OT: question about churches & communion

[Rick Otto]

Not sure where you picked up that idea.


I guess that depends on how you define the sacrament. If it's just "a very important reminder," as you say, I suppose all it can accomplish is to remind us of Christ's Last Supper, Crucifixion, and etc.

Not much, that?

 

[Rick Otto]

It's sad that some only see the Eucharist as merely a religious ritual and only symbolic. I was raised in churches that down played communion and only saw it as symbolic. It was just as underwhelming, unimportant, and pointless as some make it out to be around here. They're right, there's nothing there. However, there is another way. I've experienced Christ in the Eucharist. The two are like comparing apples and oranges. Some people are pooh-poohing something from a stance of complete ignorance.

On the other hand, it's sad that some people don't fully appreciate the Eucharist as a metaphor for Christ giving us eternal life. I was raised in the RCC and they said it was miraculous, but they denied us the cup & the wafer was made & dispensed with assembly-line convenience, exposing an underwhelming, pointless unimportance in total contrast to what they profess in glowing terms. The whole mass was a 1-hour formulae that dispensed with the week's God-business.
So tell me about complete ignorance.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, its a desire to be explicitly biblical.

If one wanted to be explicitly biblical, one would think they would believe what Scripture explicitly says about Christ's Supper and not follow after human contrived chaff, such as that it's merely a memorial or symbol. When Scripture says it's the body and blood of Christ, then perhaps we should actually take Scripture at its word.

Memorialism isn't biblical. When Scripture says it's the body and blood of Jesus, and to say, "No it's not" is not being "explicitly biblical"; it's being the exact opposite.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PaladinValer]

Ok. I have come to believe that a church service should center around the Eucharist/communion. Besides the RCC, EOC, & (I think) Anglican churches, are there other churches that center around or give high focus to communion?

Yes, we Anglicans do.

In addition, all Continuing Churches as well as Old Catholics have Holy Communion as the central focus of worship.

Lutherans and Moravians also place Holy Communion as their centrality of worship, and are right to do so.

 

[mont974x4]

Yeah like "This symbolizes my body." That's TOTALLY biblical.

If you quit getting hung up on the translation and actually study the passage in its historical and cultural context you would do well. There is no basis, other than man's tradition, for the teaching that the elements are magically changed by the reciting of a special phrase. None. It does not exist.



Don't make the mistake of thinking that the elements have to change in order for Communion to hold all the importance that Christ intended it to have.

 

[Cappadocious]

There is no basis, other than man's tradition, for the teaching that the elements are magically changed by the reciting of a special phrase.

Hm, can't seem to find any magical phrases in the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil here...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ok. I have come to believe that a church service should center around the Eucharist/communion. Besides the RCC, EOC, & (I think) Anglican churches, are there other churches that center around or give high focus to communion?

Traditional Lutherans usually do too; they didn't stray too far from their mother church on that one.

You are correct.

No, I think most focus around Jesus.

Willie, Who's body and blood are we consuming; Who's imparting grace and forgiveness of sins; Who's death and resurrection are we commemorating; by Who's institution and command do we celebrate the Eucharist; Who's gospel is proclaimed and read during the Service; Who's words consecrate the Eucharist?

That would be our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[katherine2001]

In John 6, Jesus explicitly tells us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At the Last Supper, he indicates that the bread is His body and that the wine is His blood (in other words, He was showing His disciples how we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood).

To have the Eucharist (and believing that it is the Body and Blood of Christ) is the scriptural way to be doing it. It is funny how many believe in taking the Scriptures literally until it says to do something that they can't accept, then all of a sudden it isn't meant to be taken literally. The word that gets translated "remembrance" in English actually means that you are present and taking part in the event. It does not mean that it is a memorial or some kind of symbol. If Jesus tells me I must eat His flesh and drink His blood, I am going to obey that (which is one of the reasons that I became EO).

 

[Albion]

In John 6, Jesus explicitly tells us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At the Last Supper, he indicates that the bread is His body and that the wine is His blood (in other words, He was showing His disciples how we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood).

Yes, in some sense it is that. However, there are a number of different ways of looking at that issue.

 

[Rick Otto]

If one wanted to be explicitly biblical, one would think they would believe what Scripture explicitly says about Christ's Supper and not follow after human contrived chaff, such as that it's merely a memorial or symbol. When Scripture says it's the body and blood of Christ, then perhaps we should actually take Scripture at its word.

Memorialism isn't biblical. When Scripture says it's the body and blood of Jesus, and to say, "No it's not" is not being "explicitly biblical"; it's being the exact opposite.

