For the past few Sundays, and for at least two more, the Gospel readings have been from the “bread of Life’ discourse, where Jesus tells us that he is the bread of heaven. We see, at the end of the discourse that many of those who had followed him until this point turned away from him, being unable to accept the ‘hard saying’. Some of those present thought he was referring to cannibalism, others simply could not take the idea that he was giving his body and blood to us to eat. Nothing could be more repugnant to the sensibilities of a believing Jew than to be offered blood. From at least the sixteenth century, there have been those Christians who, in an attempt to distance themselves from the Church’s teaching, have maintained that we should read Jesus’ words only in a spiritual sense – after all – “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.:
This seems to mean interpreting the words thus: “By My life-giving flesh and blood I did not really mean flesh at all, for it could do you no good: I meant My spiritual, life-giving teaching.” But this explanation renders Our Lord’s strong insistence upon the figure of flesh and blood quite unintelligible. It is more in accordance with the whole context and the Greek words to understand “The flesh profiteth nothing” as equivalent to “Mere flesh, flesh of itself – profiteth nothing.” Then the whole verse will mean, “Mere flesh, as you naturally think of it, profits nothing. But the things I have spoken to you of – the flesh and the blood of the glorified Son of Man (Jn 6:62) – are something more than mere flesh and blood: they are spirit and (therefore) life.” …
Of course it remains true that the words of God are spiritual food and a real nourishment of the intelligence, as “the flesh and blood of Christ” are of the whole of mankind cf. Jer 15.16, Ezek. 3.1-3, Ps 19:10, Rev 10:9. Indeed it is a matter which needs very careful consideration that the sacramental feeding cannot profitably continue without the “reading, marking, learning and inwardly digesting” of the word of God. Unless our intelligence is continually being spiritually nourished and enlightened, our whole nature is starved and withered, and the sacramental nourishment is comparatively ineffectual.
So, to read Jesus’ words as being merely symbolic, is not only to depart from the tradition of the Church, it is to explain them away. No one is suggesting that we do not need to nourish ourselves from the Scriptures, but to think this is all Christ means is to miss a huge part of what it has always been to be a Christian; it is also to miss the huge comfort which partaking of His precious body and blood bring to the penitent sinner.
Dave Smith said:
I don’t know why the words of Jesus about the Spirit giving life to the flesh is so hard to understand. We know that all living things, devoid of God’s Spirit, is unprofitable: a mere lump of coal or clay. But in this sense of man who possesses a Spirit-Soul, a reasoning soul, which knows right from wrong, it brings life to this life which was given to us from the beginning, being made in the image and likeness of God. The Church uses very precise words to describe the indescribable Holy Mysteries of God. It speaks of the Bread and the Wine being turned into, not merely Body and Slood of Christ, but the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
In this Act of giving and vicarious sacrifice which Christ endures for love of us, we call upon our advocate, the paraclete and Holy Spirit to change this mere bread iand wine nto Divine Flesh and Blood at the epiclesis. And at the Anamnesis we declare that this miracle takes place.
This is a sacrament for those who have received the ‘indellible’ mark of Sanctifying Grace given to us at Baptism where we become members of His Body, the Church. It is only right that we should be fed by the Head, now risen and standing before the Father showing His wounds to Him for our Salvation. This Holy Sacrifice is reapplied at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be applied to the souls of men to be remembered and infused with the Spirit of Christ. He becomes our Spiritual Food and Drink just as bread and wine is necessary for our physical health and well-being.
Reawakening our gifts of the Holy Spirit at Baptism, confessing our sins, we allow the Holy Spirit to dwell with us anew and feed this new man with the only nourishment that is suitable for its sublime and Divine nature. It is why we are aghast at the sacrilige of those who will receive this Heavenly Food without preparing themeselve for it. If they have blocked the working of the Holy Spirit given them during Baptism by sin then it is a necessary requirement to remove the impediments to this Gift in order to feed that which is not dead in sin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It puzzles me too – but reading what Bosco and others have been writing, brought it to mind – I hope it is clear enough!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I thought it was. But I can’t speak for Bosco.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
As a never-was Evangelical, I’m baffled by the ‘Soul, Spirit, Body’ division Rob mentions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
As am I. It seems a concoction to make sense of the Spirit-Soul that we, and only mankind, received when we were made in the image and likeness of God. It may not hve been spoken of in metaphysical terms in the OT times but they also knew that their was a infinite difference between the ‘animus’ given to an animal or a plant and that which was given to man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dfxc said:
I’ve recently acquired a t-shirt emblazoned with the question: “What part of hoc est corpus meum don’t you understand?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
That humored me so much I went online and one for myself and for my wife. Thanks. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
orthodoxgirl99 said:
Yes, totally agree. I have observed also that those who regard the precious Body & Blood of Our Lord as merely symbolic trivialise its importance and reduce it to a level of being nothing more than one of Bosco’s ‘crackers’ and a ‘slurp of alcohol’.
