Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander
I find it interesting, not being a RC, that from the Gospel's account emerges a liturgical concept that has very specific meanings for different brands of Christians. It appears from the records that giving thanks abd blessing the bread and the wine was part of the Jewish tradition. For the primitive Christian church the ritual became part of the fellowship and sign of the covenant. From the reading of the records in Greek and later in Latin it did not appear to be a highly ritualized affair but what it was instructed by the Savior, to do as a sign of acceptance of the covenant and in remembrance of Him. A way to make a claim on salvation and eternal life.
There is no evidence in the sources that the early Christian believe literally that is was the body and blood of Jesus. That seems to be a doctrine introduced later.
|
Hi Islander,
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you! Yes I would agree with you that the Eucharist is a sign of the covenant and fellowship. But what I would also say the Eucharist is also a efficacious sign. I would politely dissagree with you about the ritualization though. The specific language in Greek that the Lord used and the Gospel writers wrote in in regards to the Eucharist shows this meal to be very specifically taken as a sacrifice to be offered by its priest as a fulfillment of the traditional Passover and Todah sacrifices. If fact the very word you mentioned that the Lord used "Remembrance" in Greek and Hebrew hints to the Eucharist as being a sacrifice and the real presence in a big way among his other sacrificial language. a good book to get is called "How Christ said the first Mass" published by Tan. In it it looks specifically at the old testament and extra biblical Jewish writings such as the talmud, mishna etc and shows that the Eucharist was a highly specific ritualized sacrificial meal our Lord instituted. The early Christians who were taught by the apostles all agreed that it was. It really was not until the 1500's that the Mass was viewed as anything else except a sacrifice.
As far as your statement about the Christ real corporeal presence being denied in the Eucharist in the early Church, I hate to embarrass you with a mountain of quotations but I have the writings of the early Fathers centuries 1-8 and all of them believed the Eucharist to the real flesh and blood of Jesus and not a symbol. I am beginning to wander if you ever read the early Christians? Even Secular and Protestant historians admit this in their books. Really it was not until the advent of Wycliff that this was questioned on a larger scale and not until Calvin, Zwingli, and Smith that this symbolism was accepted by a more people.
However your getting off topic. I would be happy to dialog about this with you in another post. what I was trying to see is what the point of your priesthood was if it did not offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist as Jesus commanded. True priest would offer the Eucharist as Christ himself commanded. Priesthood and its main functions are sacrifice and acting as mediators between God and the community. This is how the bible and church history and world history all define a priest in its functions. If these main functions are left out then why have a priest? why not just have Pastors and preachers like the protestants? This is what I am afraid has not been answered yet to my satisfaction. I still have a hard time understanding why you guys call your ministers priest if no Eucharistic sacrifice or mediation is made. This is what I need to understand. We can debate later about the real presense later but I do not want to debate now I want to try to understand your priesthood first.
I hope that helps!
Thanks and God bless you always for your explanations. Lets stick tot he topic though! IN Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias