Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Holy Communion, consuming God, and the like

15:58 / 15.07.03

My mother puts a great value on the taking of communion at church, and it is considered a sacred ritual in most Christian Churches, although transubstantiation is not widely believed outside the Catholic faith.

I have never seen much in it, but I am interested in the practise, and I am interested whether any magicians here have or know much of similar practises.

Share.

Spyder Todd 2008

19:15 / 15.07.03

Okay, I have something.
Sometimes, I will have a bottle of water, and ask Aphrodite to bless it as her native birth waters. then I chug the whole bottle, as part of a magickal ritual to beg her help. I guess that's sort of a communion type thing.

19:53 / 15.07.03

Surely communion, or the eucharist, is much more complex than that? (Perhaps not in the Anglican Church - I don't know whether it is held to be symbolic in that Church or not). In the Roman Catholic church, as I understand it, transubstantiation means that the bread is literally the body of Christ, and the wine is literally the blood of Christ, as you ingest it.

08:46 / 16.07.03

*From a position of ignorance* I've never understood that. If it was literally flesh it would be, well, more meaty. And what about after it's digested? Has your body turned Christ into excrement, like a kind of reverse alchemy? Even at the last supper J was speaking metaphorically (he gave them bread and wine not human flesh and blood, right?) so where does this ludicrous (to me) literalism come from? How can sane people really believe the wafer becomes flesh?

09:16 / 16.07.03

The whole idea of transubstantiation comes from a lot of arguing and old guys who thought it was self evident. Quantum: you infer Jesus's words were metaphorical, as have a lot of other people in history, but he did not say "this is a metaphor" He said (whilst holding the magic cup aloft) "This is my blood".

The problem is in translation of course. Roman Catholics do believe that this is an literal translation (as KCC has said). It all comes down to Real Presence. There are many elements to it, and they differ depending on what brand of Christianity you're going for. In Roman Catholicism for example, the Real Presence of the Eucharist is total. The Totality of Real Presence therefore means not just the body and blood but the divinty and soul of Jesus, by virtue of hypostatic union. This was all decided at the Council of Trent.

They said (VERY breifly) that: Conversion (of the bread and wine into the blood and body of Christ) means that the last extreme (terminus ad quem) is only possible after the first (terminus a quo) ceases to be.

People came along and started banging on about Consubstantiation which is when the two states do not exist as extremes but together. This co-existence went against The Council of Trent's decisions and was therefore deemed to be (and still is) heretical. The best analogy of when both things can exist together by supporters of Consubstantiation is that Jesus's body was both.

Luther restricted Real Presence to the moment of reception - that is, because Christ is Real Present it doesn't depend on eating and drinking per se. The Anglican Church takes its lead from Lutherian doctrine and persists in being incredibly vague on the subject, with some people believing in Transubstantiation, some Consubstantiation and some in a purely spiritual Presence.

Spyder Todd 2008

13:35 / 16.07.03

KCC, as Robin Williams recently put it, Episcopalianism is Catholic Lite. All the rules still apply, but no one really cares as much...
I have to say, though, The Christian communion thing is right up there with their resurrection stuff. I can read about it and look at it, and even participate with it if I want too(hurrah for chaos magic and changing any rule you want!), but I still can't see the point. Maybe it meant something special and highly significant two thousand years ago, but having watched people do it, and had the Christ Crackers myself, it just seems like people go through the motions for the sake of going through said motions. It doesn't mean anything to them, they're just going up to get their punch and cookies.

15:09 / 16.07.03

Quantum: you infer Jesus's words were metaphorical, as have a lot of other people in history, but he did not say "this is a metaphor" He said (whilst holding the magic cup aloft) "This is my blood".
But it was a cup of wine, if he wanted to fill a cup with his blood a knife would do the job. I could even accept that Jesus transformed the wine into blood (easier than his other miracles), but when did he say he passed that talent on to priests?
Is it like a miracle on demand, every Sunday the priest asks the holy spirit to transform the wafer into Jesus' flesh and it obliges?

16:58 / 16.07.03

This article offers an explanation of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation based on the idea of 'substance':

The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change; we know it only by faith in God’s word.

After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents.

There are loads of sites out there refuting this, of course, including Jack Chick's site (no surprises there...).

Wikipedia has a useful section on this (including a comment on the variable positions of Anglicans regarding the subject).

Spyder - just because you find no meaning in a ritual doesn't mean that it is also bankrupt for other people. There are millions of Christians out there, among whom there are umpteen thousands who are most definitely not going up for their punch and cookies. Judge not, that ye be not judged.

18:09 / 16.07.03

but when did he say he passed that talent on to priests?

Do the words "do this in remembrance of me" ring any bells?

10:24 / 17.07.03

Nope, I'm pretty much ignorant of Catholic ceremonies, indeed Christian rituals in general. A few weddings and christenings is about all I've seen. It all seems strange and alien to me, I just don't get the mindset.

Spyder Todd 2008

13:06 / 17.07.03

Q, I've seen them all, been to hundreds of their cerimonies, and it still seems alien ti me....

