communion

Thanks.

Lots of confusion here.

Simple things make things clear.

a) There is a lot of diversity on the nature of the "eucharist" meal within MJism. I've visited a few congregations and generally I would say that they celebrate it regularly, and tend to do it in such a way that mixes Protestant liturgy with Jewish form.

b) "eucharist" and "communion" in general usage on planet Earth usually mean the same thing. People are splitting hairs on this thread but I don't see anyone with a real grasp of the topic speak forth yet. I don't think the variety of opinions on the nature and usage of the NT sacrament is being appreciated here. I can't agree, for example, with Heber's comments that communion and the eucharist are different- in our rite, they are the same. We understand it differently than other members of the Body of Christ, perhaps, but the names are interchangable because of the usage in the NT.

c) i]The Passover remembers the Exodus from Egypt. ii] The Lord's Supper remembers the Cross and looks forward to His coming again. Two different rites. On occasion, the dates of celebration of the two converge. The emphasis is similar in both, with the exception that the NT rite is a communion with the body and blood of the Lord- a coming together with the Messiah.

d) Whether you celebrate it weekly, daily, or annually, it is a blessing.

letmercylead said:

Now for another question.... looking for insights as to what is our responsibility for allowing others to celebrate the rich tradition of the feast of Passover? My teenage daugter has invited friends from school to participate with our Passover celebration. I understand this isn't about them needing to adhere to Messianic beliefs to participate, but it IS a matter of faith. I have always allowed anyone to join us that has expressed an interest simply because I think that the contemporary church has made faith somewhat anemic by removing all of the heritage from the Jewish people. I felt that if they participated and saw the deep meanings in the traditions, the LORD could use that to touch their hearts and open their eyes... Any opinions or thoughts?

Click to expand...

In my family we always invited special Gentile friends to share Passover with us. I also think most Christians are happy to learn about and participate in the Passover, without feeling the need to become Jewish.

Kris10leigh said:

It used to bother me that Catholics excluded all non-Catholics from communion. Then I learned that Catholics believe the bread literally becomes the body and the wine literally becomes the blood. By receiving communion in the Catholic church, you too are espousing those beliefs. Then I became ok with being refused communion.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you took that position to refuse to attend communion based on your beliefs. This is a good thing.

However, when the RCs talk about "literal" Body and Blood they are not saying physical body and blood. The history of their position is one of defending the literal words of Jesus - "this is my body...this is my blood". Rather than toy with the words of Jesus, they have taken (along with most other churches) the literal words as untouchable. But (typically) men being men, over time the defense of the words of Jesus soon became defined and dogmatised into an interpretation of those words. I think most Christians in the ancient traditions prefer to regard the communion with the body and blood as a sacred mystery.

Anyway, although I think this topic is vital and important, let's not get into it here.

I can't agree, for example, with Heber's comments that communion and the eucharist are different- in our rite, they are the same

Click to expand...

We do not depend on a 'priest' to say any special words for transubstantiation to take place.
We do not ring a bell to signify that the bread and wine have undergone some sort of material change.
We do not believe that transubstantiation takes place.
We do not believe in consubstantiation.
We do not believe the elements are the body and blood of Christ - we believe they are symbolic elements.
We do not have a rail to separate 'priest' from people.
We do not rely, solely, on ordained people officiating.
We do not reserve the elements.
We do not bless the elements - we bless our father in heaven for providing the elements.
We do not eat and drink separately, we eat and drink simultaneously.
We do not see this act as the means of salvation.
We do not have such a high view that we exclude other professing Christians from attending the meal.
We do not come to the table because we must, but we come because we can.


Oh, and on a local note: we do not use wafers or ordinary bread -we used unleavened bread

We're not different? Certainly looks it to me in just about every way possible!



btw my comment about bones in teeth was in jest!

ContraMundum said:

d) Whether you celebrate it weekly, daily, or annually, it is a blessing.

Click to expand...

This is what I always believed.

ContraMundum said:

Anyway, although I think this topic is vital and important, let's not get into it here.

Click to expand...

What?! But I'd love to! Sorry...it's been a burning question ever since I first learned of the theology.

CM, I tend to believe what you have said about the practice because if I'm not mistaken, this is your denomination, right? But I work in a Catholic school and the casual conversations we've had about it lead me to believe it is literal, not just about the literal words. They also believe the Eucharist must be eaten immediately and sometimes a few of the teachers will sit in the teacher's lounge partaking of communion until it is all gone. Otherwise they store it in a pretty box that has a name I forget and turn a nightlight on nearby (it's a school so I think this may be the best they can do). They turn on the light so that everyone around this "box" is reverent because "Jesus' body is in the box. I've also had discussions about it in the Catholic forum here on CF and folks seem to think it's literal. Maybe this is a difference between Roman Catholics and your denom.?

