Communion

[Guest]

Hola Homer:

"...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)? .."

A good question that until today I'd never heard or given thought to. So I'll have to do a cop out and feed you the official line:
In the Sacrament, our Confessions further teach, the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way that he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth. With Luther, the Formula of Concord speaks of "the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as he wills....He employed this mode of presence when he left the closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the Supper...."[FC SD VII, 100; emphasis added].
resurrected.

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

yes , John 6:58 "..He who eats this bread will live forever." both the ressurected flesh of Christ and the person eating it are indestructable


"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."

I can't argue with this as I believe it also. Where we part is that I do not see how there is any conflict as the body and blood can be taken in more than one way , spiritualy as we both do as well as physically. The physical in no way does away with the spiritual as they co-exist. I don't see it as either or , but both equally.

Thomas

[Guest]

Hola Paidon:

I promised you anouther quote so here goes. This is from Iraneaus of Lyon cir. AD190 or so , so I lose 80 yrs.

Book 4 chapter 18 of Against Heresies

But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives "first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear."

5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

Tends to support the "real presence view" I do not know that the origen of Adv. Her. is disputed. Although I don't take Ireneas as completely reliable in all things.

Thomas

[Guest]

I am new to this site and have been reading many of the post and this one is close to home. I try to make things as simple as possible. I believe any one according to scripture who accept and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ can take communion and it can be offered by any believer, anytime. The sacrements are symbolic. The important thing is that you are a believer and you examine yourself and make confession if there is any revealed sin in your life.

[Guest]

Wow, some great responses and issues being raised, I will chime in when I have more time.

[Guest]

Thank you, Thomas, for that quote from Irenaeus. Yes, it does seem to say that in eating the bread and wine, we are actually eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ.

Concerning the Lutheran view, I understand that the belief is that the Christ is somehow infused throughout the bread and wine, or in other words, Christ is "in, with, and under" the elements of the bread and wine.
This concept differs from that of Cathlicism which says that the bread and wine actually changes into the body and blood of Christ even though it still looks like bread and wine, and has the same chemical properties of bread and wine.

[Guest]

Hello all and welcome to you Thomas,

I would like to comment on John 6.

I believe that in John 6, our Lord is talking about believing on Him, and using the symbolism of eating, and drinking.

The Pharisees ask for a sign and say that their fathers ate manna from heaven (that was the sign they saw then). In response to their mention of the manna Jesus says in John 6:35 that He is the "bread of life" and says that those that "come to him will never hunger or thirst". This type of metaphor is common to the teachings of Christ and it seems to me it is almost always understood spiritually (see Matt. 5:6; John 4:13-14; John 7:37-39, etc.)

Also, the context in which this is spoken is (I think) 2 years before He instituted the Lords Supper, so I am not sure how it would be correct to understand Him to be speaking about communion. Particularly if you have to partake of it or you will "have no life in you", will not have "eternal life" and will not be "raised up on the last day".


John 6:35: "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

John 6:40: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

It appears to me that the whole time the Lord is talking about believing in Him. He speaks of believing over and over (vs: 29,35,36,40,47,64). He just takes the metaphor a step further and says this:

John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

If we compare this verse with 6:40 I think it becomes clear:

John 6:40: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Eating and drinking are synonymous (in this passage) with seeing and believing or "coming" and believing (as in vs. 35). At least that's how I see it.

Again, welcome brother Thomas and God bless,

Derek

[Guest]

Thomas,

It appears Christopher introduced you to the site and ultimately is responsible for your participation .

Thank you for sharing your views regarding the subject, you have shed some light on it for me and it appears for others as well. The Trinity concept has never been hard for me to understand, and I often hear people relate it to other issues that are seemingly not "logical" to our reason. However I still have a hard time accepting the literal view that is held regarding the communion. I cannot find fault in this teaching from a scriptural point of view and I hope you have not found my criticisms offensive. I do still agree at this point in time with Allyn and that is it was meant as an act of symbolism.

