I didn't major in English...

But I think Schmemann's comment in "For the Life of the World" is very COOL!

What Christ says of himself in contradistinction to Herod's Temple is wonderful:

Page 20
There was no need for temples built of stone: Christ's Body, the Church itself, the new people gathered in Him, was the only real temple. ...

 

. . .The Church itself was the new and heavenly Jerusalem.

REAL in "For the Life of the World":

Page 133
... of any real communication, with the Divine, of any real transformation and transfiguration. ...

Page 138
It Is the debate on the real presence. Nowhere indeed is better revealed the line dividing from one another the two approaches to the sacrament, ...

 

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 6/5/2008 9:06:30 PM (GMT-5)

Zach: Nope Tom, wrong again. The entire Bible is to be taken literally.

Tom: Read it however you feel you need to.

Zach: Jesus is really, literally, objectively a vine, a gate, a shepherd, a high priest.

Tom: I think he’s obviously not these things ‘literally’, but hey, if you think Jesus is a gate in your backyard or a vine growing in Bordeaux, France, I’m not gonna try to convince you otherwise.

Zach: God is really, objectively, literally a rock…

Tom: Which rock? What’s the chemical make up of God? Granit? Limestone? What?

Zach: If we do not confess these metaphysical truths (despite their obvious physical falsehood) then we are missing out on something very important (although I couldn't say what that might be since it's a mystery).

Tom: Let me see now. We a) must confess the literalness of these things in spite of their obviously not being literal in the physical sense. And if we don’t do this, b) we miss out on something very important, although c) you can’t say what this something important is because it’s a mystery.

Riiiiight.

Zach: You may ask, "Why should I believe you?" Well, it's quite simple. No, it's not logic. No, not scripture. No, it's not even an understanding of what it is you are missing out on. It is the fact that I said it hundreds of years before you were even born. Everyone knows that when it suits my purpose, what is said first is truth.

Tom: You OK Z? Been smoking something new lately?

Tom

Page 35
But we do it in Christ and in remembrance of Him. We do it in Christ because He has already offered all that is to be offered to God. ...

Looking at it I discovered that there was an unplanned PUN in my last post. Here's the basis of that pun:

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=reiterate

Verb

• S: (v) repeat, reiterate, ingeminate, iterate, restate, retell (to say, state, or perform again) "She kept reiterating her request"

I see that by ONE definition that a "memorial" -- if taken as a reiteration -- could be a RETELLING of something.

That is a good thing. A good thing.

But it is not the only thing.

Even in the above definitions for 'reiterate' there are stronger meanings peaking out.

The illustration or work-bench I'd like to suggest is the OT "reading of the law," found in many places -- a renewal ceremony and refreshing of the covenant.

Can we look at that?

MEMORIAL on WordSource...

It looks to me as though "memorial" can be either full-bodied and potent, OR be vague and distant: seeing a horse-mounted statue of a 'generic' European battle does not 'hold a candle' (pun intended) to a memorial erected to a hero who saved kids in a fire but lost his own life too.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=memorial&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=0

Noun

• S: (n) memorial, commemoration, remembrance (a recognition of meritorious service)
• S: (n) memorial (a written statement of facts submitted in conjunction with a petition to an authority)
• S: (n) memorial, monument (a structure erected to commemorate persons or events)

Commemoration, remembrance as RECOGNITION. I think that 'recognition' changes on the inside.

'Statement of fact' can strike me as cold -- but NOT if it the deed to my house!!!

Monument is fickle for me, as I illustrated above with the horse-statue.

.

INPUT?

