Lords Supper

Slav

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Transubstantiation - The bread and wine get transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Christ's Presence - christ is present in some way within the host.

Symbolic - The bread and wine are simply symbols of Jesus' body and blood.

All of the above for me.

It is transubstantiation because I believe its the real Body and the real Blood of Christ. That's how I understand "take, eat; this is my body" and "drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"
I don't like the word transubstantiation though as it bears the wight of RCC attempts of rational explanation of transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood. These attempts to explain the work of Holy Spirit in terms of Aristotle's philosophical categories were unsuccessful and unnecessary IMO (they only brought confusion to the Western Church).

It is presence of Christ as He said "I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Matt 28:20) and it includes Eucharist I believe. Again I would not subscribe to the definition of the Presence of Christ you gave as it implies consubstantiation -- another attempt of rational explanation of Eucharist.

It is symbolic if we remember the original meaning of this Greek root. συμβολον (from συμβαλλω - to reunite, to put together) was a broken in two parts wooden board or a coin or a picture and that was means of recognising each other. When two friends separated they broke a board in two and each kept his own piece; if later one of them needed help he could send a servant with that half so his friend could match the two halves and be assured that the request is genuine.
In this sense the Holy Eucharist is very symbolic: it's the place where the real Body and Blood of Christ meets our real bodies ans blood, it's the place where the two parts of the Church -- in Heaven and on Earth -- are perfectly united together in Christ Jesus, it's the place where people reunited with God.

The last explanation is the closest to my understanding of the Eucharist but I don't think it's the meaning you put in this poll option. So I voted transubstantiation as the second closest.

BrianCalgary

Camelot wrote: »

We can bat this back & forth until the end of time, but i'm telling you with a great degree of certainty that the Anglican Church does not believe in Transubstantiation.

I know that Transubstantiation was not an Anglican understanding, but Anglican would understand that Christ is present?

BrianCalgary

Slav wrote: »

All of the above for me.

It is transubstantiation because I believe its the real Body and the real Blood of Christ. That's how I understand "take, eat; this is my body" and "drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"
I don't like the word transubstantiation though as it bears the wight of RCC attempts of rational explanation of transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood. These attempts to explain the work of Holy Spirit in terms of Aristotle's philosophical categories were unsuccessful and unnecessary IMO (they only brought confusion to the Western Church).

It is presence of Christ as He said "I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Matt 28:20) and it includes Eucharist I believe. Again I would not subscribe to the definition of the Presence of Christ you gave as it implies consubstantiation -- another attempt of rational explanation of Eucharist.

It is symbolic if we remember the original meaning of this Greek root. συμβολον (from συμβαλλω - to reunite, to put together) was a broken in two parts wooden board or a coin or a picture and that was means of recognising each other. When two friends separated they broke a board in two and each kept his own piece; if later one of them needed help he could send a servant with that half so his friend could match the two halves and be assured that the request is genuine.
In this sense the Holy Eucharist is very symbolic: it's the place where the real Body and Blood of Christ meets our real bodies ans blood, it's the place where the two parts of the Church -- in Heaven and on Earth -- are perfectly united together in Christ Jesus, it's the place where people reunited with God.

The last explanation is the closest to my understanding of the Eucharist but I don't think it's the meaning you put in this poll option. So I voted transubstantiation as the second closest.

This is wonderful. Thank You.

BrianCalgary

Jakkass wrote: »

Westminster Cathecism is a Reformed document by the Presbyterian churches, and other dissenting Protestants not by the Church of England and by extension, not by other Anglicans.

Thanks for that. You learn something new everyday.

Jakkass wrote: »

The document you are looking for is the 39 Articles of Religion by Richard Hooker one of the founding members of the Church of England:


This is on the Church of Ireland website and in the Book of Common Prayer:
http://ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=14

Do you read into that the presence of Christ?
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.

philologos

Brian, good point.

I think it means that it is a spiritual partaking, rather than a physical partaking of the body and blood of Christ. So I guess you could say that falls into group two. I've personally regarded it as a symbolic / spiritual thing.

BrianCalgary

Thanks all, I have found this to be a very interesting and enlightening discussion as I personally journey through getting to know Christ better through this sacrament.

LordSutch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I know that Transubstantiation was not an Anglican understanding, but Anglican would understand that Christ is present?

Yes indeed Brian, he is present at communion (as he is all the time). This whole topic is a very interesting one that has made me look again at my own beliefs & thoughts regarding the Lords supper, which leads me on to ask this question; "As an Anglican I have never taken the sacraments in a Roman Catholic Church, and I am told that they only receive wafers (without wine) > can this be true"? In the C of I we receive bread (real bread) & wine from a chalice.

Yours curious.

BrianCalgary

Correct, in the RC church the people only receive the wafre of unleavened bread.

At weddings the couple receive both, if they choose. Otherwise the priest is the only one that receives the wine.

I have been told that it is economic, which I don't really accept as the wnswer.

postcynical

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Correct, in the RC church the people only receive the wafre of unleavened bread.

At weddings the couple receive both, if they choose. Otherwise the priest is the only one that receives the wine.

I have been told that it is economic, which I don't really accept as the wnswer.

Incorrect (if I may:)), the faithful are supposed to receive under both kinds. Now with the swine flu scare the sharing of the precious blood (consecrated wine) from the chalice has been stopped temporarily.

