The Theist Thread - Let's Share

darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Let me just refine your statement just a bit. The example I gave about the Samaritan wasn't a comparison to women. The woman at the well was a Samaritan...so, double wammy on her. The Samaritan woman example showed Jesus crossing three boundaries: 1) conversing with a woman in public, 2) drinking with a Samaritan and 3) associating with a sinner (she was an adulterer). It's a powerful example of how Jesus is able to see (...really see..) people

From JP2:

"This is an event without precedent: that a woman, and what is more a “sinful woman,” becomes a “disciple” of Christ. Indeed, once taught, she proclaims Christ to the inhabitants of Samaria, so that they too receive him with faith. This is an unprecedented event, if one remembers the usual way women were treated by those who were teachers in Israel; whereas in Jesus of Nazareth’s way of acting such an event becomes normal."

So how do we know Jesus wouldn't have included her if she was in town for the Last Supper?

Well, Jesus' own mother wasn't included(...whom the angle Gabriele Called blessed amongst all women..)...and she was in town. So, there's that. Bible is quite clear who was there.

As blessed amongst women as she may have been, she wasn't going around proclaiming Christ to anyone like the woman at the well, was she?

And why would the exclusion of women from the Last Supper be a reason to exclude them from the priesthood, and not just from being a celebrant of the transubstantiation?

Cheeze - let the theists have a thread for God's sake:)

SallyNasty wrote:

Cheeze - let the theists have a thread for God's sake:)

Um, I *am* a theist!

These comments are interesting and welcome. As people of the faith, we must constantly examine our faith and ask ourselves questions about religious practices, dogma, and doctrine. We may be powerless to effect changes in practice and dogma, at least as lay Catholics vis a vis Catholic dogmas and traditions, but that does not stop us from the privilege or the obligation of being vigilant and active in our personal faith.

We may personally agree or not agree with the answers of the Vatican and the Pope (though we must abide by them notwithstanding); it is more important that we are interested enough to ask and to hear the reasoning and the answers.

darrenl wrote:

It doesn't have to be shown it's wrongly driven by culture at all, because culture should not be driving anything in this case...that's my point. If it were a driver in theological issues today, coke-a-cola would probably be a replacement for wine during consecration (...I'm being sarcastic..but hopefully you get the the point...). Going further. We can't replace wine with coke because Jesus used wine. He didn't explicitly say not to use wine...he didn't explicitly say to use wine...but he *did* use it. We can't replace bread with chips (...ruffled of course...). He didn't explicitly say not to use bread...he didn't explicitly say to use bread...but he *did* use it. Same with women priests. In all three cases, the church is powerless to change these due to the clear, powerful examples used by Jesus. Tradition follows these examples...not cultural trends. William Inge once said, "Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.”

What difference would it make if we did, in fact, use Coca-cola as a sacramental offering? The majesty of God and the Risen Christ would not be diminished in any way. If the crux of sacramental theology is the particulars about the items used and the words said, that seems more like magic than a consecration. The "powerful example" is not that bread and wine were used, but that a sacrament was established. I have no doubt that Christ is exponentially more interested in the heart of the person doing the consecration and the faithful who are there to partake of the sacramental gifts than He is in the molecular make up of the gifts themselves.

CheezePavilion wrote:

As blessed amongst women as she may have been, she wasn't going around proclaiming Christ to anyone like the woman at the well, was she?

And why would the exclusion of women from the Last Supper be a reason to exclude them from the priesthood, and not just from being a celebrant of the transubstantiation?

I think Mary's proclamation was of a different sort than the Samaritan woman's (...see Mary's Song, Lk 1:46...)...but they were equal in the sense that both were proclaiming God. Remember, Jesus and God are one. Proclaiming one is proclaiming the other.

For your second question, I'll just provide the same answer as I did before. Jesus did not have any women at the Last Supper, therefore setting the tradition we practice now. Same with other examples of tradition he set, re: wine and bread, etc.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

What difference would it make if we did, in fact, use Coca-cola as a sacramental offering? The majesty of God and the Risen Christ would not be diminished in any way. If the crux of sacramental theology is the particulars about the items used and the words said, that seems more like magic than a consecration. The "powerful example" is not that bread and wine were used, but that a sacrament was established. I have no doubt that Christ is exponentially more interested in the heart of the person doing the consecration and the faithful who are there to partake of the sacramental gifts than He is in the molecular make up of the gifts themselves.

