Communion: Body and Blood or rememberance?

[food4thought]

I was recently moved to seek out a more complete understanding of communion; most specifically the idea of whether bread and wine/grape juice is to be viewed as actually being the body and blood of Jesus or symbols that cause us to remember His sacrifice.

I must admit that Hebrews 9-10 causes me to lean towards the idea of rememberance... but I would like to invite others to offer scriptural reasons for taking this more literally. Obviously, I am familiar with John 6, so other references besides this chapter would be very helpful.
Thanks

 

[Theophorus]

I was recently moved to seek out a more complete understanding of communion; most specifically the idea of whether bread and wine/grape juice is to be viewed as actually being the body and blood of Jesus or symbols that cause us to remember His sacrifice.

I must admit that Hebrews 9-10 causes me to lean towards the idea of rememberance... but I would like to invite others to offer scriptural reasons for taking this more literally. Obviously, I am familiar with John 6, so other references besides this chapter would be very helpful.
Thanks

There is the 1 Corinthian passages that speak of discerning the Lord's body.

There is also the passage in Genesis speaking of Melchizedek offering bread and wine. Christ is a priest after this order. The writer of Hebrews had much to say on this figure but, they were dull of hearing and were not ready for the meat of his teaching.

Melchizedek/Christ, priests of the same order. Melchizedek's offering forshadows the Eucharist, which the King Priest Christ offers. It is more than a meditation. It is a mystery that goes back to Abraham and the 14th chapter of Genesis.

 

[BigNorsk]

1 Corinthians 10:16 NET.
(16) Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

This verse asks the reader two questions, both of which demand a "Yes" answer from the reader. If you hold to the memorial only position you have to answer the questions with a "No".

Marv

 

[PearlOfGreatPrice]

Whilst there is most certainly the aspect of memorial, like other sacrements it is also an outward sign of inward Grace - taking his body and blood into us as His Holy Spirit works through us.

When the bread is offered it is 'the body of Christ, broken for you' - His sacrifice for our sins, our souls/spirits being shed of sin.

When the wine is offered it is 'the blood of Christ shed for you' - his blood sacrifice washing us clean.

We take that into us - that Christ indwell in our hearts.

Blessings

 

[God Child]

I don't think it's literal. When Jesus said what he said in John 6:53-58 I don't think he was wanting them to grab their knives and pitchforks and start eating him. It's obviously figurative, like when he said to cut of your hand and pluck out your eye if they cause you to stumble...

 

[Lynn73]

My view is that it's a remembrance but this in no way makes it any less serious imho. Jesus said to this in remembrance of Me. He was still standing in His body with His blood in His veins when He said "this is by body, this is my blood" so what He means is these elements represent my body and blood. Do it in remembrance of Me. You'll find plenty of disagreement on this,though.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I was recently moved to seek out a more complete understanding of communion; most specifically the idea of whether bread and wine/grape juice is to be viewed as actually being the body and blood of Jesus or symbols that cause us to remember His sacrifice.

I must admit that Hebrews 9-10 causes me to lean towards the idea of rememberance... but I would like to invite others to offer scriptural reasons for taking this more literally. Obviously, I am familiar with John 6, so other references besides this chapter would be very helpful.
Thanks

MY views...



Matthew 26:26-28

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when ee was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



MY view of His presense...


1. I believe the meaning of is is is.


2. I beleive that we literally receive Christ, in both natures (Real Presense). This is a view shared by Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican Christians.


3. I believe we ALSO receive bread and wine, so that we receive 4 things: Body, Blood, bread and wine. I leave the physics of that completely to mystery.




Personal opinions...


1. The Bible actually says little about this ritual. But I believe it was important in the first century church and has a long, strong, positive history among us. I embrace that this is something the whole (catholic) church does together, that's very meaningful to me, there is a very, very strong "community" aspect to "communion."


2. The Eucharist is God's way of hugging us.


3. I view this as a Sacrament (something God does for us in love) rather than as an Ordinance (something we do for God in obedience). I view it as Gospel, not Law. A blessing, not obedience (although that's involved).


4. I find it profoundly odd and sad that this Blessing, meant to unite us and express our COMMUNION, is something Christians love to fight over and use in divisive, hurtful, exclusive and sometimes prideful ways. Ironic beyond understanding.


MY $0.01...


Keep the faith! Share the love!


- Josiah



.

 

[eoe]

I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom.

 

[PaladinValer]

CaliforniaJosiah, be careful...that isn't the teaching of the Anglican Church.

 

[lmnop9876]

CaliforniaJosiah, be careful...that isn't the teaching of the Anglican Church

this? he did not say that the 'consubstantiationist' view was held by Anglicans.

2. I beleive that we literally receive Christ, in both natures (Real Presense). This is a view shared by Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican Christians.

 

[Lynn73]

I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom.

Nice little jab there to those who disagree with your view of communion.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

From my post #7 ...

4. I find it profoundly odd and sad that this Blessing, meant to unite us and express our COMMUNION, is something Christians love to fight over and use in divisive, hurtful, exclusive and sometimes prideful ways. Ironic beyond understanding.

 

[eoe]

Nice little jab there to those who disagree with your view of communion.

That was not a jab. That was a quote from the communion prayer that people recite before going forward. It is a reminder to be careful who we reveal things to. While Christians are the only ones that are supposed to post here - anyone can read what is posted by us.

 

[StPaul]

I was in prayer,... meditating on our Lord and God... (and my thoughts wondered through this topic...)

It is interesting,...

