The true significance of the Communion

The "Prescence" in communion cannot be the focus in worship when the Son of God is.

There is a warning that no believer should ignore as being an iniquity, because of the danger of being left behind at the pre tribulational rapture event.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

So you decide if this warning about idolatry is not about believing Christ's Presence is in the bread & the wine.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? 23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

So making His one time sacrifice for sin present to consume again is idolatry and provoking the Lord to jealousy. Therefore God would not have Christ's Presence in the Communion when His glory of the Son is Him being in us; not the bread & the wine.

Tellastory said:

The "Prescence" in communion cannot be the focus in worship when the Son of God is.

There is a warning that no believer should ignore as being an iniquity, because of the danger of being left behind at the pre tribulational rapture event.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

So you decide if this warning about idolatry is not about believing Christ's Presence is in the bread & the wine.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? 23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

So making His one time sacrifice for sin present to consume again is idolatry and provoking the Lord to jealousy. Therefore God would not have Christ's Presence in the Communion when His glory of the Son is Him being in us; not the bread & the wine.

Click to expand...

That's not what the Church believed for the first 1,500 years.

The doctrine of the Orthodox is that in the epiclesis of the Anaphora, that is the invocation of the Holy Spirit following the Institution Narrative, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of our Lord.

In the Coptic Divine Liturgy this is expressed with particular emphasis by the Priest before the distribution of the Eucharist:
"Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath that this is the life-giving Flesh that You have taken, O Christ my God, from our Lady, the Lady of us all, the Holy Theotokos, Saint Mary."

The main difference from the Roman Catholic Church is although we reserve the Eucharist, and in the Byzantine and West Syriac Rite there are Presanctified Liturgies (the Byzantine Presanctified Liturgy is very similiar to the pre-1955 Roman Mass of the Preaanctified), we do not display the consecrated Eucharist in a monstrance or venerate the tabernacle. In addition, only the Armenians serve the Divine Liturgy with only the Priest partaking, and only in Lent, a liturgical peculiarity of their Rite.

Righttruth said:

This is not supported by the apostles who were present during this event. Gospels books don't mention the word 'remembrance.'

Click to expand...

Scholarship indicates that the Pauline epistles predate all four Gospel Books. And of the Gospels, only one was written by someone known to be present at the Last Supper.

TheBarrd said:

Something that always bothered me...the Last Supper was supposed to be a Passover meal.
But it couldn't have been. The Passover meal wouldn't have been eaten at that time...what to us would have been Thursday night, but to the Jews a day was from sunset to sunset...so it would have been Friday, or the day of preparation.

I believe that what this was, was a breaking of a fast...The Fast of The Firstborn. All firstborn Jews would fast on the day before the day of preparation...but then, after sundown, so that they would not go into the festivities hungry, they would break their fast with a light meal, possibly of bread and wine.
The following day, Friday, would have been the day of preparation, when the lamb was slaughtered and everything was made ready for the feast. Saturday being the Sabbath, the feast must be ready, because there could be no work done, as in preparing food on that day. That is why Jesus and the others had to be down from the cross by sunset.

I wonder if we may have misunderstood...not the remembrance part...but the significance of what we are doing.
Just a thought.....

Click to expand...

The Orthodox disagree with Rome that it was a passover meal, hence our use of unleavened bread, except for the Armenians.
So this is a dogma among the Eastern Orthodox, but not dogmatic in the Oriental Orthodox communion, of which the Armenians are members (but not in accord with the Copts, Syriacs and Ethiopians). That's one thing I like about the OO communion; there is room for some theological diversity.

Tellastory said:

So .... one has to do the sacraments even though it is a representative of "grace & forgiveness"? Is that not what the RCC is using the sacraments for as a means to obtain grace & forgiveness?

Sounds like just cause for dropping the word "sacrament". You do not need to use that word in performing communion.

Click to expand...

When I was a kid, I was taught that a "sacrament" was "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace".
Baptism, for instance, would be a "sacrament" under that description, and so would marriage.
And, of course, the Communion.

In Orthodoxy we prefer to call the Eucharist, Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, Holy Unction, Matrimony and Ordination "mysteries"; the word sacrament is commonly used for ease of comprehension by Western Christians. We have our own terms for a lot of things. Church buildings are temples or houses, Epiphany is Theophany, in the Eucharist the Host is called the Lamb, the Paten is called the diskos, the abbot of a monastery, the hegumen, and so on. Most notably, Easter is called Pascha generally speaking. But I try not to be doctrinaire about terminology, because if we stuck to our EO jargon exclusively, other Christisns would be completely bewildered, and I don't think language should be used to alienate.

TheBarrd said:

When I was a kid, I was taught that a "sacrament" was "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace".

Click to expand...

