it would cause if I had routinely brought in dreaded Catholic concepts associated with Communion such as the Eucharist as re-presentation / continuation of the one sacrifice at Calvary? That is why I have also been purposefully lax in this thread in referring to the bread and wine as the literal Body and Blood , because I know that not everyone here accepts that. Fundamentally, the matter at hand is not whether bread and wine are actually Body and Blood (i.e., is not a question of the varied Eucharistic theologies employed by the various confessions), but rather whether consuming both the solid matter (whatever it is) and the liquid matter (whatever it is) are necessary or whether the "memorialization" or "re-presentation" or "re-enactment" is the key thing. Maxentius claims, as far as I can tell, that the physical act of consuming both species is key (thus my reference to checking off items in a list), based on a (in my opinion rather dubious) appeal to Jesus's direct words, whereas I do not support that claim.

If we accept your argument that the memorialization is the key rather than the physical act of consumption, why give the laity anything at all?

[Maxentius]

The misunderstanding concerning the passage you quoted from Corinthians is the only thing I regret in this thread. It was a terrible example on your part, and my response to it was perhaps even worse.

Let me try to state again, briefly, what I was trying to accomplish using the example you provided:

1. I am working under the framework that you accept only communion under both kinds because that is what Jesus mentioned, and he did not mention any other type of communion. Is this correct?
2. If your belief rests on what Jesus explicitly mentioned, then you are restricted to the words he explicitly used.
3. The passage you quoted does not mention actually eating the bread in any directly quoted words of Jesus.

Surely we should read passages in context? By restricting your interpretation to a meaning which is out of context, you admit in effect your meaning is wrong. (You do so explicitly below)

Now, if you want to argue that only what is quoted is pertinent, and if wider context is only relevant when sited thusly, then one would have to quote the entirety of Scripture to supply the context--because as Jesus says, the Scriputres testify of him. Since that is not reasonable, we have to assume you will read things in good faith and in their context, and not play word games. Unfortunately, you do not read things in good faith and in context.

4. That Paul mentions eating the bread is irrelevant, for the sake of this discussion. Paul's opinion on what Jesus meant is, from a purely objective point of view, no more valid than my opinion or Buddha's.

It is not Paul's opinion, he received it from the Lord. You are free to believe otherwise, but if you stick with this claim, aren't you violating your own rule? After all, we are only to consider what is quoted, right?

If you will not follow your rule, why should anyone else be bound by it?

Therefore, I pointed out that, according the the direct quotation of Jesus's words, communion is apparently the act of breaking a piece of bread while sitting around with your disciples. This is simple fact, based on a literal understanding of Jesus's words.

Who's words as we see above you feel free to ignore when it suits you. I think it is safe now to discard your "rule" regarding quotations--even you don't follow it.

Now, of course I don't believe that that is what the verse actually means, although it is clearly what the verse says.

Yes, in context it means something besides what your out-of-context interpretation says it means. I am not bound to interpretations which even you admit are out of context.

This approach is the fruit, I think, if your erroneous assumptions about how we read the Scriptures.

Also, I should point out that only in the Gospel of Matthew does Jesus literally command his disciples to eat and drink.

OK, so where does the RCC get the authority to countermand Jesus Christ himself?

In Mark and Luke, Jesus only literally tells his disciples to take the broken break; again, no command to eat. However, differences between Jesus's literal words are and what they mean are not problematic for my understanding of the Bible. You, however, have spent this entire thread making arguments based directly on what Jesus says, and therefore it is incumbent upon you to explain why it is okay to abstract from Jesus direct command to take the bread and wine to a perceived necessity of actually consuming the bread and drinking the wine, whereas I may not abstract from consuming the bread and wine to just consuming one or the other.

This argument is, actually, ridiculous. You assume that we have to read different parts of Scripture independently from others, and we are not to take. You assume that if scripture says, for instance, in one place two people were present, and in another three people were present, we have some kind of interpretive difficulty. I think you need a better understanding about how Lutherans and other protestants actually read Scripture. Indeed, I have only seen skeptics, liberal RCs, EOs and protestants read Scripture like that.

On a more fundamental level, the issue at hand is whether "communion" means memorializing Jesus's passion and death (my view), or whether it means checking off a set of ritual actions on a list (the logical end of your view).

Very well, then, might one use pretzels and beer to memorialize Jesus passion and death? ISTM that we might as well, otherwise we are open to the criticism of checking off actions on a list.

I have stated repeatedly that I do not know why, specifically, communion is in practice received under only one kind, but I have posited that it is for practical rather than theological reasons. That you find this answer unpalatable doesn't make it any less an answer.