There are certain aspects that we know about God. For instance, God is all-powerful, All-knowing, ever present, etc. (I apologize for not knowing all the nifty 'technical' terms for this).

We also know that God is Truth,.. meaning He cannot lie or contain falsehood. I was thinking about this particular aspect... and what came to my mind was 'why'?... Why or how can God not contain Falsehood?

I know it's a weird question... but it lead to a powerful understanding... I mean... God cannot contain falsehood or lie because He is All-Powerful....

What He says is so... God said "let there be light"... and there was light...

If God were to 'try' to speak a lie by saying that I was a dog or something, because of His being all-powerful I would begin barking, grow ears/snout/etc, and be a dog... It is in His capacity... He is the creator...

Our Lord was sent by the Father,... our Lord was/is God... and our Lord asked us to do something important before He was crucified...

He asked us to do something in remembrance of Him, but what was that thing?

At the last supper, he asked the Apostles to take, eat,... and to take, drink... in remembrance of Him (thus we should do it as well) but Eat and Drink what?

He said... eat/drink.... "this is my Body,... this is my Blood (the cup of the New Covenant)"....

How does this happen? How can something like bread and wine be our Lord's Body and Blood?

We do not know, but our Lord said that it was so. It is through the Glory of God that it does happen. I do not have faith because I have eyes... and I do not depend on what I see to have faith... I Trust in the words of our Lord.

I hope I was a little help in understanding.

God Bless!

 

[sempervirens]

It is a reminder to be careful who we reveal things to.

I often think the eucharist is the most important example of needing to cling to tradition along side scripture. I see John 6, and I see Paul's admonitions about discerning the body, but my sense is writers of scripture held back somewhat considering how important we view it. It was a truth to be shared in person among believers. The obscurity of the liturgy when viewed from the outside is one of the reasons early Christians were accused of cannibalism.

Also consider that in accounts of the resurrection, Jesus only appeared to believers; I think a parallel exists with the Eucharist and the church. It was to be safeguarded in the liturgy, not in the written word. Even today I think catechumens are dismissed after the Liturgy of the Word.

And as Flannery O'Conner said, "well if its a symbol, to hell with it".

Both Catholic and Orthodox agree on the real presence of the eucharist; it's the very essence of the faith. To some the importance placed on it may sound like pride or strident but from inside it looks as if nothing else matters. Thats why I view Orthodox as our ecumenical partners beyond measure, thats why the schism hurts so deep. Whether we reunite in my lifetime or on the last day I do not know, but when we do, I know it will be because of the eucharist.

 

[stray bullet]

-

The idea that communion involves only a remembrance instead of a Real Presence, stems not from a biblical basis, but was a theological necessity.

During the Reformation, some of the protestants rejected the notion of receiving continual grace, which the Real Presence is part of. Many protestants (notably the Anabaptists) rejected heirarchhy and order within a church, which made it necessary to invent 'non-sacramental' (low church) theology. Sacraments require Holy Orders, an ordaining of men, through apostolic succession- a reception of the authority Christ gave the apostles. This requires an authority and organization, which the baptists wanted to free themselves of (both politically and religiously).

To go without sacraments, means no grace, unless you begin to believe that all the grace you'll ever need begins at first believing... thus rendering sacraments unneccessary and enabling oneself to go without apostolic authority. Communion and baptism became symbols in the new theology. Thus, the Anabaptists found a theology by which to believe they could reject authority, while still receiving grace.

Low church theology has since been adopted by other protestant groups.

 

[Lynn73]

I bet they would probably say they don't reject authority, especially God's and His word, they just reject the self proclaimed authority of the RCC, it's traditions, proclamations, interpretations of Scripture, dogma, etc. As do I. And we receive God's grace just fine, thanks.

 

[Dragons87]

How about Body and Blood and rememberance?

Personally I don't see literally eating Christ's Body and Blood a bad thing, one that takes our focus off Christ.

 

[stray bullet]

I bet they would probably say they don't reject authority, especially God's and His word, they just reject the self proclaimed authority of the RCC, it's traditions, proclamations, interpretations of Scripture, dogma, etc. As do I. And we receive God's grace just fine, thanks.

What's ironic is all their authority derives from the decisions of men- canon and interpretations, et cetera. Sola scriptura being the biggest one and most obvious man-made one.

When I was speaking of authority, as I said, it refers to apostolic authority and the authority found within a Church. It's interesting to see how the protestant doctrines played out, given which groups had governmental ties and which did not, which had church leaders and organization. They say their beliefs are based on the bible, looks like conditions, to me.

Thus, to refer to the OP, sacrament or non-sacrament? Depends on what the group needed to believe.

 

[freespiritchurch]

A lot of the problems understanding communion come from philosophy and not theology. Most of the early church fathers were influenced by the philosophy of Plato, and learned from philosophy that the physical world was a sort of shadow or reflection of a higher reality that was spiritual or metaphysical. In that view, spiritual things are actually more real than physical ones, and calling the presence of Christ "spiritual" or "symbolic" (a symbol being something that links us to the higher reality) is a way of saying that Christ's presence is more real than the physical presence.

As people (in the West at least) came to associate "real" and "physical" this idea was obscured, and a great deal of confusion resulted. Symbolic and real are not opposites; spiritual and real are certainly not opposites.

The early Reformers really struggled to express the idea that Christ's presence was both real and spiritual. A lot of the nuances of their sacramental theology were ignored in favor of Zwingli's "remembrance only" understanding of the Eucharist, which has the advantage of being simple and straightforward. But there are options other than "remembrance only" and "present in substance."