Possibly...but again, there is no scriptural or traditional evidence to support using anything but what Jesus used at the Last Supper. The symbolism of bread and wine (....wheat, "fruit of the vine", etc...) are also very significant throughout the Gospels. In Hebrew "Bethlehem" means 'house of bread', etc. I could go on with examples, but I think you get the point. Clearly his choosing of those two elements was not accidental.

We can certainly take guesses of what we think he was more interested in...and that may be useful, but if they have no basis in scripture or tradition, then we run the danger of making Jesus more like us instead of us becoming more like him.

darrenl wrote:

Possibly...but again, there is no scriptural or traditional evidence to support using anything but what Jesus used at the Last Supper. The symbolism of bread and wine (....wheat, "fruit of the vine", etc...) are also very significant throughout the Gospels. In Hebrew "Bethlehem" means 'house of bread', etc. I could go on with examples, but I think you get the point. Clearly his choosing of those two elements was not accidental.

Then why do we add water to the wine?

And I wouldn't say choosing those two elements was intention: what else was there to choose, really?

CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Possibly...but again, there is no scriptural or traditional evidence to support using anything but what Jesus used at the Last Supper. The symbolism of bread and wine (....wheat, "fruit of the vine", etc...) are also very significant throughout the Gospels. In Hebrew "Bethlehem" means 'house of bread', etc. I could go on with examples, but I think you get the point. Clearly his choosing of those two elements was not accidental.

Then why do we add water to the wine?

And I wouldn't say choosing those two elements was intention: what else was there to choose, really?

Yeah, that does seem a little ex post facto symbolism there when you look at it that way. I was speaking with PR about his point on this yesterday, and it brought to mind ideas that I'd learned from when I'd gone down a more pagan route: the tools and ingredients used in ceremonies are sufficient to create the intent and effect, but are not necessary. The will and desire of the person performing the ceremony are necessary to create the intent and effect, but may not be sufficient.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

What difference would it make if we did, in fact, use Coca-cola as a sacramental offering? The majesty of God and the Risen Christ would not be diminished in any way. If the crux of sacramental theology is the particulars about the items used and the words said, that seems more like magic than a consecration. The "powerful example" is not that bread and wine were used, but that a sacrament was established. I have no doubt that Christ is exponentially more interested in the heart of the person doing the consecration and the faithful who are there to partake of the sacramental gifts than He is in the molecular make up of the gifts themselves.

Possibly...but again, there is no scriptural or traditional evidence to support using anything but what Jesus used at the Last Supper. The symbolism of bread and wine (....wheat, "fruit of the vine", etc...) are also very significant throughout the Gospels. In Hebrew "Bethlehem" means 'house of bread', etc. I could go on with examples, but I think you get the point. Clearly his choosing of those two elements was not accidental.

How is that anything other than trudging the road of the Pharisee where the "rules" reigns supreme and the intent of the heart is a nicety?

A group of Christians stranded on a desert island with nothing but coconut milk and taro root "bread" are doomed to be cut off from a sacrament expressing their faith and communion with the Son of God because the bread and wine themselves do not meet some dubious standard.

How is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by that?

We can certainly take guesses of what we think he was more interested in...and that may be useful, but if they have no basis in scripture or tradition, then we run the danger of making Jesus more like us instead of us becoming more like him.

By not replicating the exact elements used in a sacrament? A church in Mexico using tortillas instead of pita bread is not diminishing the nature or mission or resurrection of Christ. Believing that it does is sophistry at best.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
darrenl wrote:

We can certainly take guesses of what we think he was more interested in...and that may be useful, but if they have no basis in scripture or tradition, then we run the danger of making Jesus more like us instead of us becoming more like him.

By not replicating the exact elements used in a sacrament? A church in Mexico using tortillas instead of pita bread is not diminishing the nature or mission or resurrection of Christ. Believing that it does is sophistry at best.

Question here: how does the Sacrament work if the person taking communion is an alcoholic? Or is gluten-intolerant?

Rubb Ed wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
darrenl wrote:

We can certainly take guesses of what we think he was more interested in...and that may be useful, but if they have no basis in scripture or tradition, then we run the danger of making Jesus more like us instead of us becoming more like him.