Will you admit than, that the RCC does not follow the norm?

[Maxentius]

That's a false dichotomy between purpose and execution. One may say of a basketball game, "We're all here to have fun." That doesn't mean that the rules of basketball suddenly lose all meaning or relevance. The spirit of the law and the letter of the law ought to be complementary, not opposed. Besides which, the Roman view of the Lord's Supper is substantially different from the "memorial" view promulgated by Zwingli and his followers. Is it OK with you if we violate the Roman "ritual actions on a list" of how the Eucharist is to be administered?

It seems to me that the RCC rubrics for a valid eucharist have a lot of "ritual actions" to perform. The Catholoc Encyclopedia says "The first element is wheaten bread (panis triticeus), without which the "confection of the Sacrament does not take place" (Missale Romanum: De defectibus, sect. 3), Being true bread, the Host must be baked, since mere flour is not bread."

it seems to me that they are overly concerned with the form of the bread as opposed to the memorial of jesus.

[One Bad Pig]

I've been reading the epistles of Cyprian, a bishop and martyr of the 3rd century. Tonight I read in Epistle 62 a few lines that bear upon this topic, though St. Cyprian is directly addressing a related topic (that wine, and not just water, should be consecrated in the chalice).

In section 5, we come across this reference from Proverbs 9:1-5:

Moreover the Holy Spirit by Solomon shows before the type of the Lord’s sacrifice, making mention of the immolated victim, and of the bread and wine, and, moreover, of the altar and of the apostles, and says, “Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath underlaid her seven pillars; she hath killed her victims; she hath mingled her wine in the chalice; she hath also furnished her table: and she hath sent forth her servants, calling together with a lofty announcement to her cup, saying, Whoso is simple, let him turn to me; and to those that want understanding she hath said, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you.” He declares the wine mingled, that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord’s passion which had been before predicted.

It seems, in this prefiguring of the Eucharist, that the consumption of bread and water/wine are equally important for those seeking Wisdom.

In section 8, we read, "For by baptism the Holy Spirit is received; and thus by those who are baptized, and have attained to the Holy Spirit, is attained the drinking of the Lord’s cup". Cyprian affirms that all who are baptized attain the drinking of the Lord's cup.

In section 10, we read:

Moreover, the blessed Apostle Paul, chosen and sent by the Lord, and appointed a preacher of the Gospel truth, lays down these very things in his epistle, saying, “The Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This is my body, which shall be given for you: do this in remembrance of me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shall show forth the Lord’s death until He come.” But if it is both enjoined by the Lord, and the same thing is confirmed and delivered by His apostle, that as often as we drink, we do in remembrance of the Lord the same thing which the Lord also did, we find that what was commanded is not observed by us, unless we also do what the Lord did; and that mixing the Lord’s cup in like manner we do not depart from the divine teaching; but that we must not at all depart from the evangelical precepts, and that disciples ought also to observe and to do the same things which the Master both taught and did. The blessed apostle in another place more earnestly and strongly teaches, saying, “I wonder that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into grace, unto another gospel, which is not another; but there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any otherwise than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema.

Pretty strong words there. Why should the laity not drink in remembrance of the Lord? Are they not also His disciples?

[ChemMJW]

It is not Paul's opinion, he received it from the Lord. You are free to believe otherwise, but if you stick with this claim, aren't you violating your own rule?

f you will not follow your rule, why should anyone else be bound by it?

I think it is safe now to discard your "rule" regarding quotations--even you don't follow it.

Before I comment any further, I need clarification on what exactly this "rule" is you think I'm promoting.

It seems to me that I am the one who is urging everything to be read in context, whereas you are the one who, based on my understanding of your original post, are restricted to non-sensical interpretations on passages like the part of Corinthians you quoted. I know my interpretation is non-sensical, because I was restricted to reading Jesus's exact words only, as you did in order to justify your view on the matter at hand. The very point of the non-sensical interpretation was to show your appeal to Jesus's direct words cannot be used to support the idea that only consuming both species is the only form of communion allowed. Why? Because Jesus's words don't actually say that at all.


Shortly summarized:

My entire argumentation in this thread has been based on the understanding that you are appealing to Jesus's direct words only. Is this true?

If it is true, then you must accept the non-sensical interpretation I gave of the Corinthians passage, because that interpretation is based on Jesus's words only, and nothing more.

