Communion, or the Lord's Supper, or The Eucharist

[thomas]

Hi Thomas,

You wrote:

And at least a bit about the communion to know if you are worthy.

IMO none of us are "worthy" He is the worthy one. Our worthiness comes from being in Him.

I am reminded of the stern Presbyterian pastor of a church on an Island off the coast of Scotland. During communion he observed a young lady who refused the elements when offered to her while she sat there silently weeping. The pastor took the elements back to her and said "here lassie, they are for sinners".

Every single person who takes communion is a sinner. They who are sorrowfull and repent of their sins are worthy , those who obstinately refuse to repent are unworthy. The lack of worth comes from not being in Him and taking it to their condemnation.

[darinhouston]

I was at dinner the other night with several of my friends who were all devoutly (or at least stridently practicing) Catholics. In light of the swine flu concern, I asked them if they took of the common cup. I was truly shocked by the variety of the responses (apart from the "we believe in the Holy Spirit and that we will be protected").

One was from Mexico where they said no one took of the cup at all, respecting an "optional" "bread only" Communion and suggesting that where wine was scarce that was permissible. He said that here in the US, they just passed on the wine out of concern over the common cup (a common practice apparently affirmed by many priests) and indicated that it was only a memorial anyway (evoking a bit of a stammered disagreement from some of the others and shock by me). The most "informed" (as to the Catechism and other writings) of the group who fancies herself a bit of a Catholic apologist indicated that the teaching of the church was that you only needed one or the other form of the Eucharist and not both, but then went on to state with aplomb how important it was that the bread be unleavened, not be brittle so as to avoid falling on the floor, that the cup be common, etc. due to the desire to copy exactly what was done by Christ, etc. (apparently forgetting that Christ had both wine and bread).

I didn't really intend to get into all that, but it did cause me to do some research when I got home -- how could Roman Catholics be so confused on such a critical element of their faith?

So, amazing as it seems, it would appear the magisterium has varied widely on this practice over the years. As near as I can tell (I have seen only secondary sources), the Council of Constance, Session 13 held that irrespective of the model by Christ during a meal, the eucharist was only to be received after fasting and that the "laity" was only to receive the "bread" with the clergy receiving the wine. Thereafter, it seems the Council of Trent reaffirmed this principle, as follows:

If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Session 21, Canon 1).

How is this possible, and what's the current state of the church's teaching on the subject (and how do they justify the differences?)

[Homer]

Darin,

The answer, I believe, is an easy one. The Roman Catholic church will simply assert their authority to change the practice. Their church, they think, trumps scripture. Similarly, it is futile to argue sprinkling vs. immersion in baptism. It doesn't concern them what baptizo means in the Greek. They assert the authority to change the practice.

[thomas]

that it was only a memorial anyway

OOOPS ! He messed up.

How is this possible, and what's the current state of the church's teaching on the subject

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM , Vatican II , DECEMBER 4, 1965

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact , communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

They hold that Christ is wholy present in either species , and therefore unimportant whether you recieve one or both. The Council of Constance forbid the cup to the laity over the Ultriquist (Hussite) controversy. Then and now , it is wrong to insist that both MUST be given , although since "65" both MAY be. So not much has changed , the 3 councils are saying the same thing about the elements. So your informed Lady was correct.
Justified by:
1. Tradition .since the 3rd century (no surprise there , Homer has it right.)
2. The Hypostatic Union , Christ cannot be divided
3. John 6 (just don't ask me to follow thier reasoning here)
4.The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers -- the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice. (quote from Catholic Encyclopedia)

(and how do they justify the differences?)

The apparent confusion is because it is up to the Bishop and so varies from place to place. And not every Catholic knows thier doctrine , sadly true of every denomination.

[TK]

Thomas-

does the RC teach that the wine really becomes blood once consumed, and not only figuratively? if the former, could this theory not be tested scientifically?

i am in no way trying to be offensive-- i have always been curious about this.

