The Didache

[Secundulus]

Consider what the earliest Christians saw in the symbology of the broken bread of the Eucharist.

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..
​

The Kingdom they speak of is the rule of God, here on earth, in the hearts and minds of the Body of Christ. This is the primary meaning behind the Institution of the Eucharist. It symbolizes the unity of God's people under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

In the beginning it was for unity. Now it is a weapon we use against each other in our quest to prove we are holier than the other. Who is innocent?

 

[a_ntv]

It symbolizes the unity of God's people under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

This is your own PROTESTANT interpretation
For sure limited and so wrong

The Bread doeas not SYMBOLIZE anything. It IS the Body of Him

In the didache the Miracle of the Transubstatation is painted in this way: as we start the Mass with many different separated pieces of bread (offered at the offertory by the faithfulls who came by all over the wolrd), but after the consacration these pieces are becamed ONE, even if they look like to be many.
ONE because the they all are the BODY Of CHRIST.
If they were not the Body of Christ, they would have remaind MANY.

The Didache says: be carefull: they loks like as many separeted pieces of bread, but they actually are the ONE Body of Christ.

By the work of the Holy Spirit the Bread had became ONE (= THE one Body of Him), and so we too shall became One in Him (=to became 100% Christ-like)

So the Church is the mistycal Body of Christ: One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.

If you dont believe that the Bread is One (=His Body), you also dont believe that the Church is One: that is typical of the protestant deminations (as the anglicans) that believe that the church is simply the sum of many faithfuls because they dont believe that Bread is One (One = His BODY)

There is an echo of the second part of this prayer in the Catholic Eucharistic Preayers:
May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Secundulus]

This is your own PROTESTANT interpretation
For sure limited and so wrong

The Bread doeas not SYMBOLIZE anything. It IS the Body of Him

In the didache the Miracle of the Transubstatation is painted in this way: as we start the Mass with many different separated pieces of bread (offered at the offertory by the faithfulls who came by all over the wolrd), but after the consacration these pieces are becamed ONE, even if they look like to be many.
ONE because the they all are the BODY Of CHRIST.
If they were not the Body of Christ, they would have remaind MANY.

The Didache says: be carefull: they loks like as many separeted pieces of bread, but they actually are the ONE Body of Christ.

By the work of the Holy Spirit the Bread had became ONE (= THE one Body of Him), and so we too shall became One in Him (=to became 100% Christ-like)

So the Church is the mistycal Body of Christ: One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.

If you dont believe that the Bread is One (=His Body), you also dont believe that the Church is One: that is typical of the protestant deminations (as the anglicans) that believe that the church is simply the sum of many faithfuls because they dont believe that Bread is One (One = His BODY)

There is an echo of the second part of this prayer in the Catholic Eucharistic Preayers:
May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

So, we are saying the same thing. It is the body and blood of Christ we eat that makes us one. We believe the same thing.

Only it doesn't make us one any more because we refuse to do it together.

We don't believe in the explanation of transubstantiation though because that was a medieval attempt to explain the mystery of God. It was unknown to the early Church and cannot be found in any early Church writings.

We simply accept that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the power of God because that is what it says in the scriptures.

We pray this together before partaking of the communion.

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
​

The priest says this when giving it.

THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

THE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.
​

Other than not trying to explain the mystery of God using human Aristotelian logic, how is this belief different from yours?

Given that, the communion as a whole was a physical symbol of the mystical union of the Body of Christ on earth. We break this union when we refuse each other communion.

​

 

[Secundulus]

There is an echo of the second part of this prayer in the Catholic Eucharistic Preayers:
May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

Is this any different?

. . . that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.
​

 

[Sothron]

I had no idea the Anglicans have the same belief about the Eucharist that EO have.

 

[Albion]

I had no idea the Anglicans have the same belief about the Eucharist that EO have.

Well, we all (EO, RC, OO, OC, A's) do believe in the Real Presence, as we see.

Defining it is where we divide up.

However, if you are referring specifically to this perspective: "We simply accept that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the power of God because that is what it says in the scriptures," I would agree that there is an important similarity between Anglican adn EO understanding.

 

[Sothron]

Yes, the difference of believing in that it is a Mystery as to how and when is what I was referring to. I had assumed the Anglicans had taken the RCC stance.

 

[a_ntv]

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table,

We call it ALTAR, not Table.

Becasue the Eucahrist is the same sacrifice of the Cross, made present of us, not only a thinking to such a sacrifice

The Altar is the Calvary, where Christ died and where Christ arose from the deaths.

Not simply a table, like the one you can find in a restorant

Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

We dont it the Holy Bread because we remeber, through it, of Christ death and ressurection.
We eat the Holy Bread because it IS the Body of Christ.

