tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post9157683052181103586..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Church and eucharistBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-51716300046212790112011-08-15T23:08:48.863-04:002011-08-15T23:08:48.863-04:00Thanks, Ben, and thanks, George.Yours in Christ - ...Thanks, Ben, and thanks, George.<br><br>Yours in Christ - JOHN HARTLEY.John Hartleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-9137083461470726122009-03-09T15:18:00.000-04:002009-03-09T15:18:00.000-04:00Thanks, Ben, and thanks, George.Yours in Christ - ...Thanks, Ben, and thanks, George.<BR/><BR/>Yours in Christ - JOHN HARTLEY.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-67778628361315804622009-03-09T10:27:00.000-04:002009-03-09T10:27:00.000-04:00I'm pleased to note that we have a general agreeme...I'm pleased to note that we have a general agreement in this thread.<BR/><BR/>In my book I suggest that Protestant worship, insofar as it gives us preaching without the eucharist, is like a head without a torso, but that sacramental worship, if it involves the eucharist without preaching, is much the reverse.<BR/><BR/>So there may be more than one way to fall into misplaced concreteness.<BR/><BR/>If there is a sacrament that "makes" the church, however, I should have thought it was baptism.<BR/><BR/>What needs to be held together in a proper understanding of worship, it seems to me, are three matters: the kerygmatic, the sacramental, and the missional. I try to interpret the eucharist from this standpoint.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-77820765498960894432009-03-08T17:48:00.000-04:002009-03-08T17:48:00.000-04:00Hi John. As George says above, the idea that "the ...Hi John. As George says above, the idea that "the eucharist makes the church" has been an important stream within Catholic theology since de Lubac. For my part, I'd tend to agree with George (and with your own remark) that <I>Christ</I> gathers the church through the gospel. But of course Catholic theologians like Cavanaugh would still agree with this statement — they would just emphasise the real action of Christ in the eucharist.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-48082770770865111652009-03-08T13:15:00.001-04:002009-03-08T13:15:00.001-04:00Dear Ben,Pardon my ignorance, but ...Why would any...Dear Ben,<BR/><BR/>Pardon my ignorance, but ...<BR/><BR/>Why would anyone want to say that <B>the eucharist makes the church</B>? It sounds like the sort of statement made in a Roman Catholic document or an ecumenical one like ARCIC, although I can't track it down, but why would anyone want to make it?<BR/><BR/>Moveover, there's a strong strand in Christianity which would deny it. For instance, Vincent Donovan (author of "Christianity Rediscovered") - wouldn't he say that there is the gospel message and the response? There's the preaching of Jesus to people, and there is their response to him by putting their faith in him. And the church and all that is in it, including the eucharist, is secondary. Wouldn't Donovan say "<B>the gospel makes the church</B>, and further that the church then makes the eucharist, in that the manner and form of giving thanks is the domain of the church to decide for itself?<BR/><BR/>So perhaps you could fill us in with some background as to why Cavanaugh would want to expound what one might mean by such a statement?<BR/><BR/>Many thanks in Christ - JOHN HARTLEY.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-15004414972554759902009-03-07T14:18:00.000-05:002009-03-07T14:18:00.000-05:00I have always been puzzled by the idea that "the e...I have always been puzzled by the idea that "the eucharist makes the church." Reading de Lubac's "Corpus Mysticum," where the phrase seems to have originated, did not shed much light.<BR/><BR/>For an alternative account see my book "The Eucharist and Ecumenism" (Cambridge 2008). I argue that it would be better to say that Christ makes the church -- through Word and Sacrament, in the power of the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>I suggest that while the eucharist fulfills the church, the church is more properly understood as creatura verbum De, the creature of God's Word, when it comes to the means by which it is "made" and governed in Christ.<BR/><BR/>None of this shift in emphasis would greatly conflict with the spirit of Cavanaugh's quoted remakrs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-62823551535405209322009-03-06T10:14:00.000-05:002009-03-06T10:14:00.000-05:00The church 'is a thing that is not'Like that gobby...The church 'is a thing that is not'<BR/>Like that gobby green string of nose snot<BR/>It's useless but fun<BR/>Changes shape in the s-n<BR/>Try to share it, you'll get all tied up in nots.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com