Communion/ Eucharist/Lord's Table

[seeking.IAM]

...
Typically, for those who do not have a high view of the sacraments, it seems as those who do have a high view are overly concerned about them. But for those who do have a high view, we don't feel as though we are being exclusionary, we really are acting out of concern and love.

I am happy to be a part of a church that does have a high view of the sacraments, yet has an open table welcoming all baptized Christians. That fact has nearly everything to do with why I am here, as opposed to other churches mentioned. I believe Christianity was never meant to be a private club.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm Catholic and ex-Protestant, but have no difficulty with the Catholic teaching on receiving communions viz. only those who truly believe the bread and wine represent the flesh and blood of Christ. There's a link here which explains the reasons.

For the same reason, Catholics are not supposed to take communion outside the Catholic Church, although we probably could in (some or all?) Eastern Orthodox Churches, as they hold the same view of communion as we do.

Why can't non-Catholics, Evangelicals and Protestant denominations receive Catholic Communion?

My wife is Baptist, so she belongs to a church where communion is merely symbolic. Yet whenever I go to a Protestant service, there seems to be something missing, and as far as I'm concerned it is the symbolic communion. The music might be better, the sermons might be better, but something is definitely missing.

As for the technical difference in terminology between Mass, Eucharist, and Communion, I've given a brief explanation below along with some links and extracts.

1. THE MASS

link - http://www.stjohnslincoln.com/files/timb/timb-02.pdf

WHERE DOES THE TERM “MASS” COME FROM?

“Mass” is an English rendering of the Latin term “missa.” In Latin
the Mass ends with “Ite missa est,” which translated into English
means “Go, it is sent,” the “it” being the Church. From the Latin
word “missa” comes the English word “dismiss.” So “Mass”
means “dismissal.” The celebration takes its name from the sending
forth that occurs at the end of every Mass.

In a nutshell, the term "mass" is simply a distortion or abbreviated from of "ite missa est", the original Latin expression for the dismissal at the end of the "mass".

2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EUCHARIST AND COMMUNION

In practical terms, there's not much. However one sister, an expert in Liturgy said a lot of Catholics wouldn't know the difference, and the two terms are used interchangeably a lot of the time.

However my understanding is that the "Eucharist" is the whole process beginning when the priest begins by blessing and breaking the bread and wine, up to and including our partaking of communion, which is the actual consumption of the flesh and blood of Christ.

The sister commented the Eucharist was a "five stage" process as follows (lifted from a Coptic site this time) -

Sacraments of the Eucharist

1. He took bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave it to the disciples,
2. and said, 'Take, eat, this is My Body",
3. then He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples saying
4. "Drink from it, all of you, for this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"

5. (My addition) We then eat the bread and drink the wine, hence partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ.

Stage 5 is technically the Communion, whereas the whole process of the priest blessing the bread and wine, "breaking the bread" (which in Catholic Churches is represented by the priest breaking a large waver in half to begin with) and then distributing them, is the Eucharist, for what it is worth.

I don't see any reference by Christ saying the process was purely symbolic, as He used the term "Is my flesh" and "Is my blood". Indeed one requirement that caused many to fall away was his demand that they "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". To the Jews this was anathema. They would have instinctively understood He wasn't talking in a purely symbolic sense.

He meant it literally.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm Catholic and ex-Protestant, but have no difficulty with the Catholic teaching on receiving communions viz. only those who truly believe the bread and wine represent the flesh and blood of Christ. There's a link here which explains the reasons.

For the same reason, Catholics are not supposed to take communion outside the Catholic Church, although we probably could in (some or all?) Eastern Orthodox Churches, as they hold the same view of communion as we do.

Why can't non-Catholics, Evangelicals and Protestant denominations receive Catholic Communion?

My wife is Baptist, so she belongs to a church where communion is merely symbolic. Yet whenever I go to a Protestant service, there seems to be something missing, and as far as I'm concerned it is the symbolic communion. The music might be better, the sermons might be better, but something is definitely missing.

As for the technical difference in terminology between Mass, Eucharist, and Communion, I've given a brief explanation below along with some links and extracts.

1. THE MASS

link - http://www.stjohnslincoln.com/files/timb/timb-02.pdf



In a nutshell, the term "mass" is simply a distortion or abbreviated from of "ite missa est", the original Latin expression for the dismissal at the end of the "mass".

2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EUCHARIST AND COMMUNION

In practical terms, there's not much. However one sister, an expert in Liturgy said a lot of Catholics wouldn't know the difference, and the two terms are used interchangeably a lot of the time.

However my understanding is that the "Eucharist" is the whole process beginning when the priest begins by blessing and breaking the bread and wine, up to and including our partaking of communion, which is the actual consumption of the flesh and blood of Christ.