Heber said:

btw my comment about bones in teeth was in jest!

Click to expand...

I thought it was funny.

Heber said:

We do not depend on a 'priest' to say any special words for transubstantiation to take place.
We do not ring a bell to signify that the bread and wine have undergone some sort of material change.
We do not believe that transubstantiation takes place.
We do not believe in consubstantiation.
We do not believe the elements are the body and blood of Christ - we believe they are symbolic elements.
We do not have a rail to separate 'priest' from people.
We do not rely, solely, on ordained people officiating.
We do not reserve the elements.
We do not bless the elements - we bless our father in heaven for providing the elements.
We do not eat and drink separately, we eat and drink simultaneously.
We do not see this act as the means of salvation.
We do not have such a high view that we exclude other professing Christians from attending the meal.
We do not come to the table because we must, but we come because we can.


We're not different? Certainly looks it to me in just about every way possible!



btw my comment about bones in teeth was in jest!

Click to expand...

You're not up to speed on any proper understanding of the "eucharist" as understood by the rest of the planet, I'm afraid, so you are terribly mistaken on this post. Just about every point you make up there is a mis-representation and a mis-nomer of the validity of doctrines you don't seem to have the full account about. I can't unravel such a messy post in this lifetime, but it should suffice to say that pretty much everybody has a reason for what they do- even the people that espouse whatever you object to.

You're describing and fighting against a theology, not a rite.

Terms are important. The "eucharist" in the Christian tradition goes also under the names of "The Lord's Supper", "The Sacrament of the Altar", "Holy Communion", "Communion", "The Lord's Table" etc etc. Lots of terms for the one act.

You've locked one term (eucharist) into one theology (a mish-mash of Catholicism and Lord knows what else) and drawn a line in the sand. This is a mistake. There are many terms and many theologies around this topic.

Also, you are equating "we" with God-knows-who. I have no idea who your "we" is but you sound like whoever you are you've merely adopted Zwingli's theology (the "real absence", which I find ridiculous and violently unscriptural) and ran with it further down the field. So, your group is Zwinglian in doctrine, not anything special or unusual. There's nothing new under the sun, and your sentiments are pretty standard for any Protestant. I have nothing against people who hold the doctrine that empties all meaning and grace from the Lord's Table...but the doctrine itself is pretty bad to my mind.

Interesting- there are churches who share the theology you've adopted with you who call it the "eucharist" (which just means "thanksgiving"!). I find this ironic and at the same time hilarious. Irony is...well, ironic.

Kris10leigh said:

What?! But I'd love to! Sorry...it's been a burning question ever since I first learned of the theology.

CM, I tend to believe what you have said about the practice because if I'm not mistaken, this is your denomination, right? But I work in a Catholic school and the casual conversations we've had about it lead me to believe it is literal, not just about the literal words. They also believe the Eucharist must be eaten immediately and sometimes a few of the teachers will sit in the teacher's lounge partaking of communion until it is all gone. Otherwise they store it in a pretty box that has a name I forget and turn a nightlight on nearby (it's a school so I think this may be the best they can do). They turn on the light so that everyone around this "box" is reverent because "Jesus' body is in the box. I've also had discussions about it in the Catholic forum here on CF and folks seem to think it's literal. Maybe this is a difference between Roman Catholics and your denom.?

Click to expand...

As I mentioned, literal doesn't mean physical. There's plenty of RC stuff on this about.

There were times in the middle ages when a few people thought literal to mean physical, and even faked "miracles" to prove it.

Anyway, one of my oldest and best friends is a RC priest. He explains it this way: Jesus is literally present in the Bread and Wine just like He is literally present everywhere (eg. He sits at the right hand of the Father but the Father's right hand is everywhere). His presence is spiritual, which is just as real as physical. He is therefore literally present, spiritually.

Mind you- there is room to move on this even within Roman Catholicism. Some Catholics believe the term "transubstantiation" should be used less as it is misleading or insufficient. Others think it is vital. No one is getting excommunicated for disagreement on this. The most important thing to them is to affirm a genuine, real presence of the risen Lord in a special, sacramental and true way in the bread and wine.

As for reserving it afterward, and not giving it to unbelievers and the other customs you mention, these practices go back to Temple times and have scriptural mandate as well. I could go on but I think I posted about this on another thread ages ago.