16:41 / 17.07.03

All the fuss about it being literal is really just a means to strengthen the magic of the miracle. Its a foci for faith. The miracle happens because you and everyone else involved believe it is so, even if the physical matter of it is still bread and wine. The rest, including all the insistence that ite LITERAL is PR by the church to keep the faithful believing, which is what makes it real. Stronger myth makes stronger magic.

Dogmatic tactics aside, the rite of communion is a pretty basic one. Food is invested with spirit, and ingested. Spirit is then passed to the person. Simple, no? In lesser form, the common rite of blessing a meal is along the same lines. I know reiki folks who attune their food before eating it, for much the same effect.

But actually investing it with your God does go a bit further, as you are taking a bit of the spirit of the diety into yourself. Back to Catholics, after receiving communion, one is supposed to have a period of prayer and reflection, wherein one can have mystical experiences and actually *commune* with God. That's really the point of the mass, though there are elements of "feeding the soul" as well. Most of the mass is a part of the ritual to set up the communion, which is the thing I always liked about the Catholic mass over more general Christian services. There's some real power there when its done well, and I was spoiled growing up with a priest that really had a handle on it. (His name was Crowley, amusingly enough. The irony of that just tickles me still.)

Anyway, the same can be applied to other dieties in a ritual setting. Communion in this sense can be a part of your magical toolbox. Ritually prepare the offering, imbue it with the intended spirit, and then eat it, allowing the spirit to then enter you. Cue Mystical experience.

An interesting counter to this is the way food offerings work in Voodoo. There, one is offering the food to the spirits, who are understood to drain all nourishment out of it. So, should one then eat the food, it would do nothign for them, having already fed the spirits. Proper and accepted offerings are thus noted to shrivel after being left on the alter, rather than decompose. Though the process of imbuing and eating happens at times as well. I guess its just a really handy tool that way.

10:24 / 18.07.03

Thought I'd chime in...

Crowley writes somewhere that the "Eucharist is the most perfect of rituals, because it is a complete circle" (that's not an exact quote either, 'scuse my dodgy memory). By which I assume he meant man makes soemthing God, consumes it and thereby becomes God. Kind of bootstrapping yourself up into divinity. This is interesting because in reference to Crowley's stuff, he's talking about sexual ritual, and the consumption of sexual fluids. I've seen a lot for references in Thelema discussions to the consumption of the "cakes of light" in Crowley's Gnostic Mass, which contain the menstrual blood of the priestess. I've never read this rite and detail though (and I fear a lot of it's symbolism would be lost on me , not being familar with Catholic ritual). Is there anybody here of a Thelemic disposition who can comment?

10:43 / 18.07.03

Here's a copy of Crowley's Gnostic Mass. Can anybody here comment on the intentions or symbolism behind this rite. I find it fascinating, even if it is a bit "high church".

11:07 / 18.07.03

Not sure about the magick elements of this, but I have seen lots of catholic ceremonies.

My impression was that, despite official doctrine, one takes the strong pronouncements of catholicism in a different way than one takes an alarming health warning, say. Everyone agrees that transubstantiation is literally true. Oh yes, absolutely. But I don't think people *really* believe it. I think that cusm is right in saying that it serves as a focus for belief and lends power to the ritual.

I think part of the point of catholicism is believing in things that one cannot intellectually defend, thus forcing faith to the fore.

The Return Of Rothkoid

12:12 / 18.07.03

Lurid: surely that's true of most religions, not just catholicism?

Speaking as a lapsed catholic, I can say that you're meant to take it as true. You know fundamentally that a piece of badly-flavoured wafer isn't exactly like chowing down on JC's well-seasoned hocks, but you accept it because it's symbolic. Perhaps I'm a little more casual about it because when I grew up, the wine wasn't given to kids (which might've aided the "this is my blood" bit, purely because it would've been as alien as a pint fulla O-), but it is believed, generally, that you are ingesting Christ's body, albeit symbolically.

(Sidenote: went to a funeral about a fortnight ago, first church I'd been to in years, and found that with the incense, the prayer, the emotion, it had more of a pull on me than I'd believed I'd fall prey to. Ritual is the shit, even catholic ritual.)

13:27 / 18.07.03

Ritual is the shit, even catholic ritual
second that, religious rituals are often the most powerful (as long as you believe). The weight of history I suppose, they've had time to perfect them.

Remember in Huxley's Doors to Perception & Heaven and Hell? He said the church experience was basically an altered state, designed in mediaeval times to induce religious experience. The singing increases the CO2 concentration in your blood, the stained glass is likely the brightest colours you see all year (as a feudal peasant) the hall is grand, scented with incense, you're sharing the experience with your community, you're likely sickly, malnourished and tripping on ergot etc.
Ritual is the bomb, and seems to be a method of obtaining religious experience, as much a drug as whirling dervishes dances or peyote buttons.

So I just don't get the watered down modern religious ceremonies. If I went to church and it was numinous and amazing and I felt like I was talking to God, I'd be a regular churchgoer- as it is, the modern equivalent is clubbing. As Maxi Jazz sings about dance music "This is like a modern day hymn for the new church".
Talking to God has become as private experience IMO, group worship seems to be on the way out.

13:47 / 18.07.03

Minor quibble with that - most mediaeval lay churchgoers wouldn't have been singing. Doesn't alter the main substance of the argument though.