The sister commented the Eucharist was a "five stage" process as follows (lifted from a Coptic site this time) -

Sacraments of the Eucharist


5. (My addition) We then eat the bread and drink the wine, hence partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ.

Stage 5 is technically the Communion, whereas the whole process of the priest blessing the bread and wine, "breaking the bread" (which in Catholic Churches is represented by the priest breaking a large waver in half to begin with) and then distributing them, is the Eucharist, for what it is worth.

I don't see any reference by Christ saying the process was purely symbolic, as He used the term "Is my flesh" and "Is my blood". Indeed one requirement that caused many to fall away was his demand that they "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". To the Jews this was anathema. They would have instinctively understood He wasn't talking in a purely symbolic sense.

He meant it literally.

Good post!

 

[pescador]

I'm Catholic and ex-Protestant, but have no difficulty with the Catholic teaching on receiving communions viz. only those who truly believe the bread and wine represent the flesh and blood of Christ. There's a link here which explains the reasons.

For the same reason, Catholics are not supposed to take communion outside the Catholic Church, although we probably could in (some or all?) Eastern Orthodox Churches, as they hold the same view of communion as we do.

Why can't non-Catholics, Evangelicals and Protestant denominations receive Catholic Communion?

My wife is Baptist, so she belongs to a church where communion is merely symbolic. Yet whenever I go to a Protestant service, there seems to be something missing, and as far as I'm concerned it is the symbolic communion. The music might be better, the sermons might be better, but something is definitely missing.

As for the technical difference in terminology between Mass, Eucharist, and Communion, I've given a brief explanation below along with some links and extracts.

1. THE MASS

link - http://www.stjohnslincoln.com/files/timb/timb-02.pdf



In a nutshell, the term "mass" is simply a distortion or abbreviated from of "ite missa est", the original Latin expression for the dismissal at the end of the "mass".

2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EUCHARIST AND COMMUNION

In practical terms, there's not much. However one sister, an expert in Liturgy said a lot of Catholics wouldn't know the difference, and the two terms are used interchangeably a lot of the time.

However my understanding is that the "Eucharist" is the whole process beginning when the priest begins by blessing and breaking the bread and wine, up to and including our partaking of communion, which is the actual consumption of the flesh and blood of Christ.

The sister commented the Eucharist was a "five stage" process as follows (lifted from a Coptic site this time) -

Sacraments of the Eucharist


5. (My addition) We then eat the bread and drink the wine, hence partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ.

Stage 5 is technically the Communion, whereas the whole process of the priest blessing the bread and wine, "breaking the bread" (which in Catholic Churches is represented by the priest breaking a large waver in half to begin with) and then distributing them, is the Eucharist, for what it is worth.

I don't see any reference by Christ saying the process was purely symbolic, as He used the term "Is my flesh" and "Is my blood". Indeed one requirement that caused many to fall away was his demand that they "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". To the Jews this was anathema. They would have instinctively understood He wasn't talking in a purely symbolic sense.

He meant it literally.

I'm not going to reply to the whole post as it's very complex.

When Jesus, a living person, was at the last supper with his disciples, he held up a (dead) loaf of bread and said "this is my body", then held up a bowl of (dead) wine and said "this is my blood". And you're telling me that the bread and wine aren't symbolic? Clearly the bread and wine, held by the living man, could not possibly be his actual flesh and blood. They're symbols only.

Additionally, when Jesus told the other Jews to eat his flesh and drink his blood, do you think that he was telling them that unless they became cannibals they could not be his disciples? Did any of the apostles, disciples, or anyone else actually become a cannibal?

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm not going to reply to the whole post as it's very complex.

When Jesus, a living person, was at the last supper with his disciples, he held up a (dead) loaf of bread and said "this is my body", then held up a bowl of (dead) wine and said "this is my blood". And you're telling me that the bread and wine aren't symbolic? Clearly the bread and wine, held by the living man, could not possibly be his actual flesh and blood. They're symbols only.

Additionally, when Jesus told the other Jews to eat his flesh and drink his blood, do you think that he was telling them that unless they became cannibals they could not be his disciples? Did any of the apostles, disciples, or anyone else actually become a cannibal?

Christ wasn't just a man. He was God in the flesh. So when God in the Flesh holds up a loaf of bread and a bowl of wine, and declares "This is MY flesh" and "This is MY blood", there's an intrinsic supernatural element involved, and He meant what He said. He didn't intend sinful man to denigrate it.

His words and intent are eternal.

I suppose you think that when He declared to the Samaritan woman at the well that He would give water that would last forever so that those who believed in Him would never go thirsty, He was just referring to nothing more than natural water?

The water in the jars at Canaan was just water, but under Christ's hand it became wine, good wine, and a lot of it. That was transmutation at work.

