I want communion!!!! (Jesus Christ, ritual, blood, churches, scriptures)

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by sojourner

You know, it's funny. On several occasions of serious ecumenical effort, when everything had been agreed upon, and consensus has finally seemed possible, when it came time to share the Meal, the impending concordat was shattered. it's funny that the Body of Christ is the one insturment we use to hack, instead of to heal. To me, that's a greater desecration of the Body of Christ (which is the community of followrs) than opening the Table. Even Jesus ate with sinners and prostitutes...

Amen.

Originally Posted by Scott1

Primary? I don't think so....it's done out of love.... we want you to come home to your "mother church".

Yes, primary. Exclusion because of love...dunno 'bout that. It seems haughty and unwarranted to me.

Preserving some sort of "mystery" about a miraculous non-miracle doesn't seem to me to be a firm basis upon which to promote unity. It seems the sort of side issue Jesus continually deplored, and it is a great shame to the church that differences of opinion concerning the nature of the communion elements has become a primary basis upon which to divide the church. I say this not only to RC shame, but to all of ours. But it seems to me that Anglicans have at least made a way forward by practicing an open table.

Originally Posted by Scott1

Why is your restriction to only those who are "validly" baptised any different than our restriction based upon valid Holy Orders?

Because communion is for Christians -- all of us. And for one of our groups to deny it to others of different professions, even though they acknowledge the same Lord -- is antithetical to Christian love. The RCC has no way around this.

Originally Posted by rheff78

Well, there is a difference though. We believe that the Eucharist IS the body,blood, sould and divinity of Jesus Christ. IF you don't believe that, why would you want to take communion with us?

Because communion isn't about whether you hold to a weird metaphysical view. It's about sharing a common meal, of acknowledging our common faith in Jesus. I might wish to share communion with you as a testimony to my solidarity with you in the gospel. And why should the RCC prevent me? It's absurd and churlish.

[rheff78]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Because communion isn't about whether you hold to a weird metaphysical view. It's about sharing a common meal, of acknowledging our common faith in Jesus. I might wish to share communion with you as a testimony to my solidarity with you in the gospel. And why should the RCC prevent me? It's absurd and churlish.

Come on, don't start with the name calling. But that's the reason right there. It's not weird to us. Transubstantiation. If yo don't believe the things we believe why would you want to? I don't take coummunion at other churches because I don't believe what they are offering. It's just that simple. No offense meant brother.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Yes, primary. Exclusion because of love...dunno 'bout that. It seems haughty and unwarranted to me.

Preserving some sort of "mystery" about a miraculous non-miracle doesn't seem to me to be a firm basis upon which to promote unity. It seems the sort of side issue Jesus continually deplored, and it is a great shame to the church that differences of opinion concerning the nature of the communion elements has become a primary basis upon which to divide the church. I say this not only to RC shame, but to all of ours. But it seems to me that Anglicans have at least made a way forward by practicing an open table.

Hey... opinions vary... unity before truth is not the best policy, we believe... and all we can do is practice the faith as it has been since the begining:

JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST. And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Absurd and churlish.... hehe... same thing they said to Justin.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by rheff78

Come on, don't start with the name calling. But that's the reason right there. It's not weird to us. Transubstantiation. If yo don't believe the things we believe why would you want to? I don't take coummunion at other churches because I don't believe what they are offering. It's just that simple. No offense meant brother.

I'm sorry, but I do find the idea strange. If that word is better, I'll use it. Communion is what it is regardless who is "offering" it. What is being offered is being offered by God, not by the church. And God is offering himself in the communion. Now, whether you hold that to be a sacrificial thing or a literal thing or a mysterious fellowship thing or a symbolic thing doesn't matter one iota. It really doesn't. For the whole purpose of the communion table is to unite the body under the head, and different ways of conceiving the means of that purpose ought not to be a bar. In other words, every community that believes in the historical Jesus offers exactly the same thing in communion -- a common witness of our unity under Jesus our Head. If, as you take communion, you want to conceive of the elements as literally Jesus, mysteriously Jesus, or symbolically Jesus, or <insert theory here>, go ahead. It doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant for the public act and shouldn't bar the spiritual work going on, namely the believer's communion with Jesus and with the Christian community.

[sojourner]

Hey... opinions vary... unity before truth is not the best policy, we believe... and all we can do is practice the faith as it has been since the begining:

your mistake here is that unity is truth. It's Biblical, and it has been the rallying call for the Church since its earliest days. That's the whole reason for there being one Eucharist, in which we all participate. That's the whole reason why the term "catholic" is used. That was the impetus for the great church councils, and the development of the confessional creeds. If you're truly interested in practicing the Faith as it has been since the beginning, then unity should surely be your polar star.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Hey... opinions vary... unity before truth is not the best policy, we believe... and all we can do is practice the faith as it has been since the begining:

What if there's been a mistake from the beginning? Nothing in scripture demands that we take the elements in the RC way. And it seems to me that there are multiple ways of understanding the various church fathers to accommodate more than just the RC view. Given that possibility, perhaps we shouldn't make a metaphysical understanding of the elements a central basis upon which to divide the church. As I've said before, that charge carries to almost all branches of Christendom. Even if the mainstream church regarded the elements as Martyr says, that's not to say that other interpretations are not valid or at least allowable under the pale of orthodoxy. And if they are allowable, there should be no bar to Christians accepting communion from various tables. Unfortunately, I think the insistence comes from a longstanding papal claim to authority, and perhaps that needs to be relativized before real progress can be made on other issues.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I'm sorry, but I do find the idea strange. If that word is better, I'll use it. Communion is what it is regardless who is "offering" it. What is being offered is being offered by God, not by the church. And God is offering himself in the communion. Now, whether you hold that to be a sacrificial thing or a literal thing or a mysterious fellowship thing or a symbolic thing doesn't matter one iota. It really doesn't. For the whole purpose of the communion table is to unite the body under the head, and different ways of conceiving the means of that purpose ought not to be a bar. In other words, every community that believes in the historical Jesus offers exactly the same thing in communion -- a common witness of our unity under Jesus our Head. If, as you take communion, you want to conceive of the elements as literally Jesus, mysteriously Jesus, or symbolically Jesus, or <insert theory here>, go ahead. It doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant for the public act and shouldn't bar the spiritual work going on, namely the believer's communion with Jesus and with the Christian community.

Com=with. Unity=together. Com=with. Union=...together. The fact that we, even though we understand differently, can come together in unity in the greatest act of God in the Church, is our strongest testimony to who we are. it is our strongest witness, our most powerful ministry to a world that operates out of its estrangement. Christ offered himself once for all, did he not?

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by sojourner

your mistake here is that unity is truth. It's Biblical, and it has been the rallying call for the Church since its earliest days. That's the whole reason for there being one Eucharist, in which we all participate. That's the whole reason why the term "catholic" is used. That was the impetus for the great church councils, and the development of the confessional creeds. If you're truly interested in practicing the Faith as it has been since the beginning, then unity should surely be your polar star.

Unity expressed through LOVE, of course.