Communion

[Corpus]

Hallelujah John!

I applaud you for your temerity, thoroughness and patience in exploring my post. But most especially for your graciousness in addressing a topic over which, elements of, we might disagree.

Some of what you have posted, Corpus, I have found very interesting. Some other matters show you are really "reaching" to make Scripture say what you want in order that your doctrine would be true. Still other matters show an honest approach to Scripture that simply differs with my own. I have found your commentary both interesting and refreshing in that when I was still Roman Catholic, the Scriptures were not suggested reading. If this has changed, I applaud the change. If this is a personal commitment on your part, than I applaud your interest in God's Word.

You are correct that for a time they were not suggested reading. Please understand though, that much of the reason behind this stemmed not from the church being afraid the congregation would find out the truth on some matters (claims I've read elsewhere), but rather to avoid errors of misinterpretation and the divisions it can lead to. Should the church have had more confidence in the laity? Certainly, and more importantly it then becomes the church's responsibility to provide the tools for proper interpretation. This they've since done, and since Vatican II have openly and aggresively encouraged reading of scripture for inspiration, knowledge, wisdom and edification.

As to the difference in interpretations, we shall perhaps have to agree to disagree, something I feel can be done while witnessing an apparently close relationship you possess with Christ.

It has been fun for me to fellowship with you in this way. Too bad we are not neighbors.

Agreed. God's blessings upon you and yours.

[Tibby]

However, I was unaware, as Tibby seemed to imply in an earlier post that the charasmatics have split from Rome. Am I understanding him correctly?

Not that I'm aware of?? There are Charismatic Catholics within my town that are in full communion with Rome. I suspect some of those in Tibby's group are separated for reasons other than the charismatic element.

Yes, there are many Charismatic Roman Catholic. If you happen to get Charisma, look in the Editorials for this month. A few months back, some people wrote in letter claiming the Catholic faith isn’t a Christian Faith. To many people surprise, several Catholics wrote back. Not “disgruntled” Catholics, but full fledged Roman Catholics. I am sorry is I phrased it wrong, John. I never meant that.

Many denominations do except the usage and existence of the Charismatic Gifts as the work of God. Yet, even as the heads of the Denomination except it, the Churches that actively use them are few and far between. Mostly, I believe, of fear of Alienating members and baby Christians. On top of that, The ruling bodies of such organizations don’t always speak for the individual Pastors and Parishioners. Some churches that are official against the Charismatic movement have Churches that are active in such things.

On a side note, The CEC is not a splinter Catholic Church. You may be thinking “that is bull” but it is true. The CEC was raised up by people of many denominations, most of them not Catholic. Large Majority of the ones I have meet from other CEC Congregations either came from a Baptist or Charismatic back ground. The Patriarch was once a member of CI, in fact.

Anyways, keep up the good agruement, guys, it is an enjoyable read!

[PastorTom]

Hi:

I'm coming to this discussion somewhat late and I don't have the patience to read through 3+ pages of discussion.  I don't believe that the elements of the Holy Communion somehow change their substance when a priest utters the words "hoc est corpus meum" (this is my body) but I believe that Christ is truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine.

Our church has formulated the following theological foundations regarding Holy Communion:

The Lord's Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ himself (1 Cor 11.23-25; Mt 26.26-28).

In Holy Communion the crucified and risen Christ is present in word and action.  This presence is a mystery.

Holy Communion is a means of grace through which the crucified and risen Christ awakens faith, saves, forgives, unites, gives life, comforts and strengthens God's people for the work to which they are called in the world.

Holy Communion is also a great and joyous thanksgiving (Eucharist) for everything accomplished by God in creation, redemption and sanctification.  In the Eucharist, God's people give thanks for all of God's blessings.

Eucharistic celebrations incorporate the whole Christian church in every time and place.  The whole church is involved in each local eucharistic celebration (1 Cor 10.16-17).

In the Lord's Supper, but the power of the Holy Spirit, we remember and experience anew the creative and redemptive acts of God, receive the gift of the presence of Christ, and look forward in anticipation to our future with God.

Participation in the Lord's Supper empowers and compels us to imitate the example of our Lord who is both host and servant and to embody and reflect the unity which the Lord's Supper symbolizes (Lk 22.24-27; Jn 13.1-20; 1 Cor 10.17).

In Baptism we are incorporated into the body of Christ, the church.  In Holy Communion the church is nourished and strengthened.  Therefore we speak of and practice communion of the baptized.

Shalom

[texseraphim]

I voted for consubstantiation, but that only comes closest to expressing my postion on the Holy Eucharist.  There was no really appropriate choice in the poll for me.