By not replicating the exact elements used in a sacrament? A church in Mexico using tortillas instead of pita bread is not diminishing the nature or mission or resurrection of Christ. Believing that it does is sophistry at best.

Question here: how does the Sacrament work if the person taking communion is an alcoholic? Or is gluten-intolerant?

A gluten-allergic alcoholic is out of luck. No communion for him/her.

If you have a gluten allergy, you can take a rice wafer, just for the symbolism, but according to the church, Jesus is not present in that wafer. You can take the wine and still be safe. Vatican II (I think?) declared that the blood and the body are present in both portions of the sacrament, so you can safely take either and still receive both.

CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Possibly...but again, there is no scriptural or traditional evidence to support using anything but what Jesus used at the Last Supper. The symbolism of bread and wine (....wheat, "fruit of the vine", etc...) are also very significant throughout the Gospels. In Hebrew "Bethlehem" means 'house of bread', etc. I could go on with examples, but I think you get the point. Clearly his choosing of those two elements was not accidental.

Then why do we add water to the wine?

And I wouldn't say choosing those two elements was intention: what else was there to choose, really?

Water to the wine is a continuation of an ancient liturgical practice that has gained some symbolism over the years. Water is another sign for the Holy Spirit. It is used in baptism. Water also came out of Jesus' side during the crucifixion. I don't think water is a necessity of Consecration.

What other elements could he have used? He could have used just water and a goat or calf. Lots of that around. But this was Passover, so unleavened bread was the way to go, and wine was everywhere. The whole event (...last supper...) is very deep symbolically. He chose those specific elements for a reason.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

How is that anything other than trudging the road of the Pharisee where the "rules" reigns supreme and the intent of the heart is a nicety?

...because the Pharisees/Vatican/Church did not institute the sacrament of the Eucharist; Jesus did...and those who knew Jesus continued it after his death and onward to today. He said, "Do this in memory of me"....so we do.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

A group of Christians stranded on a desert island with nothing but coconut milk and taro root "bread" are doomed to be cut off from a sacrament expressing their faith and communion with the Son of God because the bread and wine themselves do not meet some dubious standard.

How is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by that?

Would still not be a valid Consecration, because a) they're not using correct elements and (b) none of them is acting in Persona Christi. Should they die on that island, I'm sure God's grace would win the day.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

By not replicating the exact elements used in a sacrament? A church in Mexico using tortillas instead of pita bread is not diminishing the nature or mission or resurrection of Christ. Believing that it does is sophistry at best.

Hardly sophistry...the Eucharist as it is practiced today is scripturally, historically and traditionally accurate.

Those stranded Catholics would not be willingly missing communion, thereby making it a venial sin, and thus they would have to spend some time in purgatory.

NSMike wrote:

Those stranded Catholics would not be willingly missing communion, thereby making it a venial sin, and thus they would have to spend some time in purgatory.

...excellent point Mike!!

Relevant:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...

...we'll see what comes of this one.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

How is that anything other than trudging the road of the Pharisee where the "rules" reigns supreme and the intent of the heart is a nicety?

...because the Pharisees/Vatican/Church did not institute the sacrament of the Eucharist; Jesus did...and those who knew Jesus continued it after his death and onward to today. He said, "Do this in memory of me"....so we do.

And Yahweh gave us the Law and yet the Pharisees still managed to make it millstone around the necks of the people because the letter of the Law always seemed to trump the intent and spirit of the Law.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

A group of Christians stranded on a desert island with nothing but coconut milk and taro root "bread" are doomed to be cut off from a sacrament expressing their faith and communion with the Son of God because the bread and wine themselves do not meet some dubious standard.

How is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by that?

Would still not be a valid Consecration, because a) they're not using correct elements and (b) none of them is acting in Persona Christi. Should they die on that island, I'm sure God's grace would win the day.

Valid or not, how is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by requiring exacting standards for the elements even when those elements are not available?

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

By not replicating the exact elements used in a sacrament? A church in Mexico using tortillas instead of pita bread is not diminishing the nature or mission or resurrection of Christ. Believing that it does is sophistry at best.

Hardly sophistry...the Eucharist as it is practiced today is scripturally, historically and traditionally accurate.

