Author Topic: Eucharist questions  (Read 12604 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lost

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
Re: Euharist questions
« Reply #90 on: August 09, 2011, 10:44:18 AM »
Was the Last Supper , the Jewish Passover?

This is not necessarily the case.  Scholars say that they do not expect to ever untangle the question as to whether the Last Supper used leavened or unleavened bread. 


Matthew, Mark and Luke indicate that it was a Passover meal.  John indicates that it was not.

The uncertainty about this emanates from sacred Scripture itself.

you have been circumcised for nothing mate ? :D ... It was NOT the Passover Meal... The Feast of Unleaven was called a Passover... The first day of Unleaven according to the Law of Moses coincided with the Passover Seder... In the Jewish counting of the days, it was the sunset of the 13th of Nissan  and the start of Nissan the 14th, which coincided with Passover... It was still the day of Preparation, when the dough was removed and the lambs were to be slain.The Passover was ment to be eaten on the 14th with bitten earbs and unleaven bread... So the Passover is also the start of the First of Unleaven... Passover and Unleaven were even used as synonims..



I can only repeat.... the timing of the meal in John's Gospel cannot be reconciled with the timing in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

If you have been able to synchronise them, you are a better scholar than hundreds before you.

Let's see your evidences and reasoning.

If the Last Supper was the Passover Seder, than the bread should be unleaven and the cup and the bread to have Judaic Implications... In the Jewish Seder there are four cups of wine (drinken)...

Offline lost

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #91 on: August 09, 2011, 10:45:06 AM »
Q: What happens through the Euharist?What happens when we eat it?

Offline lost

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #92 on: August 09, 2011, 10:45:21 AM »
What happens to our soul?

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,566
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #93 on: August 10, 2011, 05:41:37 PM »
It is fed.
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #94 on: August 10, 2011, 06:58:03 PM »
Fr Sergius Bulgakov:

"The power of the mysterious transmutation permeates the nature of the bread and wine and changes it. They become other than themselves, other than what they are as things of the physical world. But the bread and wine do not lose their thingness within the limits of this world; their breadness and wineness — their smell, taste, weight, color, physical and chemical properties — remain unchanged. The change in their nature that has occurred is not manifested in their physical being. The miracle of the transmutation of the eucharist elements is therefore not a physical but a metaphysical event. This miracle is not expressed in the replacement of one kind of matter by another within the realm of the physical world — a replacement of the sort that occurred, for example, in the miracle of Cana of Galilee, where the matter of the water was transformed into the matter of the wine, or in the miracle of the loaves and fishes, where the quantity of bread was multiplied. There is — and even can be — no such matter in the world into which the bread and wine could be transformed during their transmutation into the body and blood of Christ. Such a transmutation does not correspond to any transformation within the limits of this world, for the matter of Christ’s body and blood is, in general, absent among the things of this world. Such a transformation would signify a wholly new creation accomplished by the annihilation of the former creation. But in this case this would not be a transmutation, a metabole, which presupposes a certain identity– as well as a complete distinction — between the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem. A new creation in place of the former one annuls this connection, annihilates both the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem in their relation. The idea of transmutation thus contains an antinomy which overcomes the law of identity without annulling it."

“The Eucharistic Dogma,” in The Holy Grail & The Eucharist. Trans. Boris Jakim (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Books, 1997), 63-4.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 06:59:00 PM by akimel »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,012
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #95 on: August 10, 2011, 07:16:56 PM »
Fr Sergius Bulgakov:

"Such a transmutation does not correspond to any transformation within the limits of this world, for the matter of Christ’s body and blood is, in general, absent among the things of this world."
I'm confused. Is he saying Christ's resurrected body is not made of the same flesh and blood as our bodies?
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,484
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #96 on: August 10, 2011, 08:06:15 PM »
Fr Sergius Bulgakov:

"Such a transmutation does not correspond to any transformation within the limits of this world, for the matter of Christ’s body and blood is, in general, absent among the things of this world."
I'm confused. Is he saying Christ's resurrected body is not made of the same flesh and blood as our bodies?

You are right in being confused. While our resurrected bodies, and that of the resurrected Christ, are transformed and perfected, they remain true flesh and blood. The hymnography for the feast of Sunday of the Apostle Thomas, the first Sunday after Pascha, is full of references to this teaching. Some examples:

As the Disciples hesitated, O Saviour, You came on the eighth day, where they were gathered. You gave them peace and cried to Thomas, ‘Come here, Apostle, handle the palms in which they fixed the nails’. O excellent unbelief of Thomas, which led the hearts of the faithful to knowledge; and with fear he cried, ‘My Lord and my God, glory to You’.

When the doors were shut, You came, O Christ, to your Disciples. Thomas, by divine dispensation, was not with them then; for he said ‘I will not believe, unless I too see the Master; see the side from which came the blood, the water, baptism; see the wound by which the deep wound, humanity, was healed; see that He was not like some spirit, but flesh and bones’. O Lord who trampled on death, and satisfied Thomas, glory to You.

O Lord, when doors were shut You came in the unbearable blaze of Your Godhead; and standing among Your Disciples You bared Your side. You showed them the scars of the wounds in Your hands and feet, and banishing their dejection You cried out clearly: ‘The way you see Me, My friends, I bear, not a spirit’s nature, but the flesh which I assumed’. To the doubting Disciple, ‘you were ready to handle Me with dread’, He said, ‘you investigate all things, come then, do not hesitate’. But he, sensing with his hand Your double being, with fear cried out in faith: ‘My Lord and my God, glory to You.’

The Saviour said, ‘Handle Me and see that I have bones and flesh. I am not changed’.

‘As you wish, handle Me’, Christ cried to Thomas, ‘Put in your hand and know that I have bones and an earthly body; and do not be unbelieving, but believe like the rest’. But he cried out, ‘You are my Lord and my God; glory to Your Rising’.







 
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #97 on: August 11, 2011, 09:12:36 AM »
The critical point that Bulgakov is making is that precisely because the resurrection body of Jesus is a glorified body, i.e., a body not of this world (like Lazarus's body) but of the world to come, the eucharistic transformation cannot be interpreted within this world categories.  This is why the eucharistic transformation and presence is precisely a mystery, a mystery of the Kingdom.  This is also the heart of Bulgakov's critique of the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.  
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 09:14:48 AM by akimel »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,012
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #98 on: August 11, 2011, 09:15:02 AM »
Oh. Ok. That makes sense then.

Though considering Lazarus died again, I don't think that his body was a resurrection body at that point.
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #99 on: August 11, 2011, 11:48:09 AM »
Oh. Ok. That makes sense then.

Though considering Lazarus died again, I don't think that his body was a resurrection body at that point.

I think that's what he was saying. Lazarus' resurrected body was a this-age body. Jesus' ressurected body is an age-to-come body.
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,012
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Eucharist questions
« Reply #100 on: August 11, 2011, 12:02:57 PM »
Oh. Ok. That makes sense then.

Though considering Lazarus died again, I don't think that his body was a resurrection body at that point.

I think that's what he was saying. Lazarus' resurrected body was a this-age body. Jesus' ressurected body is an age-to-come body.
Oh, yeah. You're right. I misunderstood.
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.