Pastor Tom, am I correct in thinking the the Lutheran church also does not beleive in con..., even though the term is often applied to Lutherans by outsiders?

For me, Jesus "said this is my body and blood" and that is enough, I take him at his word without delving into the philosophy of Aristotle with it's talk of substance and accidents.

For those of you that believe in symbolic-only communion, how does "do this to remember me" erase "this is my body and blood", or change it into this is not my body and blood?

[Petro]

texs...

Why does anyone have to change anything??

What can not be changed anyhow..

What you call symbolic is a remmebrance celebration of "Thanksgiving".

! Cor 11
26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.


Why do religious people make more of it than what it is.

Because the natural man in them, wants to add his own two little mites into it..and turn it into something which gives tangible evidence,  of their hand in the matter.

This is why men proudly proclaim, this is the way, we do it at our church.

No more no less,


Petro

[Nostalghia]

I thought this would be relevant to the topic at hand:

"He [the Holy Spirit] is not revealed, however, in His essence, for
nobody has ever seen or declared God's nature, but in the grace, power and
energy common to the Father, Son and Spirit. Each has His own hypostasis,
and the characteristics seen to belong to that hypostasis. They have in
common not only Their undisclosed essence, which is above all names and in
which we cannot share, but also the grace, power, energy, radiance,
incorruption, kingdom, and everything else by which God has communion with
the holy angels and with men. He is united with them through grace without
losing His unity and simplicity either by the division and difference
between the hypostases, or the diversity and variety of the divine powers
and energies."

- St. Gregory Palamas (The Homilies Vol. 1, Homily Eight para. 10

4676169.

Also consider this relevant passage from St. Irenaeus of Lyons'
Against Heresies, IV, 20, 5:

"The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by
men; as the Lord also says, 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God.' [Matt. 5:8] But in respect to His greatness, and His
wonderful glory, 'no man shall see God and live,' [Exod. 33:20] for
the Father is incomprehensible; but in regard to His love, and
kindness, and as to His infinite power, even this He grants to those
who love Him, that is, to see God, which thing the prophets did also
predict. 'For those things that are impossible with men, are possible
with God.' [Luke 18:27] For man does not see God by his own powers;
but when He pleases He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He
wills, and as He wills. For God is powerful in all things, having been
seen at that time indeed, prophetically through the Spirit, and seen,
too, adoptively through the Son; and He shall also be seen paternally
in the kingdom of heaven, the Spirit truly preparing man in the Son of
God, and the Son leading him to the Father, while the Father, too,
confers [upon him] incorruption for eternal life, which comes to every
one from the fact of his seeing God. For as those who see the light
are within the light, and partake of its brilliancy; even so, those
who see God are in God, and receive of His splendor. But [His]
splendor vivifies them; those, therefore, who see God, do receive
life. And for this reason, He, [although] beyond comprehension, and
boundless and invisible, rendered Himself visible, and comprehensible,
and within the capacity of those who believe, that He might vivify
those who receive and behold Him through faith. For as His greatness
is past finding out, so also His goodness is beyond expression; by
which having been seen, He bestows life upon those who see Him. It is
not possible to live apart from life, and the means of life is found
in fellowship with God; but fellowship with God is to know God, and to
enjoy His goodness."

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus
Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are
to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from
prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of
our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which
the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift
of God are perishing in their disputes" (St. Ignatius of Antioch,
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake
of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has
been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for
regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as
Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we
receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by
the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so
too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the
Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change
of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the
blood of that incarnated Jesus" (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood,
from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of
creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives
increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and
water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the
Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our
flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is
not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal
life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord,
and is in fact a member of Him?" (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, 5:2).

Please note that St. Ireneasu was a Bishop of the church in the 2nd century.

Id like to see the responses.

[oneBook]

I know at first look you might think "What has this verse to do with the topic", but I think there is a valid link-

Colossians 2:16-17
16   Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17   Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

We all know that the communion is a symbol linked to Passover which was a Biblical festival that points to the Messiah's death atonement to free us from sin.  The Passover is filled with symbols that God implemented to teach the message of God's salvation through the Messiah.  The symbols themselves are a shadow of the body of Messiah and are not the body themselves, but represent the body.  The presence of God over the Lord's table was taught in Israel from before the advent of Jesus in regards to the alter at the Temple (also refered to as the Lord's table).  The idea that a repentant person could come and "eat" with God and that God would accept his sacrifice as a meal was what God was teaching Israel through this practice.  The Passover was unique among the festivals in that it was the only festival where a non-priest could eat God's sacrificial meat outside of the temple.  They would take the Lamb to the temple and have it slaughtered, and then take it to their quarters (most people were from out of town since it was a pilgramige festival) and eat it.