Or "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace that was ordained by Christ and has physical elements."

Only Baptism and Communion meet the test in that case and, incidentally, this is why the Anglican church rejected as "sacraments of the Gospel" the other five...because they either had no physical properties (like Penance/Reconciliation/Confession) or because they predated Christ (as, for example, Matrimony). By this reckoning also the Roman Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist is invalidated as a sacrament because, if the RCC's theory about it (transubstantiation)were accepted, there would be no physical properties.

Albion said:

Or "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace that was ordained by Christ and has physical elements."

Only Baptism and Communion meet the test in that case and, incidentally, this is why the Anglican church rejected as "sacraments of the Gospel" the other five...because they either had no physical properties (like Penance/Reconciliation/Confession) or because they predated Christ (as, for example, Matrimony). By this reckoning also the Roman Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist is invalidated as a sacrament because, if the RCC's theory about it (transubstantiation)were accepted, there would be no physical properties.

Click to expand...

I was a young Episcopalian, studying to be "confirmed"...I remember learning the catechism and I remember learning about sacraments. I'm quite sure baptism was included, and what we called "Holy Communion", although there was nothing about it turning into actual flesh and blood...a rather nauseating notion, I think. And I do remember that marriage was mentioned, although I was only 12, and not too interested in boys just yet.

I only remember the bit about the "outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace"...probably because it has a catchy rhythm to it when you say it. I don't recall anything about "physical properties"...although I suppose being "outward and visible" would pretty much cover that.
I would have said that a sacrament was something ordained by God...but ordained by Christ is the same thing. Except I don't see how marriage could be excluded on the grounds that it "predated Christ"...since Christ was in the beginning with God.

TheBarrd said:

I was a young Episcopalian, studying to be "confirmed"...I remember learning the catechism and I remember learning about sacraments. I'm quite sure baptism was included, and what we called "Holy Communion", although there was nothing about it turning into actual flesh and blood...a rather nauseating notion, I think. And I do remember that marriage was mentioned, although I was only 12, and not too interested in boys just yet.

I only remember the bit about the "outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace"...probably because it has a catchy rhythm to it when you say it. I don't recall anything about "physical properties"...although I suppose being "outward and visible" would pretty much cover that.

Click to expand...

By that latter part is meant simply that Christ had to have ordained the ceremony for it to be considered a sacrament of the Gospel (some people consider the other 5 to be "lesser" sacraments, sacraments that are not necessary for salvation, or sacraments created by the church rather than by Christ--"sacramentals," in other words).

Jesus did not ordain Matrimony as we can easily see by the fact that he was present at the marriage feast of Cana, which was already underway according to Jewish usage.

As for the phrase you refer to, yes, that is the way it is usually taught (the shorter version) because this tells us what it does. The longer wording is more a theological explanation of what is necessary for any ceremony to qualify as a sacrament.

Wgw said:

In Orthodoxy we prefer to call the Eucharist, Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, Holy Unction, Matrimony and Ordination "mysteries"; the word sacrament is commonly used for ease of comprehension by Western Christians. We have our own terms for a lot of things. Church buildings are temples or houses, Epiphany is Theophany, in the Eucharist the Host is called the Lamb, the Paten is called the diskos, the abbot of a monastery, the hegumen, and so on. Most notably, Easter is called Pascha generally speaking. But I try not to be doctrinaire about terminology, because if we stuck to our EO jargon exclusively, other Christisns would be completely bewildered, and I don't think language should be used to alienate.

Click to expand...

I have a couple of questions. First what is "Chrismation"? That's a new word to me. And I never was too sure what "Holy Unction" was, either, although I have heard the term. I thought "Theophany" meant an appearance of Christ other than His lifetime...for instance, in the furnace with the three Hebrew children.
I have heard Easter called "Pascha"...I had thought it was a Jewish term. You learn something new every day, I suppose...

The Sacraments

"Sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 857).

Besides baptism and the Eucharist (Holy Communion), the church recognizes other spiritual markers in our journey of faith. These include:

• Confirmation (the adult affirmation of our baptismal vows), pp. 413-419, Book of Common Prayer
• Reconciliation of a Penitent (private confession), pp. 447-452, Book of Common Prayer
• Matrimony (Christian marriage), pp. 422-438, Book of Common Prayer
• Orders (ordination to deacon, priest, or bishop), pp. 510-555, Book of Common Prayer
• Unction (anointing with oil those who are sick or dying) pp. 453-467, Book of Common Prayer

These help us to be a sacramental people, seeing God always at work around us.

from: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/page/sacraments

TheBarrd said:

I have a couple of questions. First what is "Chrismation"? That's a new word to me. And I never was too sure what "Holy Unction" was, either, although I have heard the term. I thought "Theophany" meant an appearance of Christ other than His lifetime...for instance, in the furnace with the three Hebrew children.
I have heard Easter called "Pascha"...I had thought it was a Jewish term. You learn something new every day, I suppose...

