Does God Care What We Believe Is Happening in the Eucharist?
Nick Tamen
Shipmate
in Purgatory
In a thread on a Mystery Worship report, this comment was made:
I responded to that by saying:
For the record, and if it matters, I’m not a memorialist. I’m most comfortable with the traditional Reformed view of True Presence. I also think the tendency in the Western church in particular to try to explain the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, rather than just accepting it as a mystery, has been more problematic than helpful.
So what do others think? Does God care, a little or a lot, what we think is going on in the Eucharist, or if we’re getting it wrong? Does anyone really understand it? Is the answer different if we’re talking about what clergy believe or about what someone in the pews believes?
And if God does care, what does that mean for those who’ve got it wrong?
On the one hand, I'm sure God doesn't care what clergy call themselves -- whether it be priest, minister, presbyter, or grand poo-bah, or whether or not they wear a maniple. But on the other hand, I think he cares very much about what they think of the eucharist -- whether the elements, while retaining the physical characteristics of bread and wine, are in actuality the Body and Blood of his Son; or whether Jesus is merely "present" in the elements; or whether they are simply a "memorial" of the Last Supper.
I responded to that by saying:
I’m not convinced God cares nearly as much about what different Christians think about the Eucharist as those Christians do. I suspect God is more concerned about why we allow disagreement about the Eucharist to cause division in the church. And I suspect God is much more concerned with how our participation in the Eucharist, however we may understand it, bears fruit in our lives.
For the record, and if it matters, I’m not a memorialist. I’m most comfortable with the traditional Reformed view of True Presence. I also think the tendency in the Western church in particular to try to explain the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, rather than just accepting it as a mystery, has been more problematic than helpful.
So what do others think? Does God care, a little or a lot, what we think is going on in the Eucharist, or if we’re getting it wrong? Does anyone really understand it? Is the answer different if we’re talking about what clergy believe or about what someone in the pews believes?
And if God does care, what does that mean for those who’ve got it wrong?
Tagged:
Comments
I think God cares about (is intimately involved in) what’s happening in Communion more than how much we understand it. As for whether we use the word “priest” or not (in what language?), I think God cares more about … how do I put this? I believe in Apostolic Succession being real in certain churches, and that it is important, and the presence and supernatural aspects in the sacraments, and such. I believe those things are real and true. I believe God cares about truth. But I also believe He cares about us as people regardless of how much we do or don’t understand. One of the most important doctrines, as I understand it, is that love matters more than correct doctrine. It’s a paradox. I’m not sure what else to add here. (I should point out that I am an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian, and Anglo-Catholic specifically in terms of doctrine/ theology/ sacramentalism rather than liturgical style or vestments or candles or what have you.)
This I definitely agree with!
Of course it matters to him that we understand things correctly (insofar as that's even possible), but it's no surprise to him when we get it wrong, and I doubt he puts anywhere near as much weight on our mistakes as he does on sins with regard to charity, etc. I mean, if I had to make either an intellectual mistake (of the understanding) or a moral mistake (by being nasty to my neighbor), I'd prefer the former, as being less guilty.
I think the divine is very intererested in what we think happens, because what we think happens is part of us and our response to this and our growth and movement spiritually. It matters what we think because it is us doing the thinking.
Does it matter how accurate this is? IMO, not one jot. I don't think anyone has that correct. I doubt whether we could actually conceive what is happening.
But I suspect that such a God, being necessarily impassibly omnipathic, couldn't care less either.
It raises the issue of 'receptionism' as I believe it's called - where the believer's own belief is arguably the 'trigger' or conduit for whatever 'happens' in the Eucharist.
But in the way the OP is framed it's reversed to be about God's own 'thoughts' or reactions as it were, in response to ours.
All sorts of difficult things to unravel there. What did the Apostle Paul mean by people receiving unworthily or 'not discerning the body' (one another AND / AS the Body of Christ as it were?)?
However we understand it, there's a seriousness if we can 'eat and drink judgement on ourselves'.
Inevitably, however we answer this one, it will reflect our own proclivities or practice. 'Oh, I don't believe God's that bothered,' could mean, 'I'm actually not that bothered...' 😉
Just as, 'No, no, no, it has to be done in this particular way ...' may also mean, it has to be done in my particular way because God dances to my tune ...
It could be argued that if some kind of 'objective' change takes place then the consecrated elements are what they are - or have become - irrespective of what any individual recipient may believe.
Whatever the case, this is one for God to sort out, I think. Pay grades and that.
Always loved the eucharist because it's a level playing field. Miss it.
He was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe, and take it.
The original recipe Anglican fudge.
Though some of us can’t help digging further… I should have been a cat.
A thought: Is atheism a religious belief?
Nice.
Not for me, not mine. It isn't a belief at all, in the sense asked. It is a reliable, justified true belief, i.e. propositional knowledge, not inferred from anything false, just necessary and sufficient conditions; infinitely more so than any religious belief.
No it isn't. Wittgenstein, Popper et al would disagree. And I speak as a scientist who has read widely in the philosophy of science.
The glory of science is to change its theories ... it's not about truth but what we can measure.
Dark matter ... dark energy ... both are beliefs ...
What we can measure is the truth. There is no comparison whatsoever between religious belief and science (and rationality extrapolated from it), the only tool there is, for validating beliefs about reality. Your fallacious appeal to authority doesn't cut it. Dark matter and energy are propositions.
Sigh.
Obviously not everyone will agree with this, especially the “infinitely more so” part.
Not precisely. @Eirenist posed this off-topic question:
No one need follow up.
