• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

communion

Status
Not open for further replies.

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,827
14,299
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,457,103.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
flesh99,

d0c markus stated in a post following that in masses he had attended, the wine was reserved for the priests and the laity received only the bread. I know that this was the practice in many parishes of the Catholic church (though not all) and IIRC it is only recently that the practice has reverted back to receiving both.

I really don't think he was attacking the Catholic church, merely stating his experience which was not an uncommon one.

John.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,827
14,299
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,457,103.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
If I may, I'd like to post something on the topic.

The Orthodox church believes that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord but does not attempt to define how and when that happens, preferring to accept it as a mystery which is always approached with great awe. On Great Thursday (the day before Good Friday), the bread and wine of the eucharist are put aside for the whole year in case of emergencies, during which time it does not rot, go mouldy or deteriorate in any way. Any left after the year has passed is consumed by the priest the day before Great Thursday.

Our understanding that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ has been passed on from the apostles and evidence of this can be found in the writings of the early Christian fathers. In scripture, it is primarily supported by John 6.

John 6
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh (sarka) to eat (phagein)?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat (phagete) the flesh (sarka) of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth (trogon) my flesh (sarka), and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh (sarx) is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth (trogon) my flesh (sarka), and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth (trogon) me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth (trogon) of this bread shall live for ever.
'Sarx' is 'flesh', 'body', as in 'sarcoma' (a fleshly growth). 'Sarx' is also used in John 1:14 (and the Word became flesh). The more general word for body, 'soma', lacks the carnal reality of sarx.

'Trogon' means to 'chew and swallow' and cannot be understood here as anything other than literal eating. It is a very literal, earthy word and it simply cannot be understood in a figurative way. St John clearly chose to use a less usual verb to indicate that our Lord Jesus meant 'eat' in a very real, sensual way. This is also indicated by the use of the word 'sarx'. The word 'trogon' only appears seven times in Holy Scripture, five of them in this passage. The others are Matt 24:38 and John 13:18, and both clearly mean eating in a literal, not figurative way.

So a straightforward analysis of the text seems clear that the Apostle John went out of his way to show that our Lord Jesus Christ was discussing a literal eating of his flesh, He just did not explain the 'how' right then and there. Up to this point it had been easy for his disciples to follow Him. After all, he performed incredible miracles and spoke wisdom with great authority which they had all witnessed personally. But now Jesus demanded more of them, He demanded faith such as that demanded of Abraham when God commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen 22:2).

Sorry if I'm sounding argumentative. I copied this from a post I had made on another forum so it has been pulled from the context of a heated debate. I would rewrite it but am stretched for time so I apologise if it seems like I want to debate this. I really only want to present the Orthodox position on what we believe and why.

John.
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,051
1,802
60
New England
✟618,580.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
d0c markus said:
what makes communion symbolic? What exactly does transubstantiation mean. (i ask here because i want to be able to examine and post in light of scripture. not really debate)
Good Day, Doc

This is not an easy question that you ask IMO. I have questioned RC"s about this dogma they prescribe to it seems the more you ask about it the mushier it gets Here is a link to a thread I was involved in:

http://www.christianforums.com/t68431&page=1

It is some what long but hopefully it can help you understand the RC transsubstation a little better. As far as luther's veiw I will leave that to one who knows more about his veiw than I currently do. I know there is a book ava on Calvins veiw on the Lord's supper. For me I have yet to come to a conclusive opition on this subject.

The most important thing to rember IMO is that Jesus was celibrating the Sader Meal of pass over when the teaching of the lord's supper was given. Tha should be kept in the fore front of your mind as you endover in to this teaching.

I have seen you posted some Scripture and will read it in full a little later this AM.

Hope this helps!

BBAS
 
Upvote 0

Phoebe

TwoBrickShyOfAFullLoad
Aug 22, 2002
3,793
76
Iowa
Visit site
✟27,024.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
d0c markus said:
Well in any case, we will figure luthers beef later.

As i am reading Matthew 26

MT 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

MT 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

it seems like you would take it literally until you get to v.29 where he specifically identifies the drink, it is wine, the fruit of the vine, which hadn't transformed at all. This to me indicates that it is symbolic therefore you would also have to take the body as being symbolic to be consistent. Also Jesus instructs the disciples to "drink from it all of you" which is something the catholic church (in my experience) denies its people.
Read John 15:1
Jesus is the true vine. Would this make his blood the fruit of the vine?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,827
14,299
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,457,103.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I found it very interesting that the Israelites were forbidden to eat the blood of any animal because "the life of the creature was in the blood" (Gen 9:4, Lev 17:10-13, Deut 12:23), yet Jesus specifically commands us to drink His blood.

