Communion/Lord's Supper

[Rhamiel]

Tertullian (2nd century) held a symbolic view

There was also the controversy between Radbertus (agued for a complete transformation of the bread and wine but only for believers) and Ratramnus who had a very similar view to Calvin's - that there was no physical change in the bread although they became Christ's body and blood in a spiritual way. This was in the early 9th century. Both views were held as being valid although Radbertus' view came to dominate in the west.

Interesting to note that there was no ex opere operato belief in Radbertus' view here

The controversy broke out again in the 11th century between Berenger of Tours (on Ratramus's side) and Lafranc of Canterbury (who went further than Radbertus and said that even unbelievers received physically Christ)

It wasn't until 1059 that Berenger's view was condemned by the papal church. which makes you wonder, if his view was so against Church history, why was this view held to be a valid theory until this time?

Even in classical reformed theology found in the westminster confession the bread and wine is called the body and blood of Christ becuase of it's sacramental union with the thing signified.

A purely symbolic view of communion is hard to come across in the early church writings. And there was the belief that the symbols should, in some sense, be called the Christ's flesh and blood. But the church fathers didn't go into detail regarding it as a joyful mystery.

so no church preached this, you are just pointing out individuals
some said it was a mystery, some said it was more spiritual then physical (we also have to remember that premodern people had differant ideas of physics then we now understand)

 

[Scottish Knight]

so no church preached this, you are just pointing out individuals
some said it was a mystery, some said it was more spiritual then physical (we also have to remember that premodern people had differant ideas of physics then we now understand)

What I am showing was that there were a plurality of views within the catholic church historically that were considered orthodox

 

[Rhamiel]

What I am showing was that there were a plurality of views within the catholic church historically that were considered orthodox

Who ever said that Ratamnus and his view was orthodox?

as for why it took so long for his views to be condemned, well I would have to read more of his writtings to know for sure

the Christian Church has always believed that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, the plurality you speak of seems to be nothing more then the Western way of explaining it and an Eastern way of saying the same thing, differant traditions but unified in faith

 

[Scottish Knight]

Who ever said that Ratamnus and his view was orthodox?

as for why it took so long for his views to be condemned, well I would have to read more of his writtings to know for sure

Sure, his writings are probably on the internet somewhere now.

the Christian Church has always believed that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, the plurality you speak of seems to be nothing more then the Western way of explaining it and an Eastern way of saying the same thing, differant traditions but unified in faith

So you would also accept Ratramnus, Radbertus, Thomas Aquinas, Tertullian, and the rest of the church fathers were all united in their understanding of the Eucharist? the sense of how Christ is present is important and has been the subject of disagreement for a long long time.

If, for example the papal view of transubstantiation is wrong then worshiping the Host is idolatry. There are strong repercussions in how to understand the Eucharist.

I would also disagree that they just spoke about it but in different ways - some believed that only believers partook of Christ and some said non-believers did too (which seems to be a later view), whether there was a conversion of the elements, whether it's spiritual or physical - these are big differences.

Let me know what you think of Ratramus' view once you've read him

 

[Nanopants]

I'm also one of those that believes in the real presence at communion and I've experienced things while taking it that I can't describe. I will say though that I have been to churches where it seemed to be nothing more than a symbolic act. There's a big difference that I don't really understand that seems to depend on where I participate in it.

 

[PinkSweetart]

My church does this once a month to proclaim Chirst's death and resurrection until He comes. For me it's excatly that, and a chance to come clean in a more powerful way. It also reminds me of what Christ had to go through to save us.

 

[Rhamiel]

So you would also accept that the historic protestants (reformed and lutheran) also hold a unified view since they also speak of the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ? the sense of how Christ is present is important.

If, for example the papal view of transubstantiation is wrong then worshiping the Host is idolatry. There are strong repercussions in how to understand the Eucharist.

I would also disagree that they just spoke about it but in different ways - some believed that only believers partook of Christ and some said non-believers did too (which seems to be a later view), whether there was a conversion of the elements, whether it's spiritual or physical - these are big differences.

Let me know what you think of Ratramus' view once you've read him

thank you for helping me by giving me this name, Ratramnus, to look into, I started reading up on him.

As for Lutherans and the Reformed Christian, if they agree with eachother that is for them to decide among themselves, I have no right to say if their faith is in agreement with eachother or not, that is their business.

I do agree with you about what you call the "Papal view" if it is not correct then it is one of the most horrible doctrines ever to made up by man
but if it is correct, then it is the best thing we can do(I would not call it the Papal view but rather call it the historic christian view as all ancient churches in the east and west believe that in a real way the Eucharist is the Body of Christ)

 

[TanteBelle]

What does this meal mean to you? Furthermore, what is Communion symbolic of? There is no right or wrong answer, I am just curious as to what other people's viewpoint on this is because I've only really been exposed to the Church of Christ view on the Lord's Supper.

BTW: The Question is how often does your church take time to share it together? My church does it every week.

EDIT: Poll coming soon.

My family keeps Kiddush; a tradition of eating Challah (3-plaited sweet bread) every shabbat and a glass of wine. When we first started doing it, a funny thought came to my mind; when Christianity read the passage that says, 'As oft as you do this, do this in remembrance of Me', they said, 'Oh, we must start something called Communion'. When a Jew who comes to Yeshua read that, he said, 'Wow! I have a new meaning for Kiddush!' Haha!!!

To us, while Kiddush reminds us of Yeshua and what He has done for us, I also find it a way of giving thanks to God for the utmost basics in our lives. We'd say bread and water, but wine was far more commonly drunk back then! Kiddush is different for me to Pesach/Passover and what happened there.

 

[Scottish Knight]

My family keeps Kiddush; a tradition of eating Challah (3-plaited sweet bread) every shabbat and a glass of wine. When we first started doing it, a funny thought came to my mind; when Christianity read the passage that says, 'As oft as you do this, do this in remembrance of Me', they said, 'Oh, we must start something called Communion'. When a Jew who comes to Yeshua read that, he said, 'Wow! I have a new meaning for Kiddush!' Haha!!!

To us, while Kiddush reminds us of Yeshua and what He has done for us, I also find it a way of giving thanks to God for the utmost basics in our lives. We'd say bread and water, but wine was far more commonly drunk back then! Kiddush is different for me to Pesach/Passover and what happened there.

That's interesting!

Is it as common cup that's passed around the table?

 

[TanteBelle]

That's interesting!

Is it as common cup that's passed around the table?

That's how we do it, yes. I know that for some, they have their own cup of wine. It doesn't matter, really, I don't think.

 

[Rhamiel]

So you would also accept that the historic protestants (reformed and lutheran) also hold a unified view since they also speak of the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ? the sense of how Christ is present is important.

do mainstream protestants share the same sacremental theology?

 

[Scottish Knight]

do mainstream protestants share the same sacremental theology?

Short answer - no

 

[Amber.ly]

To me, communion is about obedience and rememberence.

I have no idea when my church does it but I would assume Sunday nights as I never go then and I have never done communion at my current church. Which is sad.

 

[LoneSheep]

I take communion as Jesus said, in remembrance. It's a humble meal, to remember a humble King, who died for us so that we may live. It means a lot to me.

As far as how often it is taken, in my experience, depends on the congregation and the pastor. I've seen churches that have it every quarter, every month and every Sunday. In my mind, I think taking it every week would make it mean less. It would become mundane. However, I understand the reason to have it ready for those in attendance who haven't taken it in a while.