TK

[darinhouston]

So, did He say "take this Cup -- this is my flesh and blood;" and "take this bread -- this is my flesh and blood"? Are RCC modeling exactly as was done by Christ? or not?

Is the act or receiving the Eucharist a supernatural act required to physically receive the grace of salvation within every part of your body? or is it just some symbolic act that not everyone need participate in who is able bodied? If not, then what difference does it make if one is denied the Eucharist by the Church? History tells us that this was seen as the very act of condemning one to Hell, doesn't it?

[Paidion]

In a thread about baptism, I claimed that what is going on inwardly and spiritually during a true baptism is symbolized by what is going on outwardly and visibly. Outwardly, one is immersed in water, and is brought back up out of the water. Inwardly, one is experiencing regeneration, death to the old self, and resurrection to a new life in Christ Jesus.

I see communion in a similar fashion. Outwardly, we receive a piece of bread, and a sip of wine. But inwardly, and spiritually, we are feeding upon Christ (His flesh) and receiving His life (His blood). Jesus said to his disciples that unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood, they have no life in them --- and many took offense at this saying, and no longer walked with Him.

There are doubtless other ways to feed on Christ and receive His life, but this was understood by the early Christians to be the main way, and it was done every Sunday. So I do see the practice of taking the communion as sacramental, that is as a means of grace, just as baptism is a means of regeneration. Not the outward acts in themselves, of course, but what they symbolize --- what goes on inwardly, in the heart or mind.

So I see the following concepts as false:

1. The bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, not in appearance, but in reality and mystically. (Catholicism)

2. Christ is personally present within the bread and wine. (Lutheranism)

3. The bread and grape juice are nothing more than symbols of the body and blood of Christ. We take communion as a remembrance of Christ because He told us to. Communion is not sacramental. (Baptists, and other fundamentalists)

This is what I understand to be the truth about communion or the eucharist:

The bread and wine themselves are only symbolic of what is simultaneously and actually happening inwardly ---- feeding upon Christ and receiving His life.

[darinhouston]

Paidion, I don't have a problem believing anything you said, but I see no scriptural basis for it -- All Christ indicated was that it should be in "remembrance" of Him, presumably in the same way that the Passover meal had been in remembrance of the exodus, etc. This is contrasted with the statements about baptism, which clearly have sacramental leanings.

[thomas]

Thomas-

does the RC teach that the wine really becomes blood once consumed, and not only figuratively? if the former, could this theory not be tested scientifically?

i am in no way trying to be offensive-- i have always been curious about this.

The RCC teaches that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood at the consecration , whether consumed or not. It remains bread and wine in appearance but is Body and Blood in substance.
Scientific testing would be pointless as it would only detect the appearance. I'm sure it's been tried.

[thomas]

So, did He say "take this Cup -- this is my flesh and blood;" and "take this bread -- this is my flesh and blood"? Are RCC modeling exactly as was done by Christ? or not?

Exactly , No , does anyone? After all He said "This IS my body" He did not say "This is a symbol (or memorial) of my body" which is the major point of our difference.

Is the act or receiving the Eucharist a supernatural act required to physically receive the grace of salvation within every part of your body?

A sacrement , the recieving of Grace through a physical means.

or is it just some symbolic act that not everyone need participate in who is able bodied? If not, then what difference does it make if one is denied the Eucharist by the Church?

If it is only symbolic it really doesn't make much difference what you do.

History tells us that this was seen as the very act of condemning one to Hell, doesn't it?

No , it is exactly the opposite.
A person can only be excommunicated for refusing to repent of a grave sin. It is this falure to repent that condemns him to Hell. Excommunication is used as a last resort , after warnings , in order to compel the person to repent and therefore save himself from Hell. It is an act of charity.

Thomas

By the way both myself and my wife are excommunicated for the sin of living together (22 yrs.) without benefit of Holy Matrimony (Adultery). A matter which we are working to correct.