HERE is someone's interesting blog about SYMBOL in Communion.

http://kirchenlieder.blogspot.com/2006/08/eucharist-sacrament-of-kingdom.html

Berengarius of Tours

Born at Tours about 999; died on the island of St. Cosme, near that city, in 1088. Having completed his elementary studies in his native city, he went to the school of Chartres in order to study arts and theology under the direction of the famous Fulbert. There he was distinguished by his curious and quick intelligence. It seems that even at this early time his bent of mind and singular opinions were a source of anxiety to his master. (M. Clerval, Les Ecoles de Chartres au Moyen Age, Chartres, 1895.) After the death of Fulbert (1029) Berengarius left Chartres and took charge, as scholasticus, of the school of St. Martin of Tours. His reputation spread rapidly and attracted from all parts of France numerous and distinguished disciples, who afterwards held positions of importance in the Church. Among them are mentioned, though there is some doubt about the first two, Hildebert of Lavardin who became Bishop of Le Mans and Archbishop of Tours, St. Bruno, the founder of the Carthusians, Eusebius Bruno, afterwards Bishop of Angers, Frolland, Bishop of Senlis, Paulinus, dean of Metz. In 1039 Berengarius was chosen archdeacon of Angers by Hubert, bishop of that city. Berengarius accepted this office, but continued to live at Tours and direct his school.

It was about 1047 that the teaching of Berengarius touching the Holy Eucharist began to attract attention. In the Eucharistic controversy of the ninth century, Radbert Paschasius, afterwards abbot of Corbie, in his De Corpore et Sanguine Domini (831), had maintained the doctrine that in the Holy Eucharist the bread is converted into the real body of Christ, into the very body which was born of Mary and crucified. Ratramnus, a monk of the same abbey, defended the opinion that in the Holy Eucharist there is no conversion of the bread; that the body of Christ is, nevertheless, present, but in a spiritual way; that it is not therefore the same as that born of Mary and crucified. John Scotus Erigena had supported the view that the sacraments of the altar are figures of the body of Christ; that they are a memorial of the true body and blood of Christ. (P. Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire et de théologie positive, 2d series, Paris, 1905.) When, therefore, Hugues, Bishop of Langres, and Adelman écolâtre of Liège, discussed Berengarius's teachings on this subject, the latter answered by appealing to the authority of Erigena. It was at this point that Lanfranc, abbot of the monastery at Le Bec, attacked as heretical the opinion of Erigena and defended the doctrine of Radbert Paschasius. Berengarius, in his defense, wrote a letter which Lanfranc received in Rome whither he had gone to take part in a council. The letter was read in this council (1050); Berengarius was condemned, and was ordered to appear at a council which was to be held the same year at Vercelli. King Henry I being titular Abbot of St. Martin of Tours, Berengarius applied to him for permission to go to the council. It is probable that at this time the conferences of Brionne and Chartres were held in which Berengarius unsuccessfully defended his opinions. (Cf. Durand of Troarn, Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Christi, xxxiii, in Migne, P.L., CXLIX, 1422.) The king, for reasons which are not exactly known, ordered Berengarius to be imprisoned, and at the council of Vercelli (1050) his doctrine was examined and condemned.

The imprisonment, however, did not last long. The Bishop of Angers, Eusebius Bruno, was his disciple and supporter, and the Count of Anjou, Geoffrey Martel, his protector. The following year, by order of Henry I, a national synod was held in Paris to judge Berengarius and Eusebius Bruno; neither was present, and both were condemned. At the Council of Tours (1055), presided over by the papal legate Hildebrand, Berengarius signed a profession of faith wherein he confessed that after consecration the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ. At another council held in Rome in 1059, Berengarius was present, retracted his opinions, and signed a formula of faith, drawn up by Cardinal Humbert, affirming the real and sensible presence of the true body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. (Mansi, XIX, 900.) On his return, however, Berengarius attacked this formula. Eusebius Bruno abandoned him, and the Count of Anjou, Geoffrey the Bearded, vigorously opposed him. Berengarius appealed to Pope Alexander II, who, though he intervened in his behalf, asked him to renounce his erroneous opinions. This Berengarius contemptuously refused to do. He then wrote his De Sacrâ Coenâ adversus Lanfrancum Liber Posterior, the first book of which -- now lost -- had been written against the Council of Rome held in 1059. He was again condemned in the Councils of Poitiers (1075), and of St. Maixeut (1076), and in 1078, by order of Pope Gregory VII, he came to Rome, and in a council held in St. John Lateran signed a profession of faith affirming the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary. The following year, in a council held in the same place Berengarius signed a formula affirming the same doctrine in a more explicit way. Gregory VII then recommended him to the bishops of Tours and Angers, forbidding that any penalty should be inflicted on him or that anyone should call him a heretic. Berengarius, on his return, again attacked the formula he had signed, but as a consequence of the Council of Bordeaux (1080) he made a final retraction. He then retired into solitude on the island of St. Cosme, where he died, in union with the Church.

