Communion

[Guest]

I am bringing this up because of what Christopher wrote in response to Homer's thread on sacraments.

I had lunch with a client of mine a couple years ago after attending his Lutheran church and we were talking about some of the church doctrines. The communion was the main topic, and it was an uncomfortable experience. Although we never mentioned anything about it to him, we received some sneers during it from some of the members when my wife and I remained seated (we were told to by my friend because we were not members of the church).

To the point, he said the Greek was specific concerning this topic because the text specifically uses the word is and not is like. With this he said it is scripturally accurate to believe this was a super natural act that literally transformed the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ.

Does anyone know anything concerning this topic or is there an old topic I can be pointed to for answers?

Thanks
[/i]

[Guest]

Chris, I don't know if this will help but the context of the story in the upper room was one carried out for centuries by every Jewish family since the exodus. There is a paticular part of the passover supper that is spoken by the father of the family, or if no father then by the chief representative of the family. In the case of the Last supper, Our Lord Jesus was the chief representative. The account goes like this:

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.

From our point of view we see a supper and a blessing given before the supper starts. But from the point of view of those participating in the passover supper the blessing given is one that is ages old and carried from one year to the next and practiced by every Jewish family unit. The blessing is overlooked by Christians today because, well, we aren't Jews so why should we care what the blessing was? But it is important and Jesus knew what its importance was.

When Jesus took the bread and blessed it, this is what He said. "Blessed are you oh God, Creator of the universe Who brings forth bread from the earth." And then Jesus said, "This is My body"

So you see, Jesus was stating that he was the fulfillment of the Passover. He was not literally bread but the Bread of Life. He is our unleavend. When we understand this from Jewish eyes it is easy then to see the symbolism. Jesus does not turn into bread neither does the wine turn into blood. Jesus accomplished all this in Him once and finally on that last day of Passover.

[Guest]

To the point, he said the Greek was specific concerning this topic because the text specifically uses the word is and not is like. With this he said it is scripturally accurate to believe this was a super natural act that literally transformed the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ.

Is it logical to come to this conclusion based on the fact that Christ said, "This is my body"?

Suppose I pull a photograph out of my pocket and say, "This is I".
Does that mean that the photo is I, while I myself am standing there? NO. I simply mean that the photo is a picture or me, and thus represents me.

Likewise, when Christ uttered those words, His body was right there in front of them. So how could the bread that he took for the first communion have been his body in a physical sense? Surely our Lord meant that the bread pictured or represented His body.

[Guest]

Thanks Allyn and Paidon this helps. I just wanted to say Allyn you have a good heart, and Paidon I always enjoy the way can relate complex subjects into everyday and simple life experiences.

This (what you have explained) is what I was always taught and what I have traditionally believed. It always seemed strange to me that the Catholics thought that it was literally the flesh and blood of Christ. When I heard it explained the way he did, it seemed a little less, well, crazy.

Do you guys know the tradition behind this and how it started? Why would someone think they should in the first place, eat flesh and blood, since in their mind this is what it is, and second want to eat our Lord? I ask this last question with tongue in cheek, but in all seriousness is this some sort of cannibal pagan influence introduced into the catholic church and carried on by the lutherans?

[Guest]

Hola All:

I have been reading this forum for some time , thanks to Christopher. Up until now I've not posted anything. As a Lutheran ,m however I may bring some understanding of our viewpoint into the discussion.
For one thing , we hold that God cannot be reduced to human logic , that some things are a mystery and must be taken on faith. (On this point we disagree with both Calvin and Arminius on salvation , but thats anouther story) In that way communion is taken to be co-union with Christ in both a spiritual and physical sense (and as a memorial).As an article of faith , it is impervious to logical argument.
We take quite literaly both the IS in , ..this IS my body..this IS my blood , but also in the following where Paul seems to do so:

1 Corinthians 10:16-17
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
1 Corinthians 11:26-27
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Even more so in the following statement from Christ:

John 6

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven-not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

I see no reason to take this in a symbolic manner especialy given the reaction of the people at this time to His statement.
The belief that communion is only a memorial comes from the arguments of Zwingli during the reformation. Both Luther and Calvin held to the "Real Presense" although Calvin in a more spiritual sense.
The belief in the "Real Presense " has a long history in the Church.The charge of cannibalism was one used against the early church by the Romans. The earliest I can trace it would be to the following:


Ignatius, bishop of Antioch , second succesor to Peter , AD 110-117-martyred by Trajan,
who uses the term to signify the "flesh of Our Saviour Jesus Christ"

to Smyrna

6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.

IGNATIUS to the Philadelphians

CHAPTER 4 4:1 Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbtery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

This belief is held by the older Church's , Catholic , Orthodox , Lutheran(Book of Concord) , and Reformed (Westminster Confession).