With the Passover on the night of the crusifixion, our Master identified himself as food that God sent to sustain us (by cleansing us of sin). I often wondered why Jesus didn't take some of the lamb and say "this is my body..." since John often speaks of him being the Lamb.  Recently I found that it was normal to identify the whole meal by the bread, which is why they would bless God for the bread at the outset of the meal.

This was the closure of a difficult teaching that Jesus gave earlier-

John 6:53-56
 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Reading on down the above chapter, the disciples were distressed about this (since they knew that God had told them not to drink blood), and I think at the last supper, they sighed a sigh of relief about that since the Master clarified it.

I think overall, that Jesus wanted His disciples (including us) to understand that Passover was about him and that was the reason for calling the unleavened bread, wine, and by extension the lamb and other food, His body.

Perhaps another reason he didn't choose the lamb directly is because it is really flesh, and he didn't want people to think they were eating human flesh, or that eating human flesh was acceptable.

Any thoughts?

[LuckyStrike]

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, everyone. I wish to offer a rebuttal.

I'm coming to this discussion somewhat late and I don't have the patience to read through 3+ pages of discussion.

I wholeheartedly agree. Starting with your post, I believe that this thread is starting over.

[...]but I believe that Christ is truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine.

In Holy Communion the crucified and risen Christ is present in word and action.  This presence is a mystery.

Holy Communion is a means of grace through which the crucified and risen Christ awakens faith, saves, forgives, unites, gives life, comforts and strengthens God's people for the work to which they are called in the world.

In Holy Communion the church is nourished and strengthened.

Can you substantiate these assertions with Scriptural prooftexting?

For those of you that believe in symbolic-only communion, how does "do this to remember me" erase "this is my body and blood", or change it into this is not my body and blood?

How does this phraseology evidence the conversion of any substance?

Let us re-examine the critical parts of the "Last Supper" or "Lord's Supper."

Matthew 26 [NIV]
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."
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."

*Note: See also Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:17-20.

In interpreting these "Last Supper" passages, Transubstantiationist and Cosubstantiationist apologists claim that the words "this is," or touto estin, communicate a conversion of the bread and wine, otherwise Christ Jesus would have said "this symbolizes."

However, this is non-sequitur reasoning. The Greek expressions of the phrase "this is," such as . . .
(a) touto + esti,
(b) houtos + esti, or
(c) ho + esti,
. . . can communicate symbolic designations (ref. Matthew 13:37-39 [Greek text]) or literal truths (ref. Matthew 3:17 [Greek text], Matthew 14:2 [Greek text]). If Christ Jesus intended this statement to be unequivocally literal, then he would have said touto gignetai[*], or "this has become," not simply touto estin, or "this is" (cross ref. John 2:9 [Greek]).

A true literal interpretation of the words in question would be paradoxical. Bread is not human flesh, nor is wine human blood, otherwise the basic usage of these words is invalid. Instead, Christ Jesus recognized the presence of the bread and wine, even when making the said statements, as shown by Matthew 26:29. As a result, the reader does not see Christ Jesus offering severed body parts or bleedings for consumption, in any context.

Therefore, Transubstantiationists and Cosubstantiationists must appeal to extra-Scriptural presuppositions in reinterpreting Christ Jesus's words.

[LuckyStrike]

We all know that the communion is a symbol linked to Passover which[...]

Many people believe that the "Lord’s Supper," or the "Last Supper" (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-38, John 13), is a "Christian ordinance" established by Chirst Jesus. This assertion relies on interpreting the "Last Supper" as a "Christian Passover Seder Meal," which fulfilled the Jewish Passover seder meal (Exodus 12:1-30). However, consider the following:

(a) John 13 mentions two meals.

John 13 [NIV]
27 [...]"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28 but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.

In John 13:29, when Judas left to betray Jesus, some of the disciples thought that Judas was going to buy the materials needed for "the feast," for he was in charge of the money. However, Jesus and his disciples had already consumed a meal, as shown by John 13:2 and John 13:26. Specifically, John 13:2 shows a meal being served, while John 13:26 shows Jesus's possession of bread.

(b) Unleavened bread, azumos (Strong’s #106), is required for a Passover seder meal. However, in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19, the term for regular bread, artos (Strong’s #740), describes the bread that Christ Jesus broke. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 11, when Paul writes about how to properly carry out the "Lord’s Supper," Paul uses the same term, artos, in verses 23 and 26 through 28.