Click to expand...

Easter is commonly called Passover or Pascha in the non English speaking world. For example the Dutch word for it is Passen.

Holy Unction is the annointing of the sick with oil. The full service in the Greek/Russian and Coptic Rites is quite long and consists of seven sets of prayers, epistle, and gospel readings, and was historically served by seven priests, although nowadays outside of monasteries fewer priests are likely to officiate, maybe just one. The entire congregation is anointed in the Coptic church on the last Friday in Lent, and in the Greek/Russian/Byzantine Rite on Wednesday evening in Holy Week. The congregation may be anointed at other times by the priest at his discretion. Compare to the Roman Rite where only the sick are anointed, in past centuries, only at the point of death. Holy unction like the Eucharist is efficacious; the former delivered me from nightmares, the latter, from stomach flu, on two memorable occasions.

Chrismation is what the Roman Rite calls Confirmation. Like the Romans, we annoint with Chrism, also called Myron (Myrhh) during the service, but we Chrismate immediately after baptism both infants and converts. We then immediately give the Eucharist (To infants,a tiny drop of wine, diluted of course heavily with water, as we pour boiling hot water into the chalice before the priest takes communion and then communes the congregation, both because blood and water poured from the side of our Lord, and to make the wine warm, like blood; to this drop of wine we add a miniscule particle of bread). Except in the Serbian church, all baptisms are by full immersion.

Any appearance or manifestation of Christ that is genuine and not a demonic impersonation (we suspect some Roman Catholic mystical encounters reported with our Lord and the Virgin Mary, such as Fatima, may fall into this category sadly), is a Christophany. The Epiphany is called the Feast of the Theophany because all three members of the Holy Trinity were present: our Lord in his incarnate flesh was baptized as the Holy Spirit descended as a dove, and the voice of the Father resonated "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased."

Orthodoxy fascinated me for years before I converted. I always believed in Transsubstantiation; I was a Methodist, and as the liturgy of the Methodist church, the traditional hymns of Charles Wesley, were abandoned, and a praise band took over one church in my area, and an abusive liberal pastor who was homosexual, who hated me because of my views regarding human sexuality, the other, I felt alienated. So I researched what John Wesley taught in theology and found doctrinally he was very close to Orthodoxy in terms of his views on Entire Sanctification, the Trinity, and so on. So I crossed the Bosphorus, as they say. However I was thrilled to discover that liturgically and spiritually this was a much richer experience than Methodism; the mystical theology of the Eastern church in terms of monasticism, the Desert Fathers of Egypt, the Hesychasts of Mount Arhos and so far, and the pure beauty of Orthodox worship astonished me. The Orthodox liturgy is like a meeting between Heaven and Earth and if you approach it with humility and innocence, I believe that you can come to know our Lord as His disciples did in the Gospel of St. Luke, in the breaking of bread.

It's a bit like Buddhism in the focus on controlling the passioms and on a sort of mystical-experiential approach, but whereas Buddhism only offers what amounts to oblivion at the end of the Noble Eightfold Path, Orthodoxy offers Theosis, the ancient Christians like St. Athansius, who compiled the New Testament canon that is in your Bible, believed that salvation was effected through God becoming man so that man could become god, that is to say, that we could become by grace what Christ is by nature, sons of God by adoption, not in the crude Mormon sense but in a sense of deep humility and love, that is to say, like God in shedding our fallen, sinful nature through grace imparted in the Sacraments, and acquiring the virtues of God. So rather than merely being restored to what Adam was, our Lord offers us not only salvation but the possibility of an eternal life that consists of perpetually growing closer to the divine perfection, far surpassing Adam, or rather doing what Adam was supposed to have done had he not fallen into sin.

Wgw said:

That's not what the Church believed for the first 1,500 years.

Click to expand...

If the disciples or Paul had not aught plainly that there was a "Presence" in the bread & the wine, then that is what the Church today should discern & reprove of.

No one should base their walk with Jesus on the Church that supposedly claims to have represented Him for the first 1,500 years. If the disciples nor Paul taught plainly as this "Church" had done supposedly for the first 1,500 years ago, there would be no debate nor need for discernment. WE are called to prove all things and abstain from all appearances of evil, trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as our own personal Good Shepherd to help us follow Him as His disciple rather than a disciple of a denomenational church.

TheBarrd said:

The Sacraments

"Sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 857).