Doctrines and their condemnation

According to some of their contemporaries, Berengarius held erroneous opinions about the spiritual power, marriage, the baptism of children, and other points of doctrine. (Bernold of Constance, De Berengerii haeresiarchae damnatione multiplici in P.L., CXLIX, 1456; Guitmond, De Corporis et Sanguinis Christi veritate in Eucharistiâ, P.L., CXLIX, 1429, 1480.) But Berengarius's fundamental doctrine concerns the Holy Eucharist.

In order to understand his opinion, we must observe that, in philosophy, Berengarius had rationalistic tendencies and was a nominalist. Even in the study of the question of faith, he held that reason is the best guide. Reason, however, is dependent upon and is limited by sense-perception. Authority, therefore, is not conclusive; we must reason according to the data of our senses. There is no doubt that Berengarius denied transubstantiation (we mean the substantial conversion expressed by the word; the word itself was used for the first time by Hildebert of Lavardin); it is not absolutely certain that he denied the Real Presence, though he certainly held false views regarding it. Is the body of Christ present in the Eucharist, and in what manner? On this question the authorities appealed to by Berengarius are, besides Scotus Erigena, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. These fathers taught that the Sacrament of the Altar is the figure, the sign, the token of the body and blood of the Lord. These terms, in their mind, apply directly to what is external and sensible in the Holy Eucharist and do not, in any way, imply the negation of the real presence of the true body of Christ. (St. Aug. Serm. 143, n.3; Gerbert, Libellus De Corp. et Sang. Domini. n. 4, P.L., CXXXIX, 177.) For Berengarius the body and blood of Christ are really present in the Holy Eucharist; but this presence is an intellectual or spiritual presence. The substance of the bread and the substance of the wine remain unchanged in their nature, but by consecration they become spiritually the very body and blood of Christ. This spiritual body and blood of Christ is the res sacramenti; the bread and the wine are the figure, the sign, the token, sacramentum.

Such is the doctrine of Berengarius in his various discussions, letters, and writings up to the Council of Rome in 1059. (Migne P.L., CXLII, 1327; CL, 66; Martène and Durand, Theasaurus Novus Anecdotorum, Paris, 1717, IV.) At this council, Berengarius signed a profession of faith affirming that the bread and wine after consecration are not only a sign, but the true body and blood of Christ which can be perceived in a sensible and real manner. (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Domini, ii, in P.L., CL, 410.) As already said, Berengarius retracted this confession. He maintained that the bread and wine, without any change in their nature, become by consecration the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, a memorial of the body crucified and of the blood shed on the cross. It is not, however, the body of Christ as it is in heaven; for how could the body of Christ which is now in heaven, necessarily limited by space, be in another place, on several altars, and in numerous hosts? Yet the bread and the wine are the sign of the actual and real presence of the body and blood of Christ. (De Sacrâ Coenâ; Lanfranc, op. cit.)

