This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

I feel like absolute Calvinist/Zwinglian point of view is ignorant. However, although growing up in a Catholic church, I can not agree with the theology of transsubstantiation. I mean no offense. There could be a long long discussion on this issue.

As I understand Transubstantiation, one would have to be a molecular biologist to fully grasp its teaching! I also understand that said 'doctrine' was an RCC response to the Reformers.

In the Orthodox East, they never dissected it like the Latin West did. An oft heard phrase at my parish concerning the issue of the Eucharist is "He said, 'this is my body... this is my blood'. How does it happen? When does it happen? We don't know. Its a mystery."

One of the many reasons for perscecution prior to St. Constantine's legalization of Christianity was the Roman fear of canabalization. They kept hearingi about 'love feasts' and 'partaking of the body and blood of Christ'. No one was allowed to see the Eucharist who was not catechized and chrismated, so mystery surrounded it and the Christians got a bad rap for being canabals, among other things.

Jano:

Though I believe that the bread and wine, through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, become the Body and Blood of Christ, I do not subscribe to the Roman Catholic notion of transubstantiation. I hold the Orthodox view of mystery.

Cllifton -

I have heard similar phrasing in the past, though it was mostly referring to Catholics. I think it represents at best a simple misunderstanding about the process (though to be fair, the Catholic precision about how & when the Eucharistic change occurs can lend itself to such miscomprehension), and at worst, a bigoted idea that has taken firm root in a biased mind. In a conversation among several people, one person stuck to this idea that the priest somehow "conjures" up Christ in the bread no matter how many times it was explained to him or how many different sources were referenced to show the real belief. Some have such a dim view of Catholicism in particular that they think the public teaching is a lie and that they have found the true teaching, or something like that.

Honest to goodness, I have never heard the phrase, "Make Eucharist". As the word "eucharist" means Thanksgiving ... it doesn't even make sense. So, let's make sense: The sacerdotal person of the priest/bishop is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist. This is what the man is "set aside" for ... to bless. Yet he cannot do this a) without the Holy Spirit; b) without an antimens with his bishop's name on it; c) a congregation (at least one other Orthodox believer). In the West they would define a sacrament as being "valid" if there existed: 1) proper rite; 2) proper substance; 3) proper intent. Though we don't parse the mysteries as precisely in Orthodoxy, we have the same understanding, regardless.

And, like it or no, we have the same *understanding* of what happens to the gifts as do the Roman Catholics, though we do not claim to know the exact time and the precise manner in which the gifts are transfigured in the Body and Blood.

FWIW ...

Father, your blessing.

Thank you for your clarifications. I did not, in my own remarks, intend to make quite as sharp a distinction between RC and Orthodox teaching, only that I did not subscribe to the sort of delimiting of the Mystery that I have taken transsubstantiation to attempt. This was behind my "holding to Orthodox mystery."

Sorry this is off-topic, but I read in today's Red Eye newspaper about the very first intentional Orthodox Christian house on a college campus. They converted an old frat house! It was a short article, but it was interesting. The house is at the University of Illinois.

I read the same article. Very interesting.

What I understand the phrase to be is simply an archaic phrase for the rite of the Lord's Supper. You can find it in 17th and 18th century Anglical Missals. I am sure there is somewhere an exploration of the theology, but I suppose, given the historical setting, that "make" had nuances it currently does not. So, I occasionally empoy it simply because I like how it feels, physically, to say it. If I take the literal meaning of the words, then I have to disagree with the sentiment. But if it is simply an archaic way of saying "the moment of eucharist" then why not play in it?

Do you have any references to point me to? (or URLs?).

The earliest reference I find is a comment by Clement of Rome, in the 1st Century (quoted in Gregory Dix's The Shape of the Liturgy):

"Unto the high-priest (=celebrant-bishop) his special 'liturgies' have been appointed, and to the priests (=presbyters) their special place is assigned, and on the levites (=deacons) their special 'deaconings' are imposed; the layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. Let each of you, brethren, make eucharist to God according to his own order, keeping a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his 'liturgy.'" (underlining mine)

In your BCP, you will find the phrase as a part of the "Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist" that we commonly and casually refer to as Rite III. The phrase refers to the whole of the Great Thanksgiving, which includes the consecration of the Bread and wine (God's work, certainly, through the invocation of the Spirit), but is not limited to it.

These are examples that reflect the understanding I have, that to "make eucharist" (thanksgiving) is a function of the Spirit within the community gathered, and not only (nor is it limited to) the priest who consecrates. This is why, for example, celebration of the Eucharist in the Anglican tradition has never been a solitary activity (as was once required of RC clergy).

Best I've got on short notice.

Jane:

Well, Ruth would be chagrined, though I would not say she would be surprised, that I did not remember that phrase being in the "Rite III" form of the Eucharist. (I think I got a B in her Anglican liturgy class, but if I recall that had more to do with the paper I wrote than my inattentiveness as a student.) Interestingly to me, Hatchett's commentary passes over the phrase without comment.

So, if what Tripp says is true, then it appears that this rather unfortunate phrase is a product of, perhaps, Victorian era AC sensibilities, with Dom Dix continuing it. (By the by, I checked St. Clement, and it is the Greek eucharisteo which should not, it seems to me, be translated "make eucharist.")

I grant, then, all the best possible connotations behind the word in its historical use.

But I wonder about it's popular use. So far as you hear, or perhaps use it yourself, what sort of emphasis is intended in it? I mean here not the analytical, what you would teach a Sunday School class, but the gut-level "street usage" as it were.

A reminder, I simply like the turn of phrase because it trips off the tongue so well. So, I like to use it.

Indeed, G. Dix employs it as part of his translation...check p. 158 of Shape. To make eucharist is to more make a thanksgiving offering and less to "Make Jesus." According to Dix's reading and translation of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, one also "makes" anamnesis.

Furthermore, Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips play in this language in their parallels of the Apostolic Tradion. It is from their volume in the Hermenia series. Check it out. It is not so much a translation of "make" that is at issue, but whether one is speaking of the eucharist as "the body and blood" or whether it is a more generic translation of "thanksgiving" or "offering." It appears from their research that it is the latter and not the former, thus you can rest your worries, my friend.

Clifton, once again, and with very little effort on your part, you have added to my education on matters Orthodox. Thanks to you and your posters this is blogging at its most helpful.

Tripp:

Well, perhaps I can rest my worries. But if "make eucharist" is little more than "giving thanks" then I would like to suggest we stick with "give thanks." Because, though you good liberal baptist will raise a quizzical eyebrow, the Church from the beginning understood all the Eucharist in terms of the Mystery of the Body and Blood.

But I guess in the end, my sensibilities are not yours. I'll just have to deal with it, I suppose.

You mistake me again. Of course the Body and Blood are understood...but it is still a thanksgiving offering. Thus, "eucharist." One makes the offering. That is part and parcel of the liturgy. The mystical nature of things does not change that.

I don't like it because it sounds to much like make love, not war...and I have often heard it intended as such and even referenced together with idea of "making love". I'll stick to confecting the sacrament or pleading the sacrifice

Father Deacon Jeff:

It's good to hear from you. Tripp & Co. probably aren't surprised you and I share similar sentiments on this topic.

Word on the seminary "street" is that you've had some very intresting beginnings in your new ministry. May God bless it and you greatly.

Give Catharine our love. And tell Sydney Sofie misses her.