The anglican canon of the Mass is very ambigous: it can be acceptable by both a calvinist and by both a catholic.
But not because calvinist sand catholics believe in the same doctrine, but simply because the anglican canon uses ambigous expressions

Other than not trying to explain the mystery of God using human Aristotelian logic, how is this belief different from yours?

We catholics easily accept other ways to paint the Transubstantaion not using any Aristototelic term. It is not a problem for us.
Nor the Aristotelian logic explains the mystery. it simply uses specialistic terms, but it explains nothing. The mistery remains a mistery.

It is impossible to say how our believe is different form the Anglican's one, because the anglicans have not a defined believe and their prayers are very ambigous.

You shall believe that:
- there is an actual change in the bread before the Mass and the Bread after the Mass
- the Holy Bread after the Mass IS (to be) the Body of Chirst. The verb 'to simbolize' is wrong.
- the Change happen ONLY for the work of the Holy Spirt. The faithfulls faith, memory, mind, feeling, remembrance is completly uselss for the Change to happen
- the Sanctified Bread remains the Body of Christ even if no human people think to it.
- the Mass is the very one sacrifice of the Cross: not a repeatiotion, nor simply a re-mind of it. It happens on the escatological time, not on the human time.
- the Eucharist is a mistery above any human being: it is the true aliment for us. It cannot be measured by the single faithfull faith.
- only the Church, by the ministry of an priest or bishop ordained with the sacrament of Holy Order, can pray the Holy Spirit to do the Change.

If you believe these points, we have the same faith on this issue

 

[Secundulus]

You shall believe that:
- there is an actual change in the bread before the Mass and the Bread after the Mass
- the Holy Bread after the Mass IS (to be) the Body of Chirst. The verb 'to simbolize' is wrong.
- the Change happen ONLY for the work of the Holy Spirt. The faithfulls faith, memory, mind, feeling, remembrance is completly uselss for the Change to happen
- the Sanctified Bread remains the Body of Christ even if no human people think to it.
- the Mass is the very one sacrifice of the Cross: not a repeatiotion, nor simply a re-mind of it. It happens on the escatological time, not on the human time.
- the Eucharist is a mistery above any human being: it is the true aliment for us. It cannot be measured by the single faithfull faith.
- only the Church, by the ministry of an priest or bishop ordained with the sacrament of Holy Order, can pray the Holy Spirit to do the Change.

The bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ. We do not speculate about it beyond that.

We do not view the Eucharist as the sacrifice of Christ. That was conducted once and was sufficient for all time.

 

[Colabomb]

I had no idea the Anglicans have the same belief about the Eucharist that EO have.

Which is why i am glad this forum exists.

While I do not share his view, I know a Ukranian Orthodox Bishop, who sees (conservative) Anglicanism as a western Orthodoxy, the native Church of England.

Again, I believe in a different view than he does, but it points out how much we share.

About the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, people should make sure not to make assumptions about our beliefs. Yes many Anglicans are memorialists, but the vast majority of us believe in the Real Presence.

When we say symbolize, we believe that a Thing can be something, and symbolize something simultaneously. A fist is both a balled up hand, and a symbol of Power. A book is a bound group of papers, and a symbol of knowledge and learning.

The Eucharist can literally be the Body and Blood of Christ, yet represent many other things simultaneously.

 

[a_ntv]

We do not view the Eucharist as the sacrifice of Christ. That was conducted once and was sufficient for all time.

We think with a human mind.

God is the lord of the Time too.

The sacrifice of the Cross happend once, but the Eucharist is the very same sacrifice of the Cross re.newed for us.

And form the Altar (Christ's tomb) He ressurects

How? it is a mistery.

We dont measure the Eucharist with a human mind, keeping only what we can understand, as the Anglican do.

 

[Albion]

Yes, the difference of believing in that it is a Mystery as to how and when is what I was referring to. I had assumed the Anglicans had taken the RCC stance.

Oh no, certainly not that. Yet I can see why that would seem logical.

I'd say that the most common view among Anglicans is that how the change occurs is a mystery, just that it is the real body and blood of Christ.

 

[Albion]

The sacrifice of the Cross happend once, but the Eucharist is the very same sacrifice of the Cross re.newed for us.

Well, that does represent a difference from us. We consider the Eucharist to be sacrificial, but only to the extent that we offer ourselves in a sense and that it is a sacrifice of praise and worship.

We dont measure the Eucharist with a human mind, keeping only what we can understand, as the Anglican do.

We don't suppose that we should make speculatations on matters that are above human understanding into doctrinal teaching.