[Guest]

Hola Paidion:

You have stated the Lutheran position exactly. I have found a Catholic reaction to this , as they support transubstantiation:

"The problem with this explanation is that it postulates an entirely new manner of being and says that Christ had to be using is in a way much different from the way we normally use the word, so that when he said, 'This is my body,' he really meant, 'This is my body (along with the bread which is still here too).' The real obscenity of this explanation is that Luther then has the temerity to complain about Catholics complicating the Gospel! "

I give one more historical quote and then leave it go. Tradition is on the side of "real presence", It is a belief that is quite ancient and I know of no early writing that would support anything else. As far as I can find , the first objections to this did not arrise until the 9th century.

circa 150 A.D.: St. Justin Martyr,
First Apology, 66
St. Justin is talking about the Mass, and he has described the consecration and communion. Then he says
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 annd for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor as 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 flesh and blood is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus.

It is my belief that this is also supported by Paul when he first describes the Lord's Supper cir.AD 56 or so. Note:

1 Corinthians 11
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Verse 27 taken at face value , speaks of the body and blood in a literal manner. Any symbolism would have to be read into the verse. In the same manner when he says "discerning the body " in verse 29 I would not interpret it as being symbolic in and of itself.

As far as John 6 goes , my reasoning for taking it literaly comes primarily by placing myself in the position of the persons hearing Christ. The objections of the Jews in verse 53 clearly shows that they took it quit literaly. Christ does nothing to clarify any misunderstanding but rather goes on to repeat Himself even more forcefully. "“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...."

Even His diciples were took it in this manner and were scandalized "This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" . But instead of reassuring them that this was symbolic and that they misunderstood , He reproached them for their lack of faith and alluded to His future assencion. I should think that verse 61 "When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? "" pretty much convinces me that when the disciples took it literaly they were right to , as Jesus meant it literaly.


Thomas

Don't worry about offending me , I'm never offended by difference of opinion. My wife is Catholic so I'm kinda used to it.

[Guest]

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.


I take the body and blood of Christ to be Christians.

Eph 2:16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body
Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body.

In other words I read it this way:

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?

I see both of these as literal, the literal Christians who constitute the "body of Christ". Communion is not to eat bread, but to fellowship with other members of the body of Christ, reminding ourselves that just as we "partake of one loaf" we also, being individual members of Jesus, also partake of Jesus. We Christians are the "body and blood" literally, of Jesus Christ. I think verse 17 says this:

17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread (Jesus).

It seems like Paul is saying that we (Christians) are the one bread. We are. We all partake of Jesus' body.

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.

So, in my understanding, being guilty of eating the bread and drinking the cup in an unworthy manner is exactly what happends when "one remains hungry and another gets drunk". When you "get your fill" you neglect other members of the one body Jesus Christ. You are guilty of sinning against that member of the body, which is equivilent to sinning aganst Christ Himself. Just as Jesus accused Paul of when He appeared to Him and said "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me"? By sinning against Christians, Saul was sinning against the "body and blood" of the Lord.

[Guest]

Hola Sean:

I find your analysis quite plausable , however I would like to add some comment.

While 1 Cor 10:16 can be taken either way I take it as speaking of the actual body and blood of Christ. And while I agree with you on the first part of verse 17 "For we, though many, are one bread and one body;" the later part can also refer to the actual body"for we all partake of that one bread".This is the follow on verses 18-21:

18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.

Paul is obviosly talking about real flesh sacrifices that are being offered to idols. It seems to me more likely , especially in verse 21 , that he would be refering to actual flesh in both cases rather than mixing the actual with the metaphorical.

As for 1 Corinthians 11 I look at verse 28 "29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body"
It would appear that whatever is to be decerned as Christs body is to be found within the bread itself or that the judgement comes from not dicerning it in the action of eating. It reads more naturaly that way , as opposed to finding in it the body of Christians.

I freely admit that is easy to see it this way only if you are open to the possability of there being a "Real Presence" in the first place.

Thats why I tend to credit tradition as a good guide to what is meant instead of trying to understand it on my own.

Thomas