In the two councils of Lateran (1078 and 1079) Berengarius accepts and signs this profession of faith that after the consecration, the bread is the true body of Christ, the very body born of the Virgin -- that the bread and wine on the altar, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and words of our Redeemer, are substantially converted into the very flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, true and life-giving, etc. (Martène et Durand, op. cit., IV, 103; Denzinger, Enchiridion, Wurzburg, 1900, n. 298.) In his explanation of this profession of faith, written after the council, Berengarius again clearly denies transubstantiation. He declares that, at the Last Supper, by virtue of the Lord's blessing, the bread and wine, keeping their natural properties, received a power of sanctification and became the sacrament of His body and blood; that the bread and wine on the altar are the very body of Christ, His true and human body. (artene et Durand, op. cit., IV, 107.) From all of which we conclude that, during his life, and before his final profession of faith, Berengarius certainly denied transubstantiation. As to the real presence, his thought is rather obscure and his attitude hesitating. There is much divergence of opinion among historians and theologians on the interpretation of Berengarius's doctrines about this point, if it does not appear clearly that he denies the Real Presence, if perhaps the difficulty for him is in the mode rather than in the fact of the real presence; yet his exposition of it, together with his principles of philosophy, endanger the fact itself of the Real Presence and sounds very much like a negative of it.

Influences

Outside of Eusebius Bruno, who supported Berengarius, at least for a time, no theologian of importance systematically defended his doctrine. We know, however, from ecclesiastical writers of his own and the following period that the influence of his principles was widespread and caused serious disturbance. (Guitmund, op. cit. in P.L., CXLIX, 1429 sqq.; Durand of Troarn, Liber de Corp. et Sang. Christi, in P.L., CXLIX, 1421.) The writers of the following century continue their dissertations against the New Berengarians (cf. Gregorius Barbarigo in Hurter's Sanctorum Patrum opuscula selecta, XXXIX); they find traces of his influence in various current phrases and sometimes warn against expressions which might be understood in the Berengarian sense. The Council of Piacenza (1095) again condemned Berengarius' doctrine. His teachings favoured, at least to some extent, the diverse heresies of the Middle Ages about the Holy Eucharist, as also the Sacramentarians of the sixteenth century. The great theologians of the time were unanimous in protesting against his principles, attacking his opinion as contrary to the teaching of tradition and the doctrine of the Church. Among them we may mention especially Adelman, Scholasticus of Liège; Hugues, Bishop of Langres; Lanfranc, then Abbot of Le Bec; Guitmund, a disciple of Lanfranc who became Bishop of Aversa; Durand, Abbot of St. Martin of Troarn; Bernold of Constance, and others, most of them Benedictines. (L. Biginelli, I benedittini e gli studi eucaristici nel medio evo, Turin, 1895.)

The error of Berengarius, as is the case with other heresies was the occasion which favoured and even necessitated, a more explicit presentation, and a more precise formulation of Catholic doctrine about the Holy Eucharist. Some expressions, among those used even by the adversaries of the Berengarian doctrine, were corrected. It was Hildebert of Lavardin, a contemporary of Berengarius if not his pupil, who first used the word transubstantiation. (Sermones xciii; P.L., CLXXI, 776.) The Council of Rome in 1079 in its condemnation of Berengarius, expresses more clearly than any document before it, the nature of this substantial change; and St. Thomas, in his definition of Transubstantiation uses almost the same terms as the council. (Sum. Theol., III, Q. lxxv, a. 4.) Though the feast of Corpus Christi was officially established only in the thirteenth century, its institution was probably occasioned by these eucharistic controversies. The same may be said of the ceremony of the elevation of the Host after the consecration in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 6/9/2008 11:19:23 AM (GMT-5)

Schmemann, in "The Eucharist".

Page 223
When attempts at a "rational" explanation of the eucharist arose in the West in the beginning of the eleventh century, Berengar of Tours proposed a ...

See page 223

Tom?

Son said...
Just a thought.

Does our current "quantum" understanding of reality applied to Christian cosmology allow for the "body of Christ" to be "on several altars, and in numerous hosts?"

The Risen Christ Jesus DOES possess omnipresence, right?

Tom?

 

Page 111
... is gathered on the diskos, for all are united in this offering by Christ of his glorified and deified humanity to the God and Father. ...

. . .Only when this preparation is completed, when all is referred to the sacrifice of Christ and included in it, and our lives, "hid with Christ in God." are placed on the diskos in a way visible to the eyes of faith, can we begin the liturgy--the eternal offering of him who offered himself and in himself all that exists to God, the ascent of our life to that place, the altar of the kingdom, where the Son of God, who has become the Son of man, has lifted it.

