Wednesday, March 12, 2014
eucharist and the rabbi
Rabbi Derek Leman provided St. Andrews with a day of lectures for our annual Lenten Retreat on Sunday. The church hall was full as he discussed the topic of the divine Messiah. Much of what he had to say is similar to what I have taught, so in a sense it was confirmation for me. And such confirmation is very important for one who does not get much feedback on his theological insights and perspective. It was doubly helpful as Derek is a Jew and does not embrace my catholic faith. In Bible exegesis there is a principle that when something is confirmed by different sources it is more likely to be accurate.
His presence among us is always a great blessing because he is a wonderful teacher and faithful disciple of Jesus. Afterward, I was privileged to join him at dinner and several hours of conversation. We both learned a bit about one another.
One topic we discussed heavily was eucharist. Some of us were raised catholic and eucharist is the center of catholic worship (and perhaps identity). We believe it is Jesus' body and blood. Others relegate this eucharist to a secondary (maybe tertiary?) level. It is not seen as vital at all. At St. Andrews we celebrate eucharist at all our weekend worship services, as well as Wednesday morning and Thursday mid-day. Derek said their practice is generally monthly and it occurs after a communal meal. Others shared their Methodist understanding or low-church Evangelical. I do not need to spell out the differences, but merely point out that Christians have a wide range of eucharistic practices and theologies. And some are in direct contradiction of others. So, it does not take long for the question to rise, "how central is eucharist?"
In the minds of some (probably the vast majority of Christians) it is actually the Body and Blood of Jesus. Others say it is a reminder for them, they think about Jesus (remembrance in the weak and typical sense). Some sort of bridge the gap saying that the remembrance (arguably the Biblical sense is this strong sense, of RE-membering, i.e., bringing together some things which have been dispersed) is a spiritual encounter with Jesus. My atheist critic no doubt would say it is a silly waste of time, reminding us of someone long dead on a cross, and providing us with a reality-denying escape.
Because my Lenten focus is seeking Jesus I think this question matters. Assuming that arguments for God's existence are sufficient to prove it is not stupid or silly to believe in God and further assuming that the resurrection appearances are grounds for believing the Biblical God/Father is the true God whom Jesus has revealed, then the next question is how best do we encounter Him?
I think eucharist is "more than a feeling" (reminds me of Boston and the 70's). Others don't. I think I am encountering Someone who is there (in and through). Calling that "real presence" or "spiritual presence", literal or spiritual, does little to progress the discussion. What is an ontological change vs. a spiritual change. If it is only a change in me does that imply Christian communion is a miracle in the believer (it becomes Jesus' body "for" me in faith) or that faith is purely subjective, actually a friendly from of schizophrenia (nothing really happens we just think it does, but it is our reality). If Jesus is present, is it bad so many pass on the opportunity. If He isn't, is it bad that so very, very many reverence the bread and claim He is present?
In the end, God must judge. I am aware that many pass on the blessings I enjoy. SO be it. I no doubt pass on things which they may think are central. In the end, it is about relationship with Jesus and we must embrace the venues which He provides. I am not sure what "spiritually present" means, nor are the people who use the term. Of course, "sacramental" is no less mysterious. Which reminds me, many in the early church simply used that term "mysteries" to describe the eucharist (as in "the sacred mysteries").
What matters most is seeking Jesus (in faith, love and obedience). Catholics, Evangelicals and Messianic Jews do not agree on all the details. There is food for thought there. God seems willing to let people make mistakes in faith. My task is to seek Jesus. Eucharist is a central place of encounter. If you fail to accept that or believe it I will allow the Judge to determine what that means. I cannot. I want you to show me similar latitude. In the meantime we can all pray together, "Jesus, bread of life, feed us and save us."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great stuff here Fr. Jeff!!
ReplyDelete>My atheist critic no doubt would say it is a silly waste of time, reminding us of someone long dead on a cross, and providing us with a reality-denying escape.
