A question primarily for the protestants here: Which interpretion of the nature of communion do you favour?
For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, being incarnate by God's Word, took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. (Justin Martyr, 'Apology' c.140AD)
they take on the full significance of what they represent, and convey a real impartation of grace to the believer, making Christ really present, allowing us to 'feed on Him in our hearts by faith'.
Originally posted by filosofer
For clarity, this is a classic re-statement of Calvin's position. The Reformed would say that Real presence of Christ means "Christ is present in the sacrament, but not his body and blood."
I personally believe that in most Protestant and Reformed churches, communion is not offered frequently enough(quarterly to monthly). And when it IS held, there is next to no preparation by church members.
Originally posted by Andrew
I have some unleavened bread and red wine at home. I take communion when I feel led to, in addition to my church and care grp communion times, which is like twice a month.
you dont have to wait for the church to do it.
Originally posted by lambslove
"And He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to them, and said, "This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me." Luke 22:19
This is the only communion passage that explains the PURPOSE of communion--remembrance.