If it is not true, and you do accept that there is more to interpreting Scripture than just Jesus's exact words, then what on earth are we arguing about? If we both agree that context is key, then the only difference between us is that we simply reach different conclusions based on our understanding of the context, not on whether or not context is important at all. If this is the case, then you and I are no different than RBerman and I in this thread . . . we simply have a difference of opinion as to what things mean, and I see no objective way to settle a disagreement like that. I certainly don't fault you personally for looking at the same set of facts that I look at and nevertheless reaching a different conclusion.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

it seems to me that they are overly concerned with the form of the bread as opposed to the memorial of jesus.

It is the memorial that requires both... And remember, a memorial is not merely a mnemomic device - It is a re-creation of what is already created...

Did you see this remarkable quotation by OBP of St. Cyprian?

"This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shall show forth the Lord’s death until He come.” But if it is both enjoined by the Lord, and the same thing is confirmed and delivered by His apostle, that as often as we drink, we do in remembrance of the Lord the same thing which the Lord also did, we find that what was commanded is not observed by us, unless we also do what the Lord did; and that mixing the Lord’s cup in like manner we do not depart from the divine teaching; but that we must not at all depart from the evangelical precepts, and that disciples ought also to observe and to do the same things which the Master both taught and did.

He reminds us that Christ Himself both did and them commanded his followers to do exactly as Christ did... Remembrance here is more than just happening to remember something when reminded... It is an ongoing event...

Arsenios

[Maxentius]

Before I comment any further, I need clarification on what exactly this "rule" is you think I'm promoting.

come on. It is patently clear what your rule is--it is the one you have stated over and over. We are to read only the words of Jesus supplied.

It seems to me that I am the one who is urging everything to be read in context, whereas you are the one who, based on my understanding of your original post, are restricted to non-sensical interpretations on passages like the part of Corinthians you quoted.

No, you admitted you were reading out of context.

I know my interpretation is non-sensical, because I was restricted to reading Jesus's exact words only

No one restricted you to anything. You restricted yourself. Where did you get the idea you were restricted? Certainly not from anything I wrote

My entire argumentation in this thread has been based on the understanding that you are appealing to Jesus's direct words only. Is this true?

No. You even mentioned my use of tradition in an earlier post.

If it is true, then you must accept the non-sensical interpretation I gave of the Corinthians passage, because that interpretation is based on Jesus's words only, and nothing more.

If it is not true, and you do accept that there is more to interpreting Scripture than just Jesus's exact words, then what on earth are we arguing about? [?QUOTE]

This is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly legitimate to interpret Jesus' words in context. I amnot "forced" into either wooden literalism or free-wheeling interpretations.

If we both agree that context is key, then the only difference between us is that we simply reach different conclusions based on our understanding of the context, not on whether or not context is important at all.

Wrong, because you have not shown how the context supports your position--what ever it is today. You see, you keep advancing an argument then abandoning it when it doesn't work. Now I am supposed to disregard your own postings and start playing word games word games. Here is the deal, without a justification besides your "theological justification"--which can justify pretty much anything--we are left with Rome simply decides not to follow the norm (another point you put forth and then abandoned--bread and wine are the norm, so why doesn't Rome follow the norm?). This is a valid argument, BTW, even if it is not convincing. Instead you went ahead and claimed the Scriptures are unclear, and used a tendentious interpretation of Scripture to "support" it. Again, things like this make it look like it is really about authority after all.

If this is the case, then you and I are no different than RBerman and I in this thread . . . we simply have a difference of opinion as to what things mean, and I see no objective way to settle a disagreement like that. I certainly don't fault you personally for looking at the same set of facts that I look at and nevertheless reaching a different conclusion.

If we approach things in a fair, reasonable manner, and not butcher the text as you admit to doing, the meaning is rather clear. We can see this from the words themselves, as well as the historical practice of the Church. Your only argument from what we have received from the Apostles (i.e. not via fiat from the magisterium) is that in places they only mention bread while in others they mention bread and wine. The Catholic Encyclopedia does as much regarding this issue, BTW.

These things are not difficult to harmonize--unless one wants to butcher the text. For instance, if there is a three car pile up and I am in the lead car, I would be speaking the truth if I said "I got rear ended by a car" while the person behind me says "I got into an accident with two cars", and the third says "I rear ended a car." If we were to follow your tendentious method of reading things, we would find all sorts of contradictions and "problems" in the narrative. Nor would it be a matter of "opinion" if I was accused of being inaccurate or wrong--it is a matter of taking in all the context. All three statements are true. We should not feel free to say that since two out of three drivers claim they were hit by one car we are free to ignore the testimony of the second driver and conclude that there was only a two car pileup.