ReplyDeleteActually, Jeff, your reality-denying escape consists of masquerading as a priest, when you continue to make it obvious that you know little or nothing about the doctrines you profess to uphold, as this latest misbegotten effort proves.
From time to time, I check your blog to see if you are still determined to present yourself as abjectly stupid, and alas, you seldom disappoint. Now it's true that as an atheist, I don't believe there is a God or Son of God and that Jesus of Nazareth is deceased, so that there can be no question of having a "relationship" with him or any other dead person.
But forget my view for a moment. Let's take the one you profess to believe but obviously don't understand.
I forget whether you celebrate Rite I or Rite II, but each addresses, with simple and moving eloquence, the point you have mangled here.
Rite I says:
"...we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to
hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless
and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts
and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them
according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution,
in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers
of his most blessed Body and Blood."
Rite II says:
"...we offer you these gifts.
Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the
Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new
and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we may faithfully
receive this holy Sacrament..."
If one believes that, as you profess to do, then it is unlikely that one can add much of value to it--least of all an impertinent fool like you, Jeff. Your readers would have been much better served if you had simply had the sense to say something like the following:
"Having preached this holy mystery and celebrated it for years, I can still not claim to have understood it at its deepest level. My non-Catholic friends speak only of remembrance, but I rely, in simple faith, on the grace it seems to promise that, in the catholic understanding, is peculiar to the sacrament and uniquely present there."
That would have pretty well covered it, bud. Instead, because you are a heedless boy, you make a perfect fool of yourself by saying the following:
"I think I am encountering Someone who is there (in and through). Calling that 'real presence' or 'spiritual presence', literal or spiritual, does little to progress the discussion. What is an ontological change vs. a spiritual change. If it is only a change in me does that imply Christian communion is a miracle in the believer (it becomes Jesus' body "for" me in faith) or that faith is purely subjective, actually a friendly from of schizophrenia (nothing really happens we just think it does, but it is our reality).I am not sure what 'spiritually present' means, nor are the people who use the term."
I'm just shaking my head in disbelief. Every last time I read one of your stupid ramblings, I think of Job 38: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge." We get it, Jeff--you are a clown who knows and understands little about the central mystery of Christian worship but wants to treat everyone to his inane ramblings anyway.
Why?
Really, Jeff. Why?
(Continued)
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about quantum physics. Two things follow from that. First, I don't set myself up as a teacher of it. Second, I don't blog about it.
Ponder that, Jeff. You don't know what you are talking about. You all but admit it.
But you won't stop typing.
Ask yourself why.
I know you've concocted this persecution fantasy for yourself in which you imagine that I criticize you because you won't surrender your faith and adopt my position. But that's not true. I criticize you because you don't take your faith seriously enough and degrade it by your silliness. This pathetic entry on your part is another instance of that. It's really too bad.
Thanks Rob!
ReplyDeleteMichael, you will be shocked to know that the words of institution are interpreted in different ways by people. I quote actual conversations. But then you know that, you do not care, you want to illustrate that I am an inept idiot and a child, and etc etc etc...
You are boring Michael...
>the words of institution are interpreted in different ways by people.
ReplyDeleteThey are, indeed. What new or deeper understanding did your ignorant post add to the matter, Jeff?
>I quote actual conversations. But then you know that
Well no, bud, I don't, because that's now how you presented those passages in your post. For all any reader could tell, the comments and questions were your own. Reread it for yourself, as I just did, and ask how anyone could tell that you meant to be quoting others. They can't.
But really, that doesn't matter, and this is just another lame dodge on your part, isn't it, Jeff? Whether others said those things or you did, the question is, again, what new or deeper understanding did your post add to the words of institution? How did your ignorant thoughts help anyone understand the nature of the sacrament or bring anyone closer to Jesus?
We both know the answer to that, Jeff. You understand nothing and add nothing. You don't care about the truth, and any attempt to get at it bores you, as you've just admitted.
So why do you continue to type?