(b) The Jewish Passover meal was centered around the consumption of a slain lamb (Exodus 12:6-8). However, the "Last Supper" (John 13) occured the day before Passover (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 14:19, John 19:31, John 19:42), when Christ Jesus died as the "Passover Lamb" (1 Corinthians 5:7, John 18:38-40, etc.).

[LuckyStrike]

This was the closure of a difficult teaching that Jesus gave earlier-

John 6:53-56
 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Reading on down the above chapter, the disciples were distressed about this (since they knew that God had told them not to drink blood), and I think at the last supper, they sighed a sigh of relief about that since the Master clarified it.

I think overall, that Jesus wanted His disciples (including us) to understand that Passover was about him and that was the reason for calling the unleavened bread, wine, and by extension the lamb and other food, His body.

Perhaps another reason he didn't choose the lamb directly is because it is really flesh, and he didn't want people to think they were eating human flesh, or that eating human flesh was acceptable.

Any thoughts?

In John 6, Transubstantiationist and Cosubstantiationist apologists emphasize the literal reading of John 6:54-56. Specifically, these apologists see John 6:55 as representing the physical Eucharistic elements, while viewing John 6:54, 56 as representing the consumption of the physical Eucharistic elements.

However, this is non-sequitur reasoning, for while John 6:55 mentions real sustenance, John 6:55 does not mention physical sustenance. To the contrary, in John 6:27, Jesus instructs the crowd to seek food that does not spoil, as opposed to food that spoils. Likewise, in John 4:13-14, Christ Jesus instructs the Samaritan woman to seek water that permanently quenches thirst. This is significant, for all physical food spoils after providing temporary nourishment only, thereby indicating that the subject is literal spiritual food, not literal physical food. Christ Jesus verifies this interpretation in John 6:30-33, 49-50, 58, where he contrasts desert manna with bread from heaven.

With this in mind, notice that Christ Jesus parallels belief in him (John 6:29, 35, 40, 47) with eating him as the "bread of life" (John 6:50, 51, 58) throughout John 6. Each item results in obtaining eternal life, in and of itself, thereby indicating that these things are same thing. Otherwise, Christ Jesus would be contradicting himself by advocating different means of obtaining salvation.

This parallel reaches its full logical extension in John 6:53-56. Specifically, Christ Jesus parallels belief in him with eating his body and blood. This dual form of food describes a two-fold form of spiritual nourishment:
(a) The body is what bears the sins (ref. Leviticus 16:21-22), which is why Christ Jesus bore our sins in his body (1 Peter 2:24). Hence, Christ Jesus's body eliminates our spiritual burden of bearing sin (Romans 6:5-7).
(b) Blood, or lifeblood, is forfeited for the payment of sins (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22), which is why Christ Jesus spilled his lifeblood for our sins (Matthew 26:28, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 1 John 1:7, etc.). Hence, Christ Jesus's blood eliminates our spiritual burden of sinful guilt (Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:22).

At this point, remember that Christ Jesus observed Mosaic Law, which prohibited the drinking of blood (Leviticus 17:10-12). The Apostles followed this observance by teaching believers to abstain from drinking blood (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29, Acts 21:25).

Further, God the Father prevents Christ Jesus from experiencing decay (Acts 2:27). However, in consuming transubstantiate or cosubstantiate communion wafers and wine, one's body digests or "breaks down" the said materials.

This New Testament imagery of consuming Christ Jesus to internalize his saving power (ref. John 6:50-51, 53-54, 57-58) parallels the Old Testament imagery of consuming God's words to internalize their meaning (ref. Jeremiah 15:16, Isaiah 55:1-3, Ezekiel 2:8, Ezekiel 3:1). Plus, this cross-Testament parallel includes the imagery of Matthew 5:6, where one's desire to intake nutrition illustrates one's desire for righteousness.

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus
Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are
to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from
prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of
our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which
the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift
of God are perishing in their disputes" (St. Ignatius of Antioch,
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake
of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has
been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for
regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as
Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we
receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by
the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so
too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the
Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change
of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the
blood of that incarnated Jesus" (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood,
from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of
creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives
increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and
water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the
Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our
flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is
not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal
life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord,
and is in fact a member of Him?" (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, 5:2).

Please note that St. Ireneasu was a Bishop of the church in the 2nd century.

Id like to see the responses.

"Because they say so"? Why should I accept the theological authority of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus?