Eucharist Elements

[Jipsah]

There is another possibility. Unbelievers often cannot see past the literal meaning of things, and were thrown off by Jesus saying something unliteral that they could not understand.

Nah. "Memorialists" are always very careful not to cite, and in fact are generally very careful not acknowledge at all, 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

First, if we eat and drink "unworthily". we'er not just wasting time and and a tiny snack, we're "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord". It ain't just a little snackie at that point, is it? Suddenly it ain't just about bread and wine anymore, is it?

And why is the offense so egregious? If it's just a pinch of bread and a sip of vino, what's the big deal? The offense is "not discerning the Lord's body" I'm sorry, but not only do memorialists not discern our Lord's body in the elements of the Eucharist, but stoutly deny the presense of our Lord's Body and Blood there at all..

If y'all wanna argue tha St. Paul just got it wrong. but I reckon I'm gonna have to he's more likely to have the rights of it than the the folks who disagree with him.

Once again, I think Protestants too often find themselves "protesting" stuff they ought to just take as spoken by our Lord. There's such a thing as being "too clever by half".

That is, they knew he was not being literal, but couldn't understand the spirituality that lay behind the saying. That is the thing those of faith partake of, in my view.

 

[RandyPNW]

Nah. "Memorialists" are always very careful not to cite, and in fact are generally very careful not acknowledge at all, 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

First, if we eat and drink "unworthily". we'er not just wasting time and and a tiny snack, we're "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord". It ain't just a little snackie at that point, is it? Suddenly it ain't just about bread and wine anymore, is it?

And why is the offense so egregious? If it's just a pinch of bread and a sip of vino, what's the big deal? The offense is "not discerning the Lord's body" I'm sorry, but not only do memorialists not discern our Lord's body in the elements of the Eucharist, but stoutly deny the presense of our Lord's Body and Blood there at all..

What Paul is referring to, in my opinion, is the problem of failing to take the consecration of bread and wine serious enough to treat it as a proper *memorial.* To say that we must see the wine and bread as Jesus' literal flesh and blood is irrational, as I see it.

I'm sure that's not what Paul was concerned with. If you don't see the earth as flat, then you're going to Hell? No!

Once again, I think Protestants too often find themselves "protesting" stuff they ought to just take as spoken by our Lord. There's such a thing as being "too clever by half".

I'm not speaking primarily as a Protestant, though I am that. I don't have a serious problem with the Catholic denomination with the exception that it has an "exclusivisitic" mentality. I see nothing in Scriptures that requires Christians to be unified "organizationally" with the Catholic denomination.

Christian missionary endeavors have different "fields." And different fields require different organizations. However, the different organizations, if they remain orthodox in doctrine and true in practice should all remain in spiritual and social unity. They just have different leadership, and do not require an organized heirarchy. That's a throwback to the old imperial and monarchial governments under which the Church originally formed. We must not have "lords" as secular rulers do.

I can disagree with the official Catholic position on the Eurcharist, without discarding fellowship with Catholics. I also disagree with my own AoG denomination on biblical prophecy and on Tongues speaking as a "Prayer Language," but still fellowship with them.

This is not for me a Catholic vs. Protestant thing, but an isolated concern with how we properly describe the Eucharist. My upbringing on Lutheranism, sometimes called Consubstantiation, or otherwise, is not that different from Catholicism, as both describe a "Real Presence" in the Communion.

Speaking of taking Communion as a "snack" is far more unworthy in your description of "Protestant Communion" than how you see "Memorialists taking the Eucharist." Your description is positively insulting where "Memorialists" are just expressing their conscientious feelings and honest convictions about what Paul was saying.

 

[Jipsah]

Yes, as I've been saying Jesus said the Eucharist was a kind of memorial.

Yep, the Memorial Snack. Work it in just before announcements.

It was to help us remember

Yeah, that’s the “memorial” part.

our Christian commitment and what it cost Christ to save us from our sins. That realization becomes *very present!*

I think most of us believers recognize what a miracle life itself is, together with Nature.

Yeah, that was a theme in “The Lion King”, too, I think.

What do we see that isn't miraculous?

Wasps ?

nor do we need to eat "divine bread" to grow in Christ

We’ll just scratch that whole unnecessary bread and wine thing, then.

. But the Eucharist does symbolize this, and reinforces, in our participation, that we accept that change is essential to our well-being and spiritual health.

This is all beginning to sound very neopagan for some reason.

Wait a minute! Jesus is not said to have "changed" the course elements into something substantially human! It doesn't say he "changed" anything at

At this point are you sure the subject of bread and wine even came up at all?

 

[RandyPNW]

Yep, the Memorial Snack. Work it in just before announcements.

You're being very disrespectful--both to our church ritual and to the Eucharist itself.

 

[Jipsah]

You're being very disrespectful--both to our church ritual and to the Eucharist itself.

No, I’m just saying what memorialists have turned it into. It’s just something they do, because… it’s something they do. It’s “bread thou art, and bread shalt thou remain”, with no pretense of it being anything else. You don’t have to worry about anyone discerning the Body and Blood of our Lord there, no one even remotely considers it he idea.

 

[RandyPNW]

No, I’m just saying what memorialists have turned it into. It’s just something they do, because… it’s something they do. It’s “bread thou art, and bread shalt thou remain”, with no pretense of it being anything else. You don’t have to worry about anyone discerning the Body and Blood of our Lord there, no one even remotely considers it he idea.

Not really. I've been both a Lutheran Communion taker--in fact an acolyte assisting the pastor giving the elements as a child. And I've also been a "memorialist," as you call it.

I think the only difference is, as a child, I was afraid of dropping the wine on the carpet because I looked at it as the "blood of Christ." I wanted to treat it as such.

But as a "memorialist" I still see treating the elements as a sacred responsibility. It is no less a sacred rite even if the elements are still viewed as bread and wine, and not converting, spiritually, or whatever.

So, I'm not sure you see things properly the way "memorialists" see them? There isn't an ounce of disrespect in any of them I've ever seen. And I've seen a lifetime of them.

As an example, let's say you give me a figurine of your Mother, and I just throw it into a mud puddle. How is seeing the figurine as not literally your Mother any less a problem for me to do such a thing?

Let's say an artist thinks he's really "modern"and places a cross in a jar of urine? Does the fact the cross is not literally the cross Jesus died on any less a problem for the person who did this? It doesn't have to be literally what the thing represents for it to reflect how it is being treated as a symbol.

 

[Jipsah]

But as a "memorialist" I still see treating the elements as a sacred responsibility. It is oo less a sacred rite even if the elements are still viewed as bread and wine, and not converting, spiritually, or whatever.

I've found that to be true in KOrean churches, but the Koreans believe that the first step in everything is to turn it up to 11 then discard the knob. They tend to be more "high church" about the Eucharist then their non-Korean brethren.

So, I'm not sure you see things properly the way "memorialists" see them? There isn't an ounce of disrespect in any of them I've ever seen. And I've seen a lifetime of them.

Depends on what you consider disrespect, I reckon. The elements are generally prepackaged tiny squares of hard flatbread and a tiny one-sip plastic cup of grape juice. It's typically handed out by the ushers. MOst folks would open it up when they got it just to be ready. The preacher would typically wait until if appeared that everybody had some, he'd read Matthew 26:26-28, then say "Do this in remembernce of Him", then everybody would ceat and sip at the appropriate times, th Sometimes a preacher would ere'd be a prayer, end of. The ushers would generally pass around with trash bads to collect the packaging and whatever was left of the elements. That was it. Sometimes the preacher would read some of 1 Corinthians about eating and drinking unworthily, but usually not.

So yeah, it tended to be handled with has always seemed to me to be relentlessly casual way that Evangelical Protestants, and especially, in my experience, Baptists and non-demon "fellowships", seem compelled to do everything. I don't need church to be all that dadgum casual. If we're going to blather about it being the House of God, then let's act like it.

As an example, let's say you give me a figurine of your Mother, and I just throw it into a mud puddle. How is seeing the figurine as not literally your Mother any less a problem for me to do such a thing?

Make it a photograph, and it'll probably in the trash before you can say Jack Ketch. <Laugh>

Let's say an artist thinks he's really "modern"and places a cross in a jar of urine? Does the fact the cross is not literally the cross Jesus died on any less a problem for the person who did this?

It proves that the perp is a something of a swine, nothing more. If he's purporting to be a Christian, then a pastoral butt whipping might not be a bad idea.

It doesn't have to be literally what the thing represents for it to reflect how it is being treated as a symbol.

Then how about when it's just treated with good old all American nonchalance?

 

[prodromos]

Not really. I've been both a Lutheran Communion taker--in fact an acolyte assisting the pastor giving the elements as a child. And I've also been a "memorialist," as you call it.

I think the only difference is, as a child, I was afraid of dropping the wine on the carpet because I looked at it as the "blood of Christ." I wanted to treat it as such.

But as a "memorialist" I still see treating the elements as a sacred responsibility. It is no less a sacred rite even if the elements are still viewed as bread and wine, and not converting, spiritually, or whatever.

So, I'm not sure you see things properly the way "memorialists" see them? There isn't an ounce of disrespect in any of them I've ever seen. And I've seen a lifetime of them.

As an example, let's say you give me a figurine of your Mother, and I just throw it into a mud puddle. How is seeing the figurine as not literally your Mother any less a problem for me to do such a thing?

Let's say an artist thinks he's really "modern"and places a cross in a jar of urine? Does the fact the cross is not literally the cross Jesus died on any less a problem for the person who did this? It doesn't have to be literally what the thing represents for it to reflect how it is being treated as a symbol.

You'd have a lot more credibility if you hadn't dismissed us as missing a gear in our clocks in post #70

 

[RandyPNW]

You'd have a lot more credibility if you hadn't dismissed us as missing a gear in our clocks in post #70

I'm flawed like everyone here. I apologize for the times when I "miss God" and allow myself personal anger.

 

[RandyPNW]

I've found that to be true in KOrean churches, but the Koreans believe that the first step in everything is to turn it up to 11 then discard the knob. They tend to be more "high church" about the Eucharist then their non-Korean brethren.

Depends on what you consider disrespect, I reckon. The elements are generally prepackaged tiny squares of hard flatbread and a tiny one-sip plastic cup of grape juice. It's typically handed out by the ushers. MOst folks would open it up when they got it just to be ready. The preacher would typically wait until if appeared that everybody had some, he'd read Matthew 26:26-28, then say "Do this in remembernce of Him", then everybody would ceat and sip at the appropriate times, th Sometimes a preacher would ere'd be a prayer, end of. The ushers would generally pass around with trash bads to collect the packaging and whatever was left of the elements. That was it. Sometimes the preacher would read some of 1 Corinthians about eating and drinking unworthily, but usually not.

That was pretty close to my present church. I've had many churches. Currently, we do the little tiny squares of bread and small plastic cup thing. I agree it diminishes the experience.

I think of the original Eucharist as basically eating together and drinking together as the original formula. It was a spiritual fellowship, a holy representation of our regular participation in the spiritual life of Christ--not just during the Eucharist. It was specifically given to regularly "remember" what he did in order for us to participate in him.

Lacking the "fellowship" aspect of eating together the Eucharist becomes too formal and too down-sized. So I can understand your semi-derogatory view of it--not out of disrespect for people observing Communion, but only because they've adopted a representation that is very unrealistic--not profane but perhaps "cheap?"

So yeah, it tended to be handled with has always seemed to me to be relentlessly casual way that Evangelical Protestants, and especially, in my experience, Baptists and non-demon "fellowships", seem compelled to do everything. I don't need church to be all that dadgum casual. If we're going to blather about it being the House of God, then let's act like it.

I agree.

Make it a photograph, and it'll probably in the trash before you can say Jack Ketch. <Laugh>

It proves that the perp is a something of a swine, nothing more. If he's purporting to be a Christian, then a pastoral butt whipping might not be a bad idea.

Then how about when it's just treated with good old all American nonchalance?

I empathize, but we still have to consult God on how to respond. The guy who put the cross in a jar of urine was obviously not a Christian.