We're not talking about a mere man. We're talking about God, the Alpha and the Omega. He didn't die on a cross so that we could just dismiss His body and blood as symbolic.

 

[pescador]

Christ wasn't just a man. He was God in the flesh. So when God in the Flesh holds up a loaf of bread and a bowl of wine, and declares "This is MY flesh" and "This is MY blood", there's an intrinsic supernatural element involved, and He meant what He said. He didn't intend sinful man to denigrate it.

His words and intent are eternal.

I suppose you think that when He declared to the Samaritan woman at the well that He would give water that would last forever so that those who believed in Him would never go thirsty, He was just referring to nothing more than natural water?

The water in the jars at Canaan was just water, but under Christ's hand it became wine, good wine, and a lot of it. That was transmutation at work.

We're not talking about a mere man. We're talking about God, the Alpha and the Omega. He didn't die on a cross so that we could just dismiss His body and blood as symbolic.

Sorry but I believe what the Bible clearly says, not people's interpretation of it. Jesus, a living being, held up real (dead) bread and real (dead) wine. That's what the Bible says and that's what I believe.

He gave up his real life and blood on the cross. There was nothing symbolic about it; it's what the Bible clearly says.

When Jesus healed the blind man with spittle and mud, was he recreating creation with the sea and dry land? When he said that he had no place to lay his head, does that mean that he slept in heaven?

You can put whatever interpretation of symbolism on what Jesus said and did, but that is just your interpretation. I believe what the Word of God says, not what people make up.

 

[pescador]

Luke wrote "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.""

Paul wrote "In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

A covenant is a contract. Jesus' blood was shed as payment for all sins to make a new contract with God possible. Drinking the wine is a way of saying that the drinker agrees to their side of the contract. Saying that the wine is actually his blood is not only wrong, it's irrelevant; it misses the point entirely.

 

[All4Christ]

Sorry but I believe what the Bible clearly says, not people's interpretation of it. Jesus, a living being, held up real (dead) bread and real (dead) wine. That's what the Bible says and that's what I believe.

He gave up his real life and blood on the cross. There was nothing symbolic about it; it's what the Bible clearly says.

When Jesus healed the blind man with spittle and mud, was he recreating creation with the sea and dry land? When he said that he had no place to lay his head, does that mean that he slept in heaven?

You can put whatever interpretation of symbolism on what Jesus said and did, but that is just your interpretation. I believe what the Word of God says, not what people make up.

I believe exactly what Jesus said. I don't have to put a spin on it to make it seem more logical. He certainly doesn't back down when people say "How can He give us His flesh to eat?"

3 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

 

[pescador]

Jesus said, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him" So if this is taken literally, exactly what does the inside of Jesus look like?

 

[All4Christ]

Jesus said, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him" So if this is taken literally, exactly what does the inside of Jesus look like?

Through the connection of the way Jesus told us to do this (the Last Supper) and this passage, you can see how this is supposed to happen mystically. So much of Scripture is literally true, yet is a mystery as to how it happens. Why take some things literally but not others? What is your guide for choosing which is literally true and which isn't? Jesus raising from the dead is not logical and does not work according to any biological analysis. Rather, it is a mystery. How can the Trinity work...three in one? Again, it is a mystery. They both are true - literally true - but we don't understand how.

 

[pescador]

Something is literally true or it isn't. We're talking about the end result, not how it happens. You can't take the idea of bread and wine being true and at the same time say that abiding in Jesus is symbolic. If the bread and wine are literally Jesus' body and blood, so must abiding in him be actually true.

If you literally abide in Jesus then tell us what it looks like. Otherwise, you must accept that the bread, wine, and abiding are all symbolic.

 

[All4Christ]

Something is literally true or it isn't. We're talking about the end result, not how it happens. You can't take the idea of bread and wine being true and at the same time say that abiding in Jesus is symbolic. If the bread and wine are literally Jesus' body and blood, so must abiding in him be actually true.

If you literally abide in Jesus then tell us what it looks like. Otherwise, you must accept that the bread, wine, and abiding are all symbolic.

I'm not following how "abiding in Jesus" is related to this. That is an established phrasing already, that has a specific meaning. We do spiritually abide in Jesus.

I acknowledge that some things are parables, etc. However, they have spiritual truth. (I also don't consider it to be something I should decide whether it is or is not literal).

Also, Jesus pushed this as the truth when people questioned him ("How can this be...?" He didn't present it like a parable or an established metaphor.

In addition, if we have the authority to just decide that we believe this is true and we don't believe something else is literally true, then you can say the Bible means anything you like. This is the understanding of the church since the apostolic times. I'm going with the interpretation of 2000 years of the Church, including the apostolic church before than Biblical canon was determined, over my own interpretation. Scripture is quite clear on how to handle this type of situation.