In my tradition we have a great many views of this but the most common is "pious silence". Say nothing, except what the word of God says. "What He says and doth make it, I obey and take it"

CM, thanks for taking the time to clear up that belief system. It goes a long way toward misunderstandings.

You're describing and fighting against a theology, not a rite.

Click to expand...

The theology drives the view of the rite, in practice, not vice versa. The differences I have outlined are definitive in many, many areas and I am am truly surprised that you seem not to be aware of them. I take an etic viewpoint on this as far as the RC rites are concerned (although I have been refused the bread and wine when taking part in an ecumenical setting in which I was an invited guest and the officiating minister was a Monsignor) and my observation is that these differences are, on almost every occasion, seen quite openly where the word Eucharist, as opposed to Communion etc, is used. Those fellowshps that use names other than Eucharist tend to have an open table (to all Christians) and are are much less ritualistic as my listing shows.

Let me give a small example. A chap I know in town is an Italian Catholic. He enjoys coming to where we are and takes communion. He also, on occasions, goes to a very high Anglican Church that celebrates the 'Eucharistic Rite'. When he became seriously ill a while ago he called the RC priest asking for the sacraments to be administered. The priest duly arrived and, in the conversation, it became clear to the Priest that this chap had taken communion in my place as well as in the high Anglican church. He was immediately denied the Eucharistic Rite and told there was nothing the Church could now do for him. Now, you can argue that this is against the 2nd Vatican Council but it is happening out there in local RC congregations every day. Not so in the Free Churches by comparison, who observe Communion, the Lord's Supper, the Last Supper, Breaking of the Bread etc. where the theology makes the rite to be a true memorial, open to all Christians who may freely choose to take part, as opposed to one that forces division in the wider church by the doubtful theology behind the application of the rite.

Perhaps others would recount their experiences here?

Heber said:

The theology drives the view of the rite, in practice, not vice versa. The differences I have outlined are definitive in many, many areas and I am am truly surprised that you seem not to be aware of them.

Click to expand...

Trust me, it's not in my experience at all.

Those fellowshps that use names other than Eucharist tend to have an open table (to all Christians) and are are much less ritualistic as my listing shows.

Click to expand...

Very few R-Catholic churches use the word "eucharist", in fact. The usual term is Mass. 90% of the Catholic books on my shelf rarely, if ever, refer to it as eucharist. Every single RC parish in my area has "mass times" on their boards. Only the Anglican churches around here use "eucharist".

Let me give a small example. A chap I know in town is an Italian Catholic. He enjoys coming to where we are and takes communion. He also, on occasions, goes to a very high Anglican Church that celebrates the 'Eucharistic Rite'. When he became seriously ill a while ago he called the RC priest asking for the sacraments to be administered. The priest duly arrived and, in the conversation, it became clear to the Priest that this chap had taken communion in my place as well as in the high Anglican church. He was immediately denied the Eucharistic Rite and told there was nothing the Church could now do for him. Now, you can argue that this is against the 2nd Vatican Council but it is happening out there in local RC congregations every day. Not so in the Free Churches by comparison, who observe Communion, the Lord's Supper, the Last Supper, Breaking of the Bread etc. where the theology makes the rite to be a true memorial, open to all Christians who may freely choose to take part, as opposed to one that forces division in the wider church by the doubtful theology behind the application of the rite.

Perhaps others would recount their experiences here?

Click to expand...

Most Lutheran churches use the term "Sacrament of the Altar" or similar, and the majority of them practice closed communion- some don't even allow the sacrament to other Lutherans. Most conservative Presbyterian churches also practice closed communion, and call it "the Lord's Table" or something like that. There's closed communion in Baptist churches, Brethren churches and so forth. It's not uncommon at all.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The terms are interchangable. Very interchangable. The doctrines do not centre around the terms, which is obvious. Just because someone calls holy communion "eucharist" doesn;t mean they are Roman Catholic, and in fact quite the opposite, it is a hint that they probably aren't.

ContraMundum said:

Anyway, one of my oldest and best friends is a RC priest. He explains it this way: Jesus is literally present in the Bread and Wine just like He is literally present everywhere (eg. He sits at the right hand of the Father but the Father's right hand is everywhere). His presence is spiritual, which is just as real as physical. He is therefore literally present, spiritually.

"What He says and doth make it, I obey and take it"

Click to expand...

Absolutely beautiful.

I have stopped any communion for more than one year. Just learn something from Teacher Torah.