-CryptoLutheran

Literalizing a metaphor is illiterate, no matter what book.

Go on,talk about contrived chaff.

 

[katherine2001]

But it is not a metaphor. Both ancient churches (EO and RC) believe in the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ. The idea that it is a symbol only didn't come into being until the Reformation 1,500 years after Christ established the Church on Pentecost. I think I'll go with what Christians have believed from the very beginning instead of people that came along 1,500 years later.

 

[Albion]

But it is not a metaphor. Both ancient churches (EO and RC) believe in the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ.

And so do most Protestants.

But you weren't saying that the Eucharist is to be understood in a certain way because of what the early church thought about it. You cited Scripture and acted as though it's unambiguous. That's not the case.

I think I'll go with what Christians have believed from the very beginning instead of people that came along 1,500 years later.

It sounds like you're actually going with the people that came along about 900 years after Christ rather than either of the other two. There was nothing close to a literal, carnal, change-over believed in the ancient or early Medieval churches.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Literalizing a metaphor is illiterate, no matter what book.

Go on,talk about contrived chaff.

So when St. Paul says that we have koinonia with the Lord's body and blood by the bread and cup (κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ and κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ), it's a metaphor.

What is it a metaphor for?

If the bread and cup are not in reality a koinonia with Christ's body and blood, and it is instead a metaphor for something else, what is that something else and how can I know it by Scripture?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sunlover1]

Tangible's right that when someone says "focus on the Eucharist" or something like that, it shouldn't mean "to the exclusion of everything else."

The usual liturgical service, regardless of denomination, includes Communion but also praise, petition, readings from Scripture, sermon, and fellowship. Of course it's possible to have all of that without Communion, so some churches trend too far one way or the other--either minimizing everything except Communion or having everything but the Communion. Luther is well remembered for bringing the balance back to the Church of the late Middle Ages.

Merry Christmas!

Thanks Albion!
I had a nice day with family,
enjoying a little bubbly by
myself and then sweet sleep!
Same to you.

On the other hand, it's sad that some people don't fully appreciate the Eucharist as a metaphor for Christ giving us eternal life. I was raised in the RCC and they said it was miraculous, but they denied us the cup & the wafer was made & dispensed with assembly-line convenience, exposing an underwhelming, pointless unimportance in total contrast to what they profess in glowing terms. The whole mass was a 1-hour formulae that dispensed with the week's God-business.
So tell me about complete ignorance.

No soup for you!

 

[Episaw]

But it is not a metaphor. Both ancient churches (EO and RC) believe in the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ. The idea that it is a symbol only didn't come into being until the Reformation 1,500 years after Christ established the Church on Pentecost. I think I'll go with what Christians have believed from the very beginning instead of people that came along 1,500 years later.

I want to pick up on your comment that what Christians believed from the very beginning.

What Christians PRACTISED from the very beginning was the agape meal. In Acts it says they met daily for fellowship, teaching prayer and breaking of bread. Bread here means a raised loaf.

In New Testament times, when you had a meal together, the head of the house took a loaf of bread and broke it into pieces and gave each person a piece. Until this happened the meal did not start.

In Corinthians, Paul was giving instructions on how to conduct themselves during that meal. Some people were bringing food and eating it which meant those coming later had none. He said if you are hungry eat at home first. Now if they were hungry, do you really think that a wafer and a sip of wine would satisfy that hunger?

Of course not. This meal was all about food, which they shared together as the body of Christ.

The wafer and sip of wine and all the mumbo jumbo and regalia that goes with it was the product of an apostate church that had lost its way.

And please don't refer to Jesus and the last supper to justify your rituals. The last supper was a meal, not affirmation to introduce a religious ritual. FYI, when Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, which by the way is only recorded in one book (Luke) do this means do this now. It does not mean keep on doing it.

Sorry if I have burst your bubble but them's the facts.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I want to pick up on your comment that what Christians believed from the very beginning.

What Christians PRACTISED from the very beginning was the agape meal. In Acts it says they met daily for fellowship, teaching prayer and breaking of bread. Bread here means a raised loaf.

In New Testament times, when you had a meal together, the head of the house took a loaf of bread and broke it into pieces and gave each person a piece. Until this happened the meal did not start.

In Corinthians, Paul was giving instructions on how to conduct themselves during that meal. Some people were bringing food and eating it which meant those coming later had none. He said if you are hungry eat at home first. Now if they were hungry, do you really think that a wafer and a sip of wine would satisfy that hunger?

Of course not. This meal was all about food, which they shared together as the body of Christ.

The wafer and sip of wine and all the mumbo jumbo and regalia that goes with it was the product of an apostate church that had lost its way.