Besides baptism and the Eucharist (Holy Communion), the church recognizes other spiritual markers in our journey of faith. These include:

• Confirmation (the adult affirmation of our baptismal vows), pp. 413-419, Book of Common Prayer
• Reconciliation of a Penitent (private confession), pp. 447-452, Book of Common Prayer
• Matrimony (Christian marriage), pp. 422-438, Book of Common Prayer
• Orders (ordination to deacon, priest, or bishop), pp. 510-555, Book of Common Prayer
• Unction (anointing with oil those who are sick or dying) pp. 453-467, Book of Common Prayer

These help us to be a sacramental people, seeing God always at work around us.

from: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/page/sacraments

Click to expand...

.....................................................................................................................................
Question. How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church?
Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Question. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament?
Answer. I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.
Question. How many parts are there in a Sacrament?
Answer. Two; the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace.

From: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Catechism.htm
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Catechism.htm The Book of Common Prayer

Wgw said:

The doctrine of the Orthodox is that in the epiclesis of the Anaphora, that is the invocation of the Holy Spirit following the Institution Narrative, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of our Lord.

Click to expand...

It does not need to become supernaturally the actual body & blood of our Lord Jesus Christ "if" we are doing communion in remembrance of Him, therefore the bread & the wine are merely symbolic for that body & blood which was to be given in remembrance of Him; not in service of receiving Him again.

In the Coptic Divine Liturgy this is expressed with particular emphasis by the Priest before the distribution of the Eucharist:

"Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath that this is the life-giving Flesh that You have taken, O Christ my God, from our Lady, the Lady of us all, the Holy Theotokos, Saint Mary."

Click to expand...

So here is an example of a deviation never taught by Paul nor Jesus for giving communion.

And the "how" to in receiving this "life giving flesh" was by coming to & believing in Jesus Christ. It is not the eating thereof is how to receive "Him" but by coming to & believing in Him was, and yet Jesus explained to the Jews why they had not received this bread after requesting Him for it because He told them they believed not in Him.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

John 6th chapter was never about communion but about how we are saved by coming to & believing in Jesus Christ. That is "how" one receives this bread of life.

The main difference from the Roman Catholic Church is although we reserve the Eucharist, and in the Byzantine and West Syriac Rite there are Presanctified Liturgies (the Byzantine Presanctified Liturgy is very similiar to the pre-1955 Roman Mass of the Preaanctified), we do not display the consecrated Eucharist in a monstrance or venerate the tabernacle. In addition, only the Armenians serve the Divine Liturgy with only the Priest partaking, and only in Lent, a liturgical peculiarity of their Rite.

Click to expand...

Neither Catholic "communion" service is taught plainly by Jesus nor His disciples anywhere in the N.T., but there are plenty of scripture that shows plainly what communion is just for; doing it in remembrance of Him; not for anything else as much as the "Church" places an emphasis on with such lengths of words that any believer should wonder how Jesus & His disciples had neglect such an importance. The answer is, they did not because that is not what they had taught.

Wgw said:

Scholarship indicates that the Pauline epistles predate all four Gospel Books. And of the Gospels, only one was written by someone known to be present at the Last Supper.

Click to expand...

Just because there were no surviving documents of the four Gospels as predating the epistles of Paul, it does not mean that scholarship is correct.

Wgw said:

The Orthodox disagree with Rome that it was a passover meal, hence our use of unleavened bread, except for the Armenians.
So this is a dogma among the Eastern Orthodox, but not dogmatic in the Oriental Orthodox communion, of which the Armenians are members (but not in accord with the Copts, Syriacs and Ethiopians). That's one thing I like about the OO communion; there is room for some theological diversity.

Click to expand...

Is there room for confirming or reproving OO communion by the scripture with no oppositions from other parts of scripture that would reprove it or is it left alone?

If the OO desire the EO & Rome to consider going over all of their dogmas in that manner to make sure they are doing communion rightly, then the OO has to lead by example.

TheBarrd said:

When I was a kid, I was taught that a "sacrament" was "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace".
Baptism, for instance, would be a "sacrament" under that description, and so would marriage.
And, of course, the Communion.

Click to expand...

Was it not also taught as a means to obtain grace when doing the sacraments?

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. KJV

Albion said:

Or "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace that was ordained by Christ and has physical elements."

Only Baptism and Communion meet the test in that case and, incidentally, this is why the Anglican church rejected as "sacraments of the Gospel" the other five...because they either had no physical properties (like Penance/Reconciliation/Confession) or because they predated Christ (as, for example, Matrimony). By this reckoning also the Roman Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist is invalidated as a sacrament because, if the RCC's theory about it (transubstantiation)were accepted, there would be no physical properties.

Click to expand...

And as that is evidence of pruning that was done by the Anglican church by the grace & help of our Lord Jesus Christ, so then there is necessity to discern that more prunings are needed if one seeks to lead by example for other believers to follow as His disciple.

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.