By the way , as a conservative Lutheran , I would define myself as a "reformed Catholic in protest" , so that I'm often more in accordance with Catholics than what is generaly considered Protestant today.

Thomas

[Guest]

Most scholars agree that what we have today which passes as the writings of Ignatius are probably not genuine, or if some of them are genuine they have been highly interpolated by later writers. There exists two recensions, a longer and shorter one. Some say the shorter one is genuine; most say that neither is genuine.

In any case, my point was that the physical bread is not the body of Christ, nor the wine the blood of Christ, but represents it.

However, I do believe that when disciples of Christ take the bread and wine in the correct manner, then, while outwardly they are consuming bread and wine, inwardly they are feeding upon Christ, "eating his flesh and drinking his blood". It is a figure of speech for our receiving Christ into the very essence of our being in a special way. I think this is the import, Thomas, of our Lord's words in your quotation from John 6.
Jesus is the "bread from heaven" which a person must eat. The idea that physical bread is Jesus is the reverse of that concept.

[Guest]

Hola Thomas!

Good to have you here, I've seen you on-line a couple of times and I wondered if you would post something, I'm glad you decided to.

On the subject of communion, I'd like to ask you, in your understanding, at what point does the elements become the body and blood of Christ? And, who is able to legitimately perform the ceremony that makes it happen?

I'm pretty sure I understand the Roman Catholic point of view, but I'm not sure about the Lutherans'. From the RCC standpoint, nobody except them can legitimately take communion because only their priests are authorized by God to perform the ceremony which turns to elements into the body and blood. Therefore, in their understanding, other Christians' form of communion is ineffectual and for that reason they are not in communion with God. As you know, they've historically used this doctrine to manipulate and control kings and nations all over Europe under threat of interdict.

What is the Lutheran understanding? Are other protestants legitimately taking communion?

Just curious.

Lord bless brother.

[Guest]

"....receiving Christ into the very essence of our being in a special way."

I like the way you phrase that. This is indeed the essence. You seem to believe in a spiritual element within the bread and wine , which I don't find objectionable , I would only disagree with those who hold it as a memorial alone. The essence of communion is the union with Christ.

I would compare it to Christ who , at His first advent , was both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. Not an easy concept to grasp as witness the non.trinitarians.
In the same way the eucarist is both 100% bread and wine and 100% body and blood at the same time. If you can accept the first it's not a great stretch to the second.
While the Catholics tend to stress the physical , and Calvin the spiritual , Lutherans do not tend to so closely define it. The important thing being that Christ is recieved along with the elements.
Having been raised a Lutheran , I'm surprised at peoples objection to this belief. I am unable to see the elements as just a representation or figure of speech. The importance of the sacrement lies in it's being more than that , in essence Christ Himself. I do not see how a belief in the physical presence would contradict John 6 , I see it quite the reverse.

You may be right about Ignatius , my point being that this belief is ancient and goes back the the early Church. I'll see if I can reference someone else.

Thomas

[Guest]

Hello All,

If the bread actually becomes Christ's flesh, does it become his human flesh as before His resurrection or does it become a part of His resurrected body which is "imperishable" (1 Cor. 15:45b) and a "spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:44)?

If it is said to be His human flesh, how would eating it impart eternal life?

If it is His resurrected flesh, indestructable, could it be eaten and digested?

I beieve the end of Jesus' discourse in John 6 (where He has just said He is the living bread) explains the matter. Jesus says, v.63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life". Jesus is God's word personified (John 1:1), it is by feeding on His word we are sustained spiritually.

[Guest]

Hola Christopher:

Some quick answers. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood when the pastor recites the consecration. Take and eat , this is the body....
There used to be great care given to dispose of any leftover bread and wine after the service , it being sacred. I've noticed it is not that way at present at my church.

Publicly , it can be performed by a Pastor or of necesity an elder or semenary student (male only in my branch). Privately when necesary any believer may do it if it is properly consecrated. All believers are held to be priests.(not all are allowed to act as such publicly)

Whether other Church's are legitimate is a judgement reserved for God alone. Iv'e never seen it made an issue. That's not to say we don't believe we are the most correct , only that we don't make a judgement.
Some Lutherans (ELCA) will welcome anyone to communion. My branch (LCMS) is very restrictive. We believe that communion involves judgement. (1 Corinthians 11:27 for one) So that neither the Pastor give nor the penetant recieve a negative judgement through ignorance or a less than serious attitude we will not commune non members. If you have been properly instructed beforehand you commune it's your own resposability. Even members are instructed not to commune if they are not in a state of repentance.(though this may draw comment from others , but then even Lutherans are all sinners)

In my opinion the entire question of the legitemacy lies with the person recieving and not with the person giving the sacrement.It is an act of God not an act of man.

Thomas