And please don't refer to Jesus and the last supper to justify your rituals. The last supper was a meal, not affirmation to introduce a religious ritual. FYI, when Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, which by the way is only recorded in one book (Luke) do this means do this now. It does not mean keep on doing it.

Sorry if I have burst your bubble but them's the facts.

It's you who are in a bubble my friend.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

We have coffee hour even to this day. Nobody leaves Church hungry. Some people call it the unnumbered sacrament. That is not to be confused with The Holy Eucharist. The two are separate subjects.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I want to pick up on your comment that what Christians believed from the very beginning.

What Christians PRACTISED from the very beginning was the agape meal. In Acts it says they met daily for fellowship, teaching prayer and breaking of bread. Bread here means a raised loaf.

In New Testament times, when you had a meal together, the head of the house took a loaf of bread and broke it into pieces and gave each person a piece. Until this happened the meal did not start.

In Corinthians, Paul was giving instructions on how to conduct themselves during that meal. Some people were bringing food and eating it which meant those coming later had none. He said if you are hungry eat at home first. Now if they were hungry, do you really think that a wafer and a sip of wine would satisfy that hunger?

Of course not. This meal was all about food, which they shared together as the body of Christ.

The wafer and sip of wine and all the mumbo jumbo and regalia that goes with it was the product of an apostate church that had lost its way.

And please don't refer to Jesus and the last supper to justify your rituals. The last supper was a meal, not affirmation to introduce a religious ritual. FYI, when Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, which by the way is only recorded in one book (Luke) do this means do this now. It does not mean keep on doing it.

Sorry if I have burst your bubble but them's the facts.

Psst... she's not Roman Catholic, she's Orthodox. You're not bursting her bubble at all. I would back you up on your facts btw. You have incorrectly assumed something though, there was great ritual in the Jewish meal. It wasn't an introduction of religious ritual, it was modification and continuation of the Jewish meal ritual. Have you read 'Dom Gregory Dix; The Shape of the Liturgy'. I bet you would eat it with a spoon!

Nobody should go hungry.

Merry Christmas!

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Albion]

And please don't refer to Jesus and the last supper to justify your rituals. The last supper was a meal, not affirmation to introduce a religious ritual. FYI, when Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, which by the way is only recorded in one book (Luke) do this means do this now. It does not mean keep on doing it.

I'd be interested in your explanation of the parts of the Last Supper that you went out of your way to avoid mentioning--

1) That he not only referred to that meal as a remembrance (if you seriously think that a meal taken BEFORE his death could in any way be a "remembrance"), but that he said for them to do it again ("AS OFT AS YOU DO THIS....?)

and

2) That he described it as his body and blood.

 

[seashale76]

I want to pick up on your comment that what Christians believed from the very beginning.

What Christians PRACTISED from the very beginning was the agape meal. In Acts it says they met daily for fellowship, teaching prayer and breaking of bread. Bread here means a raised loaf.

You may be interested to know that we use raised loaves for communion and for antidoron.

In New Testament times, when you had a meal together, the head of the house took a loaf of bread and broke it into pieces and gave each person a piece. Until this happened the meal did not start.

Whatever bread is not used for communion is cut up and becomes what is known as antidoron, which is likened to 'agape' bread. It is not communion bread, and not only do those who take communion eat it, but those who didn't can also be given it to eat. It is how we break our fast immediately after communion. In some churches, they also take a sip or two of wine (not communion wine) after having antidoron. Partaking of this post-communion meal is also meant as a way of cleansing one's mouth of the communion elements.

In Corinthians, Paul was giving instructions on how to conduct themselves during that meal. Some people were bringing food and eating it which meant those coming later had none. He said if you are hungry eat at home first. Now if they were hungry, do you really think that a wafer and a sip of wine would satisfy that hunger?

Of course not. This meal was all about food, which they shared together as the body of Christ.

Once Divine Liturgy is over everyone has 'coffee hour' together. I've never heard of an Orthodox parish that doesn't observe this. Usually, people in the parish take turns bringing food, or even have potlucks. It's a light meal and as it held on church premises, of course people conduct themselves accordingly.

The wafer and sip of wine and all the mumbo jumbo and regalia that goes with it was the product of an apostate church that had lost its way.

And please don't refer to Jesus and the last supper to justify your rituals. The last supper was a meal, not affirmation to introduce a religious ritual. FYI, when Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, which by the way is only recorded in one book (Luke) do this means do this now. It does not mean keep on doing it.

Sorry if I have burst your bubble but them's the facts.

You're condemning what is found directly in scripture. How sad. Lord, have mercy.