Mike noted above the position that taking either of the elements is taking both of the elements. If that is true, how does that reconcile with your devotion to the scriptural, historical and traditional accuracy of the Eucharist?

darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Possibly...but again, there is no scriptural or traditional evidence to support using anything but what Jesus used at the Last Supper. The symbolism of bread and wine (....wheat, "fruit of the vine", etc...) are also very significant throughout the Gospels. In Hebrew "Bethlehem" means 'house of bread', etc. I could go on with examples, but I think you get the point. Clearly his choosing of those two elements was not accidental.

Then why do we add water to the wine?

And I wouldn't say choosing those two elements was intention: what else was there to choose, really?

Water to the wine is a continuation of an ancient liturgical practice that has gained some symbolism over the years. Water is another sign for the Holy Spirit. It is used in baptism. Water also came out of Jesus' side during the crucifixion. I don't think water is a necessity of Consecration.

You can't say "we stick to tradition and do exactly what Jesus did" in answering one question and then justify doing something that Jesus didn't when answering another.

What other elements could he have used? He could have used just water and a goat or calf. Lots of that around. But this was Passover, so unleavened bread was the way to go, and wine was everywhere. The whole event (...last supper...) is very deep symbolically. He chose those specific elements for a reason.

Not just because they couldn't afford meat that day and people tried to drink as little water as possible back then for health reasons? The reason they were chosen isn't because they're the easiest thing for people of that day and age to get their hands on?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And Yahweh gave us the Law and yet the Pharisees still managed to make it millstone around the necks of the people because the letter of the Law always seemed to trump the intent and spirit of the Law.

Jesus is not a Pharasee, unless that is your point. He said "Do this, in memory of me". So we do.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Valid or not, how is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by requiring exacting standards for the elements even when those elements are not available?

If you are unable to participate in the Eucharist do to conditions out of your control (..elements not available, etc), the Grace of God will handle it. Making your own stuff up is not the answer to enhancing anything...it's just making your own stuff up.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Mike noted above the position that taking either of the elements is taking both of the elements. If that is true, how does that reconcile with your devotion to the scriptural, historical and traditional accuracy of the Eucharist?

Jesus is present in both species, wine and bread. The Church has been quite consistent in this matter. It's both/and...not either/or. J. N. D. Kelly (Protestant historian of the early Church), writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines)

CheezePavilion wrote:

You can't say "we stick to tradition and do exactly what Jesus did" in answering one question and then justify doing something that Jesus didn't when answering another.

...so in your mind water+wine makes wine not wine anymore? It's now suddenly a different species altogether? I'm not aware of any chemical reaction between water and wine...but please enlighten me. Me thinks you're reaching for the sake of reaching.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Not just because they couldn't afford meat that day and people tried to drink as little water as possible back then for health reasons? The reason they were chosen isn't because they're the easiest thing for people of that day and age to get their hands on?

They could certainly afford animals...they did make animal sacrifices at the time at temple.

darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

You can't say "we stick to tradition and do exactly what Jesus did" in answering one question and then justify doing something that Jesus didn't when answering another.

...so in your mind water+wine makes wine not wine anymore? It's now suddenly a different species altogether? I'm not aware of any chemical reaction between water and wine...but please enlighten me. Me thinks you're reaching for the sake of reaching.

If Jesus didn't do it, why are we?

CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

You can't say "we stick to tradition and do exactly what Jesus did" in answering one question and then justify doing something that Jesus didn't when answering another.

...so in your mind water+wine makes wine not wine anymore? It's now suddenly a different species altogether? I'm not aware of any chemical reaction between water and wine...but please enlighten me. Me thinks you're reaching for the sake of reaching.

If Jesus didn't do it, why are we?

I'll go further with the explanation then.

It was the common practice among the Jews and in Mediterranean culture in general to add water to temper the wine....hence the ancient practice I mentioned before.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, III pars q 74, 6-8:

"Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered in this sacrament.

"First of all, on account of its institution: for it is believed with probability that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the custom of that country: hence it is written (Proverbs 9:5): 'Drink the wine which I have mixed for you.'

"Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of our Lord's Passion: hence Pope Alexander I says (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): 'In the Lord's chalice neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read that both flowed from His side in the Passion.'

"Thirdly, because this is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): 'We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ's blood by the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people [are] made one with Christ.'

"Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, which is the entering into everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): 'The water flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life.'"

Pope Vader I says: "If you only knew the power of the Eucharist."
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/NmKf7.jpg)

LOL Mike!!! You're killin me here!

Kind of puts that line "I have altered the deal; pray I do not alter it further" in a whole new light.

