The Lord's supper / Holy Communion

[Peaceful1]

A popular story springs up about St. Anthony, mention of it is made in the official Butler's lives of the Saints. It is the story of St. Anthony's encounter with an Jewish man. This man contested the "Real Presence of the Eucharist; so one day he approached St. Anthony publicly and after spelling out all of his reasons for not believing in such a "fable" as the Real Presence, he challenged Anthony to a contest. He bet that the Real Presence was a lie, and he proposed to "starve a donkey" for three days---no hay, and see if the donkey would choose to eat hay or preferred the Eucharist. St. Anthony, being publicly "put on the spot" accepted the challenge. So the wealthy merchant brought out his donkey, publicly hitched him to a post where he could be observed by all; and proceeding to "starve the donkey" for three days. Simultaneously, St. Anthony went into the forest and "fasted" for three days---taking no food. When the day of trial came, Anthony emerged from the forest and sought out a local Church where he took the Eucharist and returned to the spot where the donkey was tied. Meanwhile, the challenger had placed a large pile of hay about 20 ft away from the donkey. Anthony took out the Eucharist holding it in his hands; the merchant untied the donkey, who needless to say, made a "beeline" for the pile of hay. Just as the donkey was about to reach the hay, St. Anthony elevated the Eucharist and shouted in a loud voice: "Mule, in the Name of the Lord Our God, I command you to come here and adore your Creator ! " The donkey "reared up" on his hind legs as if someone had pulled him by a bridle; he spun around, and ran to St. Anthony, dropping to his forelegs--- hind legs still extended; and put his head down to the ground---in a "posture of adoration" before the Eucharist which St. Anthony continued to hold elevated. The Jewish merchant, stunned by what occurred begged St. Anthony's forgiveness, converted on the spot, and donated the money to build a new Catholic Church, his newfound faith. On the cornerstone of the Church, he had engraved a picture of St. Anthony holding the Eucharist aloft and the donkey, "kneeling on his forepaws" in adoration of the Body of Christ.

It's funny that nowadays, people find such things difficult to believe. We have become so sophisticated, so urban, so cosmopolitan. Yet, St. Louis de Montfort once said that when you hear these miraculous stories about the saints; believe them. The worldly find them difficult to believe, but to the faithful, it is not surprising that God does great things for those who truly follow Him.

 

[dignitized]

I've said this before and I'll say it again, I don't care HOW you understand Christ to be real in the Eucharist so long as you do. If you deny that Christ is real in the Eucharist you deny the history of the Christian faith because it is clear even in secular sources that the Lords supper has ALWAYS been central to the faith from the start.

 

[Phoebe]

Matthew 26: 27, 28.
Verse 28: "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"

 

[Andrew]

Point of order, Andrew;_ how is it possible to have 'communion' on your own? (Tho' perhaps you mean you take it with your family?)

Well usu i do it with my wife but who says you can't do it 'alone' with the Lord one-to-one. Some protestants take the communion everyday, they dont have to wait for a crowd b4 they can do it.

When David wrote "you prepare a table b4 me in the presence of mine enemies", he didnt have a crowd in mine, just him and the Lord.

So if you happen to be staying in a far away land on assignment for years, (say a muslim nation) does that mean you can't take communion?

that you must do it in a grp setting for it to count is just another man-made rule that Christ has set me free from

 

[SnuP]

Taking communion means that you come into agreement with Christ and His work. Christ work was the breaking of His body and the pouring out of His blood for our sakes. Recieving communion is to agree with this work that it is good. When you agree with God, you come under His authority and accept His ministery to you. Recieving communion is agreeing that you recieve God's ministery to you and for you. Agreeing with Gods will places you under His authority. Just as Christ accepted God's will and authority by going to the cross, so we too accept God's authority over us by agreeing with Him in communion. Taking communion means that you recongnise the work of God, the will of God, the authority of God, the ministery of God for you, and that you accept your place, your role among the Body of Christ, the brethren.

Taking communion places you in communion with God and His church. Or it should. As long as your communion isn't just some religeous thing that you do because you are a 'good' little christian.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Originally posted by Andrew
Well usu i do it with my wife but who says you can't do it 'alone' with the Lord one-to-one. Some protestants take the communion everyday, they dont have to wait for a crowd b4 they can do it.