 

(A. Schmemann, The Eucharist)

(Schmemann, For the Life of the World)

Page 43
And now He shares this glorified life with us. "What I have done alone— I give it now to you: take, eat " We offered the bread in remembrance of Christ ...

He became man and lived in this world. He ate and drank, and this means that the world of which he partook, the very food of our world became His body, His life. But His life was totally, absolutely eucharistic--all of it was transformed into communion with God and all of it ascended into heaven. And now He shares this glorified life with us. "What I have done alone--I give it now to you: take, eat. . . ."

D: The Risen Christ Jesus DOES possess omnipresence, right?

Tom?

Tom: From page 23 of this thread (bold parts especially)—

D: Memorialists do NOT believe that Christ's actual body/blood presence exists in our bodies through the Holy Spirit in grace and faith. True memorialism doesn't believe this at all. (Check Zwingli again...)

Tom: But all the Reformation debate about this related specifically to the elements, viz., their material composition, their symbolic meaning, their role in mediating the presence of Christ, etc. The debate never got off the elements so to speak. I’m not an expert on the history of the debate. But perhaps had they stepped back a bit, maybe they would have seen it from a different angle.

Zwingli believed in the omnipresence of the Son for sure. I don’t know that Zwingli would have rejected the additional idea that all the Son is is present wherever the Son is. And that’s all you need. Person is inseparable from nature (though distinct from it). So wherever the Son is, the Son’s natural capacities are present (divine and human). So wherever the Son is, all the Son’s incarnate realities are equally present.

But it’s not the case that memorialists have to deny this, i.e., that Christ’s body is universally present, as present as is the Son (throughout all creation). I certainly don’t have a problem with it. But I don’t see that it reduces our bodies down to his body. That’s where you and I differ.

So I have no problem being a memorialist with regard to the elements as interpreted by ‘literalits’ (I deny that they materially become anything other than bread and wine and I deny that there is in them a unique presence of Christ, that is, a presence of Christ which does not also obtain universally). And I can believe that the Son is omnipresent which I think also means that the Son’s incarnate realities are everywhere present (in our bodies, in the elements, in my laptop, in my bathroom, etc.). What I deny is LIMITING this presence to the elements in a unique way, so that the elements come to be possessed of a presence at some point in time which they were not previously possessed of. You see my point.

D: To me, it's like "you have what you say" or "as a person thinks, so are they" type of thing. If a believer is really bent on NOT BELIEVING in the possibility of Christ's body and blood being "one" with their flesh...then said believer will NOT experience that reality...even though it may be open for them to experience. The memorialist's pressuppositions do NOT ALLOW for them to have the framework to experience the epicletic reality I'm talking about.

Tom: Well, I don’t’ think we have what we say just like that, as if the objective world becomes what we would like it to be because we believe it hard enough. I want to find or discover the truth of these matters, not create my own. Secondly, I hope you see that memorialists (on the elements) aren’t bound to deny the universal presence of the risen Christ. The larger question is, is this presence compatible with a distinction between Christ’s natural capacities (the capacities of his PERSON) and the natural capacities of non-divine PERSONS? I say it is. But you seem to say this presence brings about a oneness that reduces our bodies to Christ’s risen body. That’s just more of your monism showing itself. That’s your tendency.

I’m only interested in a unity of and within a diversity of persons. If we’re personally distinct from God (and we are), and if our persons are free to creatively determine the expression of love through the use of those natural capacities over which our persons are responsible (and they are and shall be more perfectly in the eschaton), then those natural capacities are as distinct from God as are the persons who determine their movements. So being materially distinct from Christ’s risen body follows from being personally distinct from the Son—IF, that is, our persons freely determine the expressive form of embodied love we offer to God. And I definitely think this is what God’s after in creating. It’s the reflection of his own trinitarian loving ways which he wishes to see us replicate.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/9/2008 9:14:24 PM (GMT-5)