He probably finds my lack of faith disturbing.

NSMike wrote:

He probably finds my lack of faith disturbing.

You do look "choked up". HA! Get it! "choked"...cause Vader...with the choking....and...ummmmm....

darrenl wrote:

Jesus is not a Pharasee, unless that is your point. He said "Do this, in memory of me". So we do.

I at no time intimated or flat out said that Jesus was a Pharisee. I don't know how much more plain I could have been, but I will diagram it out for you:

God --> Law --> Pharisees (strict adherence to the Law) --> intent and spirit of the law is crushed.

Christ --> Eucharist --> Church (strict adherence) --> intent and spirit of the Eucharist is crushed.

Christ is not the Pharisee here.

By making the elements of the sacrament a lynchpin for success in creating the sacrament itself, you are taking off down that road of legalism not for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of the magisterium. The desire to make the sacrament dependent on the molecular structure of the elements would then make the sacrament no different than a magic potion coupled with an incantation where exactly three eyes of newt and one pickled bat wing is absolutely required in order for the magic and the potion to work. The communion sacrament is not magic or a spell to bring a consecration to the bread and wine (or any other element used). The consecration is dependent upon the heart of the faithful wishing to commune with God and Christ.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Valid or not, how is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by requiring exacting standards for the elements even when those elements are not available?

If you are unable to participate in the Eucharist do to conditions out of your control (..elements not available, etc), the Grace of God will handle it. Making your own stuff up is not the answer to enhancing anything...it's just making your own stuff up.

You still haven't answered my question: how is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by requiring exacting standards for the elements? Or, if it is easier, how is the majesty of God and Christ diminished by the use of elements other than bread and wine?

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Mike noted above the position that taking either of the elements is taking both of the elements. If that is true, how does that reconcile with your devotion to the scriptural, historical and traditional accuracy of the Eucharist?

Jesus is present in both species, wine and bread. The Church has been quite consistent in this matter. It's both/and...not either/or. J. N. D. Kelly (Protestant historian of the early Church), writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines)

But you said before that the specific nature of the elements were required based on Scripture and tradition. The notion that taking one element is the same as taking both is not Scriptural at all. Christ offered both the Body and the Blood, not one or the other.

But you said before that the specific nature of the elements were required based on Scripture and tradition. The notion that taking one element is the same as taking both is not Scriptural at all. Christ offered both the Body and the Blood, not one or the other.

It's not scriptural, but it was decided at Vatican II. Church law makes it "good enough," for lack of a better descriptor. I've heard theories as to why this was adopted, among those people started fearing drinking from the same cup for health reasons, so no one really wanted to drink the wine anymore. No data or polls to back that up, though.

You still haven't answered my question: how is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by requiring exacting standards for the elements? Or, if it is easier, how is the majesty of God and Christ diminished by the use of elements other than bread and wine?

As I understand it, it's not enhanced or diminished, it's just tradition. Traditions are important in the Catholic church, but can change. If the church had a more progressive leader, I suspect that something could be decided to allow for gluten allergies (as allergies are becoming more and more prevalent) in the future. And when it's decided, it will be as though the church had always held that position. The short answer is, they do it that way because they always have, and have no good reason to change, or allow anything else, thus it continues so.

There is a simple solution for gluten allergies /Celiac in the form of gluten free breads which are made out of either corn or potato starch. In Israel there are a lot of gluten free products during Passover because it's one way to get around the limitation of consuming wheat products during that week . In the Seder you have to consume 4 glasses of kosher wine but pure grape juice is an acceptable substitution for people who don't want to get drunk in the process or children .

Niseg wrote:

There is a simple solution for gluten allergies /Celiac in the form of gluten free breads which are made out of either corn or potato starch. In Israel there are a lot of gluten free products during Passover because it's one way to get around the limitation of consuming wheat products during that week . In the Seder you have to consume 4 glasses of kosher wine but pure grape juice is an acceptable substitution for people who don't want to get drunk in the process or children .

The Catholic Church already gets around it with a rice-based wafer. However, that wafer cannot be consecrated at the moment (i.e. made the "true body of Christ"). Tradition stands in the way, and would also for corn or potato-based wafers. Church doctrine literally has to be changed either via a new Vatican council or an Ex Cathedra proclamation, neither of which happen very often (there have been two Vatican councils in the history of the church).