By doing so we have His very life in us? :)

John
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟33,375.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
prodromos said:
If I may, I'd like to post something on the topic.

The Orthodox church believes that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord but does not attempt to define how and when that happens, preferring to accept it as a mystery which is always approached with great awe.

Our understanding that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ has been passed on from the apostles and evidence of this can be found in the writings of the early Christian fathers. In scripture, it is primarily supported by John 6.
This is effectively the belief of most Anglicans as well -- we believe in the Real Presence, and refuse to assert a theory as to how it is -- other than the epiclesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine to be for us the Body and Blood of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
60
Oklahoma
✟32,229.00
Faith
Pentecostal
The main fight here was, even though Luther held the consubstantiation to be most true, he didn't want the Church dictating what people ought to believe, when it cannot be proven. "Real Pressence" is the important thing and how that presence is manifested will remain conjecture and at best, theory.

I'm not Lutheran, but I agree with this approach. If the Church commands that we must believe something which simply is not proven definitively from Scripture, and we can not within ourselves believe what it says, the Church is placing "yokes" upon us and "stumbling blocks" in our paths.

My faith does not teach Transubstantiation, but if I believed in it, my Church would not forbid me to believe.

Ireneaus, an Early Church Father says this:

Ireneaus

Against Heresies
Book II

Chapter XXVIII.-Perfect Knowledge Cannot Be Attained in the Present Life: Many Questions Must Be Submissively Left in the Hands of God.


2. If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account227 destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries. And there is no cause for wonder if this is the case with us as respects things spiritual and heavenly, and such as require to be made known to us by revelation, since many even of those things which lie at our very feet (I mean such as belong to this world, which we handle, and see, and are in close contact with) transcend out knowledge, so that even these we must leave to God . . . .


3. If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] Which belongs only to God, and others which come with in the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God? As the apostle has said on this point, that, when other things have been done away, then these three, "faith, hope, and charity, shall endure."229 For faith, which has respect to our Master, endures230 unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father; while we hope ever to be receiving more and more from God, and to learn from Him, because He is good, and possesses boundless riches, a kingdom without end, and instruction that can never be exhausted. If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard231 one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. If, for instance, any one asks, "What was God doing before He made the world? "we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect232 by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper233 for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it]; so, as by one's imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things.
 
Upvote 0

d0c markus

The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few
Oct 30, 2003
2,474
77
41
✟3,060.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
prodromos said:
If I may, I'd like to post something on the topic.

The Orthodox church believes that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord but does not attempt to define how and when that happens, preferring to accept it as a mystery which is always approached with great awe. On Great Thursday (the day before Good Friday), the bread and wine of the eucharist are put aside for the whole year in case of emergencies, during which time it does not rot, go mouldy or deteriorate in any way. Any left after the year has passed is consumed by the priest the day before Great Thursday.

Our understanding that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ has been passed on from the apostles and evidence of this can be found in the writings of the early Christian fathers. In scripture, it is primarily supported by John 6.


'Sarx' is 'flesh', 'body', as in 'sarcoma' (a fleshly growth). 'Sarx' is also used in John 1:14 (and the Word became flesh). The more general word for body, 'soma', lacks the carnal reality of sarx.

'Trogon' means to 'chew and swallow' and cannot be understood here as anything other than literal eating. It is a very literal, earthy word and it simply cannot be understood in a figurative way. St John clearly chose to use a less usual verb to indicate that our Lord Jesus meant 'eat' in a very real, sensual way. This is also indicated by the use of the word 'sarx'. The word 'trogon' only appears seven times in Holy Scripture, five of them in this passage. The others are Matt 24:38 and John 13:18, and both clearly mean eating in a literal, not figurative way.

So a straightforward analysis of the text seems clear that the Apostle John went out of his way to show that our Lord Jesus Christ was discussing a literal eating of his flesh, He just did not explain the 'how' right then and there. Up to this point it had been easy for his disciples to follow Him. After all, he performed incredible miracles and spoke wisdom with great authority which they had all witnessed personally. But now Jesus demanded more of them, He demanded faith such as that demanded of Abraham when God commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen 22:2).

Sorry if I'm sounding argumentative. I copied this from a post I had made on another forum so it has been pulled from the context of a heated debate. I would rewrite it but am stretched for time so I apologise if it seems like I want to debate this. I really only want to present the Orthodox position on what we believe and why.