When David wrote "you prepare a table b4 me in the presence of mine enemies", he didnt have a crowd in mine, just him and the Lord.

So if you happen to be staying in a far away land on assignment for years, (say a muslim nation) does that mean you can't take communion?

that you must do it in a grp setting for it to count is just another man-made rule that Christ has set me free from

 

I am single and live alone.  There are many times that God directs me to take communion. 

Comminion is not about us and remembering what we are.  It is about Him and remembering Who He is and what He did for us.  Any of us at any time can sit down with our bread and juice/wine and partake in this remembrance.  Personally, for me it becomes a bit more intimate. 

Of course we take communion corporately at church every month.  But I really do like the times I do it alone.  Just me and Him.

 

[Andrew]

I am single and live alone.Ê There are many times that God directs me to take communion.Ê ... Personally, for me itÊbecomes a bit more intimate.Ê
Of course we take communion corporately at church every month.Ê But I really do like the times I do it alone.Ê Just me and Him.

YES EXACTLY! Well-said! Its just so much more intimate! Worship him in spirit and truth. Whom the Son has set free is free indeed. free to be led by the Spirit, not man-made rules and rituals.

 

[dignitized]

funny how the apostolic and anti-Nicene fathers had no problem accepting and understanding the doctrine of the real presence. Funny how none of them preached that the Lords supper was merely a memorial but rather that partaking in the Lords supper was to quite literally partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord.

 

[Andrew]

Is this a protestant section or catholic one?? or is it mixed. have the rules changed?

 

[ZooMom]

Br. Max isn't Catholic.

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Andrew writes,

"The Bible says this "IS" my body...this "IS" my blood.["  S]o 'll leave it a[t] that and take it by faith.  It's not just purely symbols, but neither is it literal in the sense that Jesus comes down and dwells inside the elements or something."

 

Jesus pronounced the words, "This is my body," and, "This is my blood,"  while holding the bread and the wine.  Surely His blood didn't start coursing through the bread as He held it.  We should take the Communion as if He had just handed it to us and not as if we were biting the hand that saves us.

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Martin writes,

"[T]he bread and the wine are just that (bread and wine), but . . . it also has a spritual dimension in close communion with God - that's why I believe that it shouldn't be undertaken lightly as Paul warns. In similar manner, getting baptised in water is not just getting wet, and is more than an outward sign of an inward change. It is identification with Christ's death but there is also a spiritual dimension in that there is also a washing away that takes place."

 

Perhaps the best thoughts I have found here so far.  From Martin's analysis we should be able to conclude at the very least that baptism is as necessary and as vital to our spiritual union with God (salvation) as the communion.

 

[FluviusNeckar]

lambslove asks,

"If Christ was/is actually in the bread, why did Judas betray Christ AFTER eating the bread???"

 

Great question!  Using Martin's methodology of comparing baptism to the communion, we see that there is NO magic in either the eucharist or in baptism.  Though commanded, neither can replace faith as a source of salvation.  Judas repented, despaired, disobeyed God and died.  A Christian repents, believes, obeys God, and lives.

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Peaceful1 tells a fable then wriets,

"It's funny that nowadays, people find such things difficult to believe."

 

Try "impossible"

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Br. Max writes,

"funny how the apostolic and anti-Nicene fathers had no problem accepting and understanding the doctrine of the real presence. Funny how none of them preached that the Lords supper was merely a memorial but rather that partaking in the Lords supper was to quite literally partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord."

Yeh funny.  I guess your point demonstrates the wisdom of sola scrittura.  Pre-medieval thinking just obscures the need of each generation to return to the roots of Christianity and the Branch of Life.

 

[Hector Medina]

From a Protestant point of view(not necessarily denominational but rather my opinion) I'd just stick to remembering by it.

Thinking Christ is present in it is getting a just little too symbolic for me..........

:]

In Christ,

Hector

 

[dignitized]

Originally posted by FluviusNeckar
Br. Max writes,

"funny how the apostolic and anti-Nicene fathers had no problem accepting and understanding the doctrine of the real presence. Funny how none of them preached that the Lords supper was merely a memorial but rather that partaking in the Lords supper was to quite literally partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord."

Yeh funny.  I guess your point demonstrates the wisdom of sola scrittura.  Pre-medieval thinking just obscures the need of each generation to return to the roots of Christianity and the Branch of Life.