 

[Albion]

Yes many Anglicans are memorialists, but the vast majority of us believe in the Real Presence.

As you know, I am a supporter of the Articles of Religion. Here's a case where it may be worth pointing out that the Articles reject a memorialist view of the Lord's Supper. That being so, those who adhere to them...and those who take the more "Anglo-Catholic" approach to both the Articles and to the Eucharist itself are in agreement that our churches are not adherents of the memorialist view. Although you said that "many are memorialists," I think the number is small, actually.

 

[a_ntv]

We don't suppose that we should make speculatations on matters that are above human understanding into doctrinal teaching.

Also God is a matter that is above human understanding
But we shall speak about God.

We cannot keep a mountain in our pockets (our pockets are to little), but we can start to climb it, perhaps from opposite sides.

Think to the Fathers: they spoke a lot about God, about matters that are above human understanding, about the Trinity also (and also about the Eucharist)

St Cyrill of Jerusalem called the Eucharist "the Holy and most awesome SACRIFICE set on the altar" (Mystological Sermon 5:10)
Sacrifice set on the altar. Not food set on the table. It is also food on the the table, but not it is also a sacrifice set on the altar.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Yes, the difference of believing in that it is a Mystery as to how and when is what I was referring to. I had assumed the Anglicans had taken the RCC stance.

As with everything in Anglicanism, you will find variance. There are quite a few Anglo-Catholics aroung who pretty much hold the RCC view.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the RCC view. I think the arguments between Transsub, Conssub, and all that is largely the result of confusion over the meaning of the terms involved.

 

[Albion]

We call it ALTAR, not Table.

It's not called an Altar for the reason of not wanting to have it seem that we agree with the RC on this.

Not simply a table, like the one you can find in a restorant

What did Christ use at the Last Supper?

The anglican canon of the Mass is very ambigous

We understand that those who are not familiar with Anglicanism can think that. It's not uncommon.

- there is an actual change in the bread before the Mass and the Bread after the Mass We'd agree to that.

- the Holy Bread after the Mass IS (to be) the Body of Chirst. The verb 'to simbolize' is wrong. We'd agree again.

- the Change happen ONLY for the work of the Holy Spirt. The faithfulls faith, memory, mind, feeling, remembrance is completly uselss for the Change to happen We'd agree.

- the Sanctified Bread remains the Body of Christ even if no human people think to it. Huh?

- the Mass is the very one sacrifice of the Cross: not a repeatiotion, nor simply a re-mind of it. It happens on the escatological time, not on the human time. We' don't speculate like that, just take what scripture tells us.

- only the Church, by the ministry of an priest or bishop ordained with the sacrament of Holy Order, can pray the Holy Spirit to do the Change. That's our practice.

If you believe these points, we have the same faith on this issue

Close, at any rate.

 

[Albion]

Also God is a matter that is above human understanding
But we shall speak about God.

You're speaking of the existence and some of the facts about God that we know only because he revealed them to us. You are far from understanding all about God.

St Cyrill of Jerusalem called the Eucharist "the Holy and most awesome SACRIFICE set on the altar"

Good for him. Many Christian thinkers throughout history have theorized about the things that will be known by us after this life has ended. We respect all of them but we don't base our beliefs on man's speculations.

 

[Albion]

As with everything in Anglicanism, you will find variance. There are quite a few Anglo-Catholics aroung who pretty much hold the RCC view.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the RCC view. I think the arguments between Transsub, Conssub, and all that is largely the result of confusion over the meaning of the terms involved.

That sounds then like you do NOT, in fact, find nothing to be "wrong with the RCC view," because the RCC does not hold that anything but the RCC view (transubstantiation) is correct and does not consider the differences with Consubstantiation, for example, to be terminology...or up for discussion.

 

[a_ntv]

You're speaking of the existence and some of the facts about God that we know only because he revealed them to us. You are far from understanding all about God.

Please explain me why you say that I'm trying to understand all about God.

I simply wrote that the sacrifice of the altar is the same sacrifice of the Cross.
Where is the will to keep all the Eucharist in my pocket?
The fact that in many churches (not only protestant) the doctrine is reduced to a 'le's love' dont means that we cannot say something. Not to say all, but to say samething.

Good for him. Many Christian thinkers throughout history have theorized about the things that will be known by us after this life has ended. We respect all of them but we don't base our beliefs on man's speculations.

It was not only St Cyrill of Jerusalem. I can quote lots of Fathers, from St Ambrose (in Italy) to St Ephrem in Syria.
And we have the ancient anaphoras of the III-IV century: in all of them the sacrifical meaning is present, while the 'comunitary meal' is not present.
Think as instance at the Papyr of Strabourg of the II century !!