However, since @Eirenist brought it up, I had intended to ask the clarifying question:
What constitutes "a religious belief?"
But that is perhaps better suited for a different thread.
Let me start it now.......
Brilliantly clever woman.
I've been reading a few things by N.T. Wright lately and ran across a similar construct regarding Anglicans, something like: If it's true, we believe it.
This would not go over well among my Baptist sistren and brethren. ; )
It must be precisely stated that NOTHING goes on during Communion but remembering, and God cares very, very, very much that we believe that right.
Sigh.
That said, not that is all about personal epiphanies, but one of the most profound 'eucharistic' occasions I can remember occurred in an unprepossessing Baptist chapel in South Wales.
A visiting preacher said a few words which suddenly opened the whole thing up as it were - the scope and enormity of it all.
Sure, they weren't framing it in a more 'sacramental' way but it took me beyond, as it were - a kind of amanuensis that went beyond 'mere memorialism' if I can put it like that.
As @Jengie Jon rightly reminds us, Christ can be 'made present' in the preaching or reading of the word - the Word through the word as it were.
Somehow the combination of word and physical action - the breaking of bread - combined to present - or to 'make present' - something bigger than the sum of its parts.
At the very least - if I can put it that way - that's how I see this 'working'.
That just dodges the central question of what actually the Word made. Clever but no cigar.
Were this Hell you would have a very shirty answer indeed!
We've been here so many times with you ....
Back to the topic ....
I would say that, rather than a dodge, it's an acceptance of mystery.
A rational one would be nice, shorn of fallacies and empty rhetoric.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
a ) in the presence in the bread and wine of the eucharist
b) in the proclamation of the Word
c) in the community gathered in Christ's name
God is truly present in his Sacrament ,in his Word and in his community gathered together for worship.
Beautifully put, @Gamma Gamaliel .
Lovely irony.
Sir.
The multitudes of religions and denominations implies he hasn't and therefore doesn't.
What a wonderful perspective. It is a refreshingly different from "My sect knows what is in God's mind and the rest of you are dooooooooomed."
On this topic; I remember being in at communion in a Baptist Church where the elder went around handing out the small cups while saying to each person "This represents the blood of Christ shed for you"
Or he wants us to work it out ...
As in the old Jewish story I read on these boards once with the punchline, 'The Torah is not in heaven.'
Over to you, folks ...
I think few groups these days would insist that everyone else was 'doooooooomed'.
The RCs no longer believe that only Catholics can be saved and although the Orthodox are pretty prescriptive as to what constitutes Church, few would insist that only Orthodox (or only Christians) can be saved ...
No, that doesn't work, because millions of people have tried, lots disagree, and there really is no way to arbitrate between them that isn't itself an arbitrary decision ("the Magisterium/Tradition/Calvin/[fill in here] is always right")
I can't see any other way of doing it other than by dialogue and debate in the context of faith communities.
Any 'discipline' or system be it mathematics, algebra, artistic or literary conventions, philosophy, political ideology or styles of cooking all develop through dialogue and debate.
That applies to religion too.
I can't see how it can be otherwise.
God could have given us Calvin's Institutes or the Catholic Catechism or the Westminster Confession directly. They are at least unambiguous - you can decide whether you believe them or not but there's not much wriggle room in what they actually teach.
He didn't. He gave us - for some undefined value of 'gave' - a contradictory, confusing text subject to interpretation wildly at odds with one another.
I have to conclude from this that God is not half as bothered about the details of our beliefs as the Reformers or Vatican might suggest.
Really the form of words allows a range of beliefs. Me, I lean towards the 'real presence'. It is, for me, like being made love to by Our Lord ..... (but don't tell my non-conformist friends)!
Which begs more questions, of course, such as why we should trust Orthodox claims to Big T Tradition rather than RC ones ...
But however we cut it, we inevitably end up with communities of faith trying to make sense of things. I don't see any way around that. Heck, even in the pages of the NT itself we've got indications that people were puzzling out what the Apostle Paul was on about etc. That's how these things work. Discussion. Debate. Conciliar or collective agreements.
All this predates the Christian Church, of course. That's what the Rabbis were all about. Trying to make sense of the Tradition. Ok, we've got the Ten Commandment apparently dictated directly as it were but the Hebrew and Christian scriptures weren't dictated verbatim by the Angel Gabriel as Muslims apparently believe about the Quran.
Sorry, @Rocky Roger, but your comment gave me a brain-bleach moment as I tried to figure out where you were putting the communion wafer ...
It ain't just your non-conformist friends who might be fazed by that kind of imagery, notwithstanding fairly erotic overtones in some Christian mystical writings.
@Pease and @KarlLB ...
Yes, Pease (yes, please
Somehow, we have to 'work with the difficulty'. God could have chosen to appoint someone like Calvin - 'Here, this French lawyer, listen to him ...'
But he didn't. He sent himself. 'The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us ...'
But we still have to work things out. 'Some said it thundered.'
And that's not a glib statement either. I often wonder why God didn't make it 'easier'. That would have saved all that hassle with Christians executing one another at the time of the Reformation or anathematising one another in earlier centuries.
I s'pose W H Auden was angling at this sort of thing when he wrote (Hosts and Admins, please tell me if I'm breaching copyright):
What reverence is rightly paid
To a divinity so odd
He lets the Adam that he made
Perform the acts of God?
From 'Friday's Child', a 1958 poem commemorating Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Plenty to puzzle over and ponder there.
But like any image or analogy it's possible to take it too far.