John.
Even as a young student of the bible, who had never taken communion before or attended church, i view this to be symbolic. I have been reading a few articles today and i like this:

Wayne Jackson said:
The “eating” and “drinking” are said to result in “life;” yet, in this very context, that “life” is described as being the consequence of receiving Christ “words,” i.e., his teaching (v. 63). It thus becomes clear that the consumption of his body and blood are the equivalent of ingesting his sacred instruction – the former is a figurative expression; the latter literal.

This is further borne out of a consideration of the phrase, “abides in me, and I in him” (v. 56) That reciprocal relationship is said to be the result of “eating” and “drinking” the flesh and blood of Christ. However, in a complimentary passage, elsewhere in John’s writings, the apostle equates the “in me / in you” relationship with “keeping his commandments” (1 Jn. 3:24).

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/transubstantiationQuestion.htm
 
Upvote 0

II Paradox II

Oracle of the Obvious
Oct 22, 2003
527
32
51
California
Visit site
✟860.00
Faith
Calvinist
d0c markus said:
Not at the masses i attended.. You were given the communion waffer the wine was reserved for the preists.
This practice of recieving the Euchrist under one species (just the bread, no wine) has happened in the history of the Catholic Chrurch. I don't have any historical reasources on hand, but this quote from Trent should help to see where they were coming from theologically... Off the top of my head, I recall this issue being a contentious one both during the reformation and with relations to the Eastern Orthodox.

"The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, (l) it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. (m) And indeed it is sufficiently manifest that he himself exercised this power,- as in many other things, so in regard of this very sacrament; when, after having ordained certain things touching the use thereof, he says; The rest I will set in order when I come. (n) Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one(o) species, (p) and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at plea sure, without the authority of the Church itself." From the second chapter of the 21st Session of trent
http://history.hanover.edu/early/Trent/CT21.html

ken
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,051
1,802
60
New England
✟618,580.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
60
Oklahoma
✟32,229.00
Faith
Pentecostal
D0c,

Howdy. I thought I would address your first question, since many people have answered the second. You ask:

What makes communion symbolic?

First, I’d like to have you look at something that Augustine taught in his writings, On Christian Doctrine, Book III:

Chapter 5.-It is a Wretched Slavery Which Takes the Figurative Expressions of Scripture in a Literal Sense.

9. But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."22 For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.

Chapter 10.-How We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is Figurative.

14. But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one's neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one's neighbor. Every man, moreover, has hope in his own conscience, so far as he perceives that he has attained to the love and knowledge of God and his neighbor. Now all these matters have been spoken of in the first book.

Chapter 16.-Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.

24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."35 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;" and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, "for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head,"36 one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man's pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, "He who loveth his life shall lose it,"37 we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man's duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, "Let him lose his life"-that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: "Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner."38 The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, "help not a sinner." Understand, therefore, that "sinner" is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.


I don’t know how much clearer it can be made than by those words for St. Augustine. Now, I’m going to address this question from a scriptural approach as you requested. Our first indication that communion is symbolic is:

John 6:63, It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Christ is clearly clearing up the misunderstanding of those who are questioning. I state this with confidence, because even before I read Augustine, whom I quoted above, I could rationalize, myself, that nowhere in Scripture is “eating flesh and drinking blood” condoned. In fact, eating meat with blood still in it was prohibited, and eating human flesh was not permitted at all. Notice in John 6:63 above Jesus says, “ . . . the words I speak . . . are spirit . . . are life.” This is important because on other occasions prophets/teachers were commanded to eat “words” or written texts and then to go and spread/prophesy that they had eaten/consumed. Lets look at a couple of OT passages and a passage from Revelation:

Jeremiah 15:16: “Your words were found and I ate them, and your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart.”

Ezekiel 2:8 But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee
Ezekiel 2:9 And when I looked, behold, an hand [was] sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book [was] therein;
Ezekiel 2:10 And he spread it before me; and it [was] written within and without: and [there was] written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.
Ezekiel 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel
Ezekiel 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
Ezekiel 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat [it]; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.

Revelation 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take [it], and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Revelation 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Revelation 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

So, clearly, and on more than one occasion, eating or consuming “words” signifies being spiritually enlightened or fed. In John 6, the commands to “eat and drink” were metaphorical representations of “come and believe.”

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Then:

Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

So, you have Christ saying:

1) Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
2) Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

And

3) Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
4) Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Now, one will look at these passages and come to one of two conclusions:

1) They contradict each other, therefore Christ is contradicting Himself.
Or
2) “Eating and drinking” symbolizes “coming and believing.”

Now, we know Christ didn’t contradict Himself, so we are left with one answer.

Eating and drinking are symbolic of coming to and believing in Christ.

Now look at John 7, it ties this truth up nicely:

Look at this verse:

John 7: 37-38 “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’”
 
Upvote 0

puriteen18

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2003
458
19
40
Alabama
✟703.00
Faith
Anglican
If I may jump in..

