Comments on: Consummatum Est: Eucharist As Marital Act

By: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Taking Stock

Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Taking Stock — Mon, 22 May 2006 14:21:39 +0000

[...] "I most like when you have a theological insight, e.g. matrimony and the mystical union of the church. I least like the, I'm above it all, I'm not like those reformed bloggers, I didn't drink the kool-aid stuff…If you're smarter than the rest, prove it by building something more succesful than theirs." [...]

By: dlw

dlw — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Change "the sacrifice is enacted" to reenacted and you got it right in my book…

Our rituals encapsulate meaningful religious experiences they do not cause them in and of themselves.
Ultimately, the grace of God is not bound to the specific rituals of any institutional church, nor the manner in which the eucharist is received.

At least, that's the way I've come to see things…
dlw

By: A Holy Fool

A Holy Fool — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Christ's sacrifice occured once for all. Everytime Catholics receive the Eucharist, they mystically participate in Christ's one sacrifice. Thus, we do participate in the Lord's consumation with his bride, the Church. But that doesn't mean that Christ continually offers himself on the Cross as we celebrate Mass after Mass. No, we are caught up in his paschal mystery over and over again–his one sacrifice for all of us in all time.

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Our rituals encapsulate meaningful religious experiences they do not cause them in and of themselves."

What do you mean by religious experiences? The thing is, I think that you assume that grace is something that is, necessarily, tied to "religious experiences" (I may be wrong, though). The thing is, divine grace isn't perceptible. Simply because you "didn't feel it" doesn't mean that grace didn't happen.

"Ultimately, the grace of God is not bound to the specific rituals of any institutional church, nor the manner in which the eucharist is received."

Why not?

By: dlw

dlw — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

feelings of closeness to God that the weight of our sins has been lifted/forgiven...

Because, the grace of God is ultimately dependent on our turning away from our sinful lives and toward God, like as was done by the thief on the cross to whom Jesus promised that they would be in eternity together.

In that case, there was no time for ritual, just repentance.

dlw

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

DLW: "the grace of God is ultimately dependent on our turning away from our sinful lives and toward God"

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is [broken] for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." - 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 (ESV)

If the Eucharist is merely about turning away from our sinful lives, how is it possible to profane it? If it is merely a symbolic sacrifice, there's nothing to profane.

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Because, the grace of God is ultimately dependent on our turning away from our sinful lives and toward God"

I think you have it backwards. Grace causes us to turn away from sin — not the other way around. If it were the other way around, what would the point of grace be? I think that your position may rightly be called Pelagian.

By: dlw

dlw — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

One can profane the Eucharist by forgetting its ultimate referent and how our sins were only paid for by Jesus's sacrifice.

It can become just a ritual to make us feel less guilty about our sinful lives.

The difference here is in that the Protestant perspective holds that that what makes the Eucharist sacred and to be done only with contemplation and reverence is its ultimate referent, which was present and about to be sacrificed during the first communion.

Whether or not a literal miracle takes place when one takes communion is of, at best, secondary importance.

dlw

By: dlw

dlw — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Tom:I think you have it backwards. Grace causes us to turn away from sin -- not the other way around. If it were the other way around, what would the point of grace be? I think that your position may rightly be called Pelagian.

No Grace makes it possible for us to turn away from sin and be forgiven despite our lack of merit. It is our inability to merit salvation of our own accord that necessitates Grace. This is the standard position held by Arminians and I believe held by many Catholics, many of whom tend to be Arminian, holding to the free-will defence.

dlw

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Whether or not a literal miracle takes place when one takes communion is of, at best, secondary importance."

Really? Wouldn't you say that Christ's physical presence is a tad more important than what we think about during communion? If you were in the court of a king to pay him homage, what's more important: paying him homage or thinking about him? The correct answer, I think, is that, while they're both important, the acknowledgement of his presence must take the first place.

"No Grace makes it possible for us to turn away from sin and be forgiven despite our lack of merit."

I partly agree. I am undecided on the matter of whether or not grace is resistable.

"It is our inability to merit salvation of our own accord that necessitates Grace."

I (and Catholicism) agree.

"This is the standard position held by Arminians and I believe held by many Catholics, many of whom tend to be Arminian, holding to the free-will defence."

I disagree that Catholics tend toward Arminianism, if for no other reason than that Arminius was reacting against Calvin, who takes his cues from two Catholics: SS. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The Thomistic school, the most influential theological school of the past 700 or so years, typically believe in single predestination (Calvin believed in double) and a very damaging Fall (like Calvin) and a fairly irresistable grace (like Calvin). Catholic theology has always operated independently of Protestant theology, which is why Protestants who try to put Catholic soteriology and theology of grace into Protestant terms usually fail. Catholic belief on the matter falls under a few different schools, the Thomists and the Molinists being the two most influential. Molinism was developed in order to address the seeming free-will problem within Thomistic theology of grace and soteriology. However, this is actually the area of Catholicism I know least about, so, if you're interested, the Catholic Encyclopedia is probably a better source than I.