 

Flauvius? HUH? we should ignore the teachings of the apostolic fathers in regards to what Christ taught and what scripture means in favor of an enlightenment view?  NO thank you.  I will not and cannot deny the reality of History which shows and proves that the church universally accepted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

 

[SnuP]

"The church" is not my denomination, in fact it is not the denomination of many christians. Just because the Catholic church has this doctrine thats been around too long does not mean that I have to ackowledge it as credible. By taking comunion you pertake of the spirit of Christ death and you agree that His work is good. I refuse to believe that by taking comunion I am accually eating someones flesh. It is an abomination to me to link comunion to a canibalistic act of eating someones accually flesh and drinking there blood. Christ was involking a spiritual truth, that in taking comunion you agree with Christ that it is good that He should die, and you comeinto Christ's reality.

 

[dignitized]

Snup: I am NOT a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not use the term Church to mean that body of believers. I use the term church to refer to the WHOLE body of the Christian community.

You will find no where in the writings of the apostolic or anti-Nicaean fathers, one shred of opinion to support the empty memorial theory of men such as John Knox. Universally, the fathers taught and agreed the Jesus Christ is REAL in the Lords supper. You may not agree with what the fathers taught, but you cannot deny what it was that they taught. These men who walked with the Lord - and those who learned at their feet ALL teach the Doctrine of the Real Presence.

 

[devoted]

I find this to be a little hysterical actually (that this poll is in the section, protestant beliefs).

I do not mean to offend or put down any other faith and their practice but to take a poll is irrelevant on whether or not it is a symbol in the protestant, non- denominational, or reformed sects because in any other church, it is only a symbol regardless of what you want to believe.

I am not saying that Jesus can not and does not come to someone spiritually in the reception of communion in these denominations but he is not "truly" present as in body, blood, soul, and divinity and the person in these services does not receive him that way, they may receive him spiritually, but not physically.

Only in the Catholic Church (or Orthodox, and some Anglican Churches that have apostolic succession) will someone receive our lord in this way, and a person that does not believe in his real presence in no way changes that reality. Just because you believe he is not really present does not make him not present, he is present, he does not need belief from skeptics or believers to make him present.

Only an ordained priest, ordained from one of the bishop that is a successor of the apostles can consecrate the bread and wine and if the words are said and the consecration are preformed correctly then and only then will transubstantiation take place.

So in your poll, I don't get it? No Jesus is NOT present in the protestant and (other non apostolic sects) and believing that he is doesn't make him present. This is not something (transubstantiation) that depends on our belief to make happen. If one believes he is there, and if one does not believe he is there, is irrelevant to the reality that with apostolic succession, he is there and with out apostolic succession he is not. Belief and non-belief does not change a thing.

Now if you are asking if one believes in the Catholic Church (and others with apostolic succession) if he comes down from heaven and is born on the altar and from this altar we receive him truly present body, blood, soul, and divinity, then of course yes we do and if someone does not then that has no effect on the fact that the reality is that Jesus is present. (This is why a Catholic person who does not believe should not/can not receive.)

This should be a good way for non Catholics to understand why communion is not open to other faiths, (unless it is granted them permission by the bishop) because ones belief in the real presence is not what makes for a valid consecration and because Jesus IS present on the altar and we say “Amen” when we receive him, what will we be saying amen to if we do not really believe? We also can not receive when we are in sin because we then will be committing a sacrilege if we do. Jesus can not/ should not dwell in a soul that is with in sin. This is what Paul meant by he who takes in this state, takes in judgement of his sin, not in forgiveness and Christ blood is on his hands.

Catholic have a lot to be aware of in order to receive so it should be understandable to see why non-Catholic can not receive with us.

So my vote is outside the apostolic succession, nope, he is not truly present, only symbolically but with in, yes “Amen” he truly is.

FYI, anyone no matter what faith you are or if you even have no faith at all can visit our lord in the blessed sacrament, (that is the consecrated host exposed). This is called adoration where we adore our lord in his presence and this is extended to all people in the world, no one is excluded even if you do not believe he is there, you can still be in his presence. Mary (Martha & Mary) sat at his feet hanging on his every word and Jesus said to his apostles “Could you not spend one hour with me.”

I apologize because I know that this is not the section where we explain Catholic beliefs but because of how the poll was formatted, I felt compelled to answer this.