I don't understand why most priests only distribute the body/bread alone One of many queries I have about my church's practices.

bigeasyeah

I think symbolic but with Jesus Christ being present in the celebrating of the mass.

LordSutch

postcynical wrote: »

Incorrect (if I may:)), the faithful are supposed to receive under both kinds. Now with the swine flu scare the sharing of the precious blood (consecrated wine) from the chalice has been stopped temporarily.

Ah I see, so RC Priests do administer wine and wafers during the Lords supper, but the wine has been stopped temporarily because of the swine flu scare.

postcynical wrote: »

I don't understand why most priests only distribute the body/bread alone One of many queries I have about my church's practices.

Hang on a minute, but didnt you just say they stopped giving wine because of the swine flu scare?

Now I'm confused

PDN

I was at the Soul Survivor youth worship event this Summer. Graham Cray, the Bishop of Maidstone, introduced communion by saying, "If you're worried about the swine, stay away from the wine!"

postcynical

Camelot wrote: »

Ah I see, so RC Priests do administer wine and wafers during the Lords supper, but the wine has been stopped temporarily because of the swine flu scare.



Hang on a minute, but didnt you just say they stopped giving wine because of the swine flu scare?

Now I'm confused

Hmm, perhaps I wasn't too clear above. The faithful are supposed to receive Christ under both species, bread and wine but it is the practice in most churches that only the consecrated bread is distributed. I don't know why this is.

Now with the swine flu scare, even in the churches which usually offered under both species they are only offering bread and no wine. (drinking from the same cup is considered a risk according to HSE guidelines, as is the shaking hands as a sign of peace and receiving the bread on the tongue rather than in the hand). I hope that when this scare passes that many individual churches consider offering the wine/sacred blood again.

santing

postcynical wrote: »

Hmm, perhaps I wasn't too clear above. The faithful are supposed to receive Christ under both species, bread and wine but it is the practice in most churches that only the consecrated bread is distributed. I don't know why this is.

I thought that during the Mass normally only the bread was given to the lay people, as said in the Cathechism:

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

The coucil of Trente anathemised everyone wwho says that both elements are nessecary:

CANON I.--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.
CANON II.-if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.

lmaopml

postcynical wrote: »

Hmm, perhaps I wasn't too clear above. The faithful are supposed to receive Christ under both species, bread and wine but it is the practice in most churches that only the consecrated bread is distributed. I don't know why this is.

Now with the swine flu scare, even in the churches which usually offered under both species they are only offering bread and no wine. (drinking from the same cup is considered a risk according to HSE guidelines, as is the shaking hands as a sign of peace and receiving the bread on the tongue rather than in the hand). I hope that when this scare passes that many individual churches consider offering the wine/sacred blood again.

Hi Postcynical, as a Catholic, I am worried that people would believe that they are not receiving the whole and complete Christ in the Eucharist if it is offered only as the host during a given time..I know my own Church offer both during certain masses....and at other times they offer the host alone.

This doesn't mean the the lay people who don't recieve the 'cup' are somehow left incomplete. The only person who is 'required' to recieve both is the priest who consecrates.....His consumption completes the sacrifice...which is forever present to Catholics...

There is no more of Jesus in one than the other......the objective is to receive Jesus in the Eucharist....

LordSutch

Very interesting indeed (the above), for as an Anglican I cant remember a time when I did not receive the full sacraments, its always been (bread & wine) since I was confirmed at the tender age of fifteen, indeed I think it would be impossible to receive one without the other!

Some C of I Churches now give the option of taking a non alchoholic 'cordial' instead of wine (should the recipient choose).

Good Thread this ............

postcynical

santing wrote: »

I thought that during the Mass normally only the bread was given to the lay people, as said in the Cathechism:


The coucil of Trente anathemised everyone wwho says that both elements are nessecary:

Thankfully I'm not saying that both elements are necessary! I'm basing my understanding (which is in a personal capacity rather than official) on the extract from the catechism which you quoted above: "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."

Although multi-layered, the actual presence of Christ in the Host or in the wine is distinct from and complements the symbolic re-enactment of His Last Supper. Christ's sacrifice is represented on the altar when the priest officiates. In some way Christ is present in a different manner at the Mass than His ordinary presence with us, or amongst a group of us who gather in His name.

If you do not believe in the real presence, then the symbolism is more important and both bread and wine would be expected at such a service.

postcynical

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Postcynical, as a Catholic, I am worried that people would believe that they are not receiving the whole and complete Christ in the Eucharist if it is offered only as the host during a given time..I know my own Church offer both during certain masses....and at other times they offer the host alone.

This doesn't mean the the lay people who don't recieve the 'cup' are somehow left incomplete. The only person who is 'required' to recieve both is the priest who consecrates.....His consumption completes the sacrifice...which is forever present to Catholics...

There is no more of Jesus in one than the other......the objective is to receive Jesus in the Eucharist....

Thanks for that lmaopml, but I think the confusion is just down to me not being good at expressing myself rather than an error this time.:)

As a Catholic, what distinction would you see between Christ's presence in the Eucharist and Christ's presence amongst a group of worshippers eg at an evening prayer or a non-Catholic Christian ceremony? The living Christ is there at both surely?

Graces7

See Chapter 4 in this book; "The real presence"

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/lcscp10.txt

As for me? Jesus alone truly knows so leave this to Him; in Whom alone is our trust and our truth.

Enough and more than enough is that for any soul and life. Always in us and we always in Him.