There seems today to be an increasing trend of lack of due reverence to these Holy Gifts which I feel falls on the side of the clergy being lax in their teaching. Perhaps they are worried that if Christian preparation for the HS is made too difficult or put in a language that will make people think about it more deeply than they want to, they will not get the bums on seats. No wonder some have a frivolous approach to receiving the Holy Sacrament – not enough is made of what it REALLY is. After all, we are not queuing up for a take-away in Burger King!
When I go to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I love the fact that the priest offers this precious Gift to me using my Orthodox name, as he says the prayer and places the spoon in my mouth. This reminds me that Christ died for me and His Holy Gift is given for ME. Now THAT is awe-inspiring and very, very humbling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, the Orthodox get the awe-factor spot on in my experience. This is true of the Latin Mass, and even of a reverent Novus Ordo Mass. What I can’t bear is the casual way some NO Masses, and most Anglican services, treat the Blessed Sacraments.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Amen, amen. A great sacrilige if you ask me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
One of the (many) good things about the Anglo-Catholics in the c of E is that they treat the Blessed Sacrament with the respect owed to the Body and Blood of Christ.
As I am taking a few days off, I am re-reading some of the Anglo-Catholic theology I used to read many years ago – it is very good on all of these things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
We have some rather good, pre-modernist writings ourselves. Apparently much of that theology, as taught by the likes of Garrigou-Lagrange and Tanquerey are no longer being taught in seminary these days. I guess Tiehlhard is in and the Thomists are out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I have not tried Tanquerey, but cannot get on with Garrigou-Lagrange, I am afraid, Mind, I can’t with Tielhard, either! I am deep into Keble and Gore at the moment – marvellous stuff!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
You are skipping the teacher of JPII and the required readings of all seminarians of the pre-council days. My mentors were deep into both.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I must try him then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Indeed so. So you are brushing up on the thinking at the time of the Oxford Movement then . . . a connection to your beloved Newman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, I’ve been reading lots of Newman, but sme remarks in a set of essays on the Tractarians sent me off in the direction of Keble and Gore. Gore, who I used to read avidly when younger, I have not read for far too many years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I understand. Let’s not forget the greats from the earliest part of our own early 20th century Church history though. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I will eventually get to the twentieth century – but I don’t like the way the story goes just over half way through 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I know what you mean. Phenomenology is above my pay grade and about as dry as it come. And so many others sound as though they were dreamed up on an acid trip. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Would ‘The Spiritual Life’ be a good place to start with Tanquerey?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
That was theology 101 for seminarians (required reading) . . . so by all means.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thanks, I shall order a copy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I doubt you will be sorry that you did, my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Looking forward to its arrival soon!
LikeLiked by 1 person
orthodoxgirl99 said:
Yes, agree with you there Chalcedon, more’s the pity that the rest of the C of E do not hold the Blessed Sacrament with such reverence and awe. I first became aware of the incredible majesty of God when I was a child at school. The nuns allowed me to attend Benediction with them one afternoon a week – no idea why I was able to go to this! It is too long ago now but I absolutely loved it. This was my first experience of real love and devotion in the presence of God. I was only 7 or 8 years old and so did not intellectually understand what was happening in front of me but my child’s soul was captivated and delighted with the whole prayerful encounter with God. That was the beginning of my Christian pilgrimage and to this day I love Benediction. The ACs do it very well, with such reverence and prayerfulness and I still feel the same today whenever I go to this beautiful service.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I agree – children do naturally pick this up, if, as you were, they are exposed to the reverence.
LikeLike
Luisa said:
What on earth is an “Orthodox name”, pray?
Having lived in Greece, people had names, full stop. Never heard anything about “Orthodox names”.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Luisa, this article should help: http://saintandrew.net/christiannames.html
LikeLike