 

[pescador]

I'm not following how "abiding in Jesus" is related to this. That is an established phrasing already, that has a specific meaning. We do spiritually abide in Jesus.

I acknowledge that some things are parables, etc. However, they have spiritual truth. (I also don't consider it to be something I should decide whether it is or is not literal).

Also, Jesus pushed this as the truth when people questioned him ("How can this be...?" He didn't present it like a parable or an established metaphor.

In addition, if we have the authority to just decide that we believe this is true and we don't believe something else is literally true, then you can say the Bible means anything you like. This is the understanding of the church since the apostolic times. I'm going with the interpretation of 2000 years of the Church, including the apostolic church before than Biblical canon was determined, over my own interpretation. Scripture is quite clear on how to handle this type of situation.

You said, "I'm going with the interpretation of 2000 years of the Church, including the apostolic church before than Biblical canon was determined, over my own interpretation" and I am going with what the Bible clearly says. There is no interpretation needed if you read it and believe it. Sola scriptura.

BTW, I hope that you're not using the King James Version, where interpretation of 400-year-old English is always necessary.

 

[All4Christ]

You said, "I'm going with the interpretation of 2000 years of the Church, including the apostolic church before than Biblical canon was determined, over my own interpretation" and I am going with what the Bible clearly says. There is no interpretation needed if you read it and believe it. Sola scriptura.

BTW, I hope that you're not using the King James Version, where interpretation of 400-year-old English is always necessary.

I don't use the King James Version on a regular basis. I have a copy but it is one of many versions I own.

Since this isn't a debate about Sola Scriptura, I won't focus on that much - except to say that the reformers also taught the Real Presence - just as the churches of the reformation teach the Real Presence today. They are the early followers of Sola Scriptura - and they still believe in the Real Presence. Sola Scriptura does not necessitate a belief that the Eucharist is symbolic.

 

[pescador]

The Bible clearly says that the bread and wine are symbols. They are not and never will be Jesus' body and blood. He is not an agricultural product, he is a human being.

 

[All4Christ]

The Bible clearly says that the bread and wine are symbols. They are not and never will be Jesus' body and blood. He is not an agricultural product, he is a human being.

We can agree to disagree. Scripture does not clearly state that the Eucharist is symbolic. Considering many who adhere to Sola Scriptura disagree with you- I would say that it is not a definitive conclusion even from a Sola Scriptura perspective.

And of course he is not an agricultural product. He is 100% human and 100% God...which also means He can make any mystery happen.

 

[Tangible]

Sorry but I believe what the Bible clearly says, not people's interpretation of it. Jesus, a living being, held up real (dead) bread and real (dead) wine. That's what the Bible says and that's what I believe.

LOL. That's NOT what the bible says. That's, like, totally your interpretation, man!

 

[seeking.IAM]

The Bible clearly says that the bread and wine are symbols. They are not and never will be Jesus' body and blood. He is not an agricultural product, he is a human being.

This IS my body. This IS my blood. Not "this is sorta like my body and sorta like my blood."

 

[Tangible]

The Bible clearly says that the bread and wine are symbols.

If this is true, please show chapter and verse.

 

[pescador]

If this is true, please show chapter and verse.

"For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Luke 22:18-20 (and similarly elsewhere).

Think about it. Jesus, a living person, sits with his living disciples, having a dinner of real food. He talks about drinking "the fruit of the vine", meaning actual, real wine, unless he intends on drinking his own blood. (which would be truly bizarre!) Then he holds up a piece of real, actual bread, breaks it(!) and says “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Obviously he is speaking figuratively, since he cannot be both a whole living person and dead, broken bread.

Try it yourself. Have a meal with family or friends, break a piece of bread off a loaf, and say that it's part of your body. They would think that you are drunk or crazy.

At the beginning of the paragraph he accurately refers to wine as the fruit of the vine. It's still the fruit of the vine -- actually the fermented juice of the fruit of the vine -- when he holds up a bowl of it and says, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.". He symbolically refers to the wine as “the new covenant in my blood." It's not a legal contract or his blood, it's real wine that they were to drink.

The Bible means exactly what it says; there is no need to add to it or interpret it to fit your imagination. John refers to Jesus as the Word of God. Is he literally a word or is he a real person? Mark and others wrote "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone." There is all kinds of symbolism throughout Scripture. Jesus is not bread and wine, he is not a word, he is not a cornerstone, he is not a lamb, etc. etc. etc.

Jesus is a living person. He was born a living human being. (Did Mary give birth to a loaf of bread?) He grew up, walked and talked, dined with others, performed miracles, argued with other people, turned over tables in the temple, did many other acts, then was crucified and died, was put in a tomb, and was resurrected to heaven.

He was not wine and bread.