The veiw held by us Calvinists is a bit of a confusing one, but basically we believe the elements (bread and wine) remain what they are. However, Christ's presence is fully there spiritually. If we take part in faith we do receive every grace and beneifit. If we take unworthily we drink down condemnation.

Here is some quotes from Calvin's A Short Treatise on the LORD's Supper:

"...Now, if it be asked nevertheless whether the bread is the body of Christ, and the wine His blood, we should reply that the bread and the wine are the visible signs, which represent to us the body and the blood; but that the name and title of body and blood is attributed to them, because they are as instruments by which our LORD Jesus Christ distributes them to us ....

It is a spiritual mystery, which cannot be seen by the eye, nor comprehended by the human understanding. It is therefore symbolized by visible signs, as our infirmity requires, but in such a way that it is not a bare figure, but joined to its reality and substance. It is therefore with good reason that the bread is called body, since not only does it represent it to us, but also presents it to us....

Thus, as a brief definition of this benefit of the supper, we may say that Jesus Christ is there offered to us that we may possess Him, and in Him all the fullness of His gifts which we can desire; and that in this we have great assistance in confirming our conscience in faith which we ought to have in Him."

It is taught in Reformed Churches that the Supper is needed for sanctification and that it is the most intimate we can be with Jesus while on earth. It may also be noted that we refer to the elements as the Body and Blood during the Communion and that we use the word sacrament to describe it.
 
Upvote 0

Filia Mariae

Senior Contributor
Jul 27, 2003
8,228
735
USA
Visit site
✟12,006.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Also Jesus instructs the disciples to "drink from it all of you" which is something the catholic church (in my experience) denies its people.



Catholics are not denied the cup. However, one only has to receive under one species because we believe that both the Body and the Blood are fully present in both the Host and the Cup. Catholics most certainly can receive from the Cup.

By, the way, would you think it logical to ask Catholics what transubstantiation is, as opposed to those who don't believe in it?
 
Upvote 0

puriteen18

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2003
458
19
40
Alabama
✟703.00
Faith
Anglican
racer said:
Here's a quick question:

I have in my hand a photo of myself. I hold it up for you guys to see and say, "This is me."

Now, is the picture of me-me? Or is it a representation of me?
Okay, here's another question:
What if you said that if we looked at the picture we would commune (have fellowship) with you?


1 Corinthians 10 (KJV)
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 10 (Young's Literal Translation)
16 The cup of the blessing that we bless -- is it not the fellowship of the blood of the Christ? the bread that we break -- is it not the fellowship of the body of the Christ?
 
Upvote 0

Droobie

Rebmem Raluger
Nov 22, 2001
3,066
73
52
Melbourne, Australia
Visit site
✟27,572.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Liberals
racer said:
Here's a quick question:

I have in my hand a photo of myself. I hold it up for you guys to see and say, "This is me."

Now, is the picture of me-me? Or is it a representation of me?
Hmmm... good questions... but then again, I do not think that you are God; everliving, omnipresent, in Spirit etc etc.
 
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
60
Oklahoma
✟32,229.00
Faith
Pentecostal
puriteen18 said:
Okay, here's another question:
What if you said that if we looked at the picture we would commune (have fellowship) with you?

Did Christ say that? I don't think so.

He said, ". . . Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 1CR 11:24.

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Notice in Corinthians Paul says:

1Cr 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Paul calls it "bread" not Christ's flesh or body.

In the verses you quote:

1 Corinthians 10 (KJV)
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 10 (Young's Literal Translation)
16 The cup of the blessing that we bless -- is it not the fellowship of the blood of the Christ? the bread that we break -- is it not the fellowship of the body of the Christ?

Paul is speaking to church members. How about we look past verse 16:

1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1Cr 10:17 For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Paul is saying that when we partake of "communion" we are communing with each other, fellowshipping with each other.

A couple more interesting notes on this passage. Paul doesn't say that the "cup of blessing" is Christ's blood, but that it is the "communion of the blood of Christ." Nor does He say the bread is Christ's "body." He says it's the "communion" of Christ's body. He then goes on to say that by coming together and communing, we become the "one bread, and one body" because we partake of that one BREAD.
 
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
60
Oklahoma
✟32,229.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Droobie said:
Hmmm... good questions... but then again, I do not think that you are God; everliving, omnipresent, in Spirit etc etc.

No . . . I'm certainly not God. :sorry: But, what's your point and what does it prove? :scratch: Do you assert that just because we have Christ (God) breaking/blessing bread and saying "this is my body," He must be speaking literally? Christ never spoke figuratively, used metaphors or symbolism? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.