Communion of the Body of Christ

[Albion]

Do you think your churches ceremony is an exact replica of the last supper or does it symbolize what took place?

What is the relevancy of your question to the subject of this thread? How would an inexact likeness of, say, the furnishings or the clothing worn, render the sacrament either 1) Real Presence or 2) Mere Symbolism??

 

[Particular]

What is the relevancy of your question to the subject of this thread? How would an inexact likeness of, say, the furnishings or the clothing worn, render the sacrament either 1) Real Presence or 2) Mere Symbolism??

What does communion entail? Are churches, today, doing exactly what the first supper did? How exactly literal are you going to be, or do you pick and choose what you literally do?
The fact is that today's churches don't literally perform the Lord's Supper. Instead, they symbolize what took place, "in remembrance of Jesus."

 

[Albion]

The fact is that today's churches don't literally perform the Lord's Supper. Instead, they symbolize what took place, "in remembrance of Jesus."

From what I can tell, the worship services in the churches that believe in Real Presence are more faithful in replicating the Last Supper than are those that see the service as mere symbolism. The latter do use shot-glass type containers, substitute grape juice for wine, do not use a common cup, and of course do not believe the ceremony to be as Christ himself described it.

By contrast, in the liturgical churches, the officiant (priest, minister) does wear attire that mimics the clothing worn in the first century, a common cup is used (as was the case at the Last Supper and according to the Gospel account), actual wine is used, a holy table is employed (it is absent in most "evangelical" churches) and the belief is that the elements are just as Christ said they were.

As we all know, not every detail of the Last Supper is available to us, but if you are asking which kind of churches more faithfully continue the look and style of the Last Supper, there is no doubt whatsoever that it is the liturgical churches that believe in the Real Presence, not the fundamentalist/Pentecostal, etc. type.

 

[Particular]

From what I can tell, the worship services in the churches that believe in Real Presence are more faithful in replicating the Last Supper than are those that see the service as mere symbolism. The latter do use shot-glass type containers, substitute grape juice for wine, do not use a common cup, and of course do not believe the ceremony to be as Christ himself described it.

By contrast, in the liturgical churches, the officiant (priest, minister) does wear attire that mimics the clothing worn in the first century, a common cup is used (as was the case at the Last Supper and according to the Gospel account), actual wine is used, a holy table is employed (it is absent in most "evangelical" churches) and the belief is that the elements are just as Christ said they were.

As we all know, not every detail of the Last Supper is available to us, but if you are asking which kind of churches more faithfully continue the look and style of the Last Supper, there is no doubt whatsoever that it is the liturgical churches that believe in the Real Presence, not the fundamentalist/Pentecostal, etc. type.

So, your churches perform a sedir meal? That is what happened in the upper room as Passover was being remembered.
It is best for us all to acknowledge that we are remembering the Lord's death, burial and resurrection until his return.
Whether we believe in an alchemy of chemical change or a symbolic partaking, the truth is we remember the Lord's death, burial and resurrection until his return.

 

[psalms 91]

So, your churches perform a sedir meal? That is what happened in the upper room as Passover was being remembered.
It is best for us all to acknowledge that we are remembering the Lord's death, burial and resurrection until his return.
Whether we believe in an alchemy of chemical change or a symbolic partaking, the truth is we remember the Lord's death, burial and resurrection until his return.

However, by excluding Christyians of other denoms that is where they depart as Jesus never said only one denomination may partake

 

[Particular]

However, by excluding Christyians of other denoms that is where they depart as Jesus never said only one denomination may partake

Yes, it seems there is an exclusive pridefulness in certain Christian traditions that is not expressed in the Bible. Rather than accept all who are born again, the fellowship only accepts all who agree to their catechism and become exclusive members of their declaration.
My church practices open communion so that all whom Christ has redeemed are welcome to partake in remembrance of our great King who died in our stead.

 

[Albion]

So, your churches perform a sedir meal?

It is not certain that the Last Supper was, in fact, a seder. As said before, there are hints that it was not.

It is best for us all to acknowledge that we are remembering the Lord's death, burial and resurrection until his return.

That is completely extraneous to this discussion, as all parties--those who believe in the Real Presence and those who do not--are remembering the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection until his return.

Whether we believe in an alchemy of chemical change or a symbolic partaking, the truth is we remember the Lord's death, burial and resurrection until his return.

...and also those of us who fall into neither of those categories (alchemy or symbolism only).

 

[Particular]

It is not certain that the Last Supper was, in fact, a seder. As said before, there are hints that it was not.


That is completely extraneous to this discussion, as all parties--those who believe in the Real Presence and those who do not--are remembering the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection until his return.


...and also those of us who fall into neither of those categories (alchemy or symbolism only).

Despite your protest, alchemy must be involved if real presence is going to exist. The bread must become the flesh of Jesus. The wine must become the blood of Jesus. If not, then there cannot be a real presence. It is a symbolic presence.
I recognize there are a few Protestant denominations that try to live in a quasi-world where real presence isn't actually real body and real blood in the elements, yet it isn't fully symbolic either. These Protestant groups are a small group that is dying off with time as their congregations dwindle.

 

[Andrew]

When did the disciples "do this" again?
Why would they eat and drink in remembrance of a teacher who is handing them the bread and wine?
If it was just a one time deal then what do you think they thought each time they took bread and drank wine? They must have took Christ's word literally that His presence is IN the bread and wine that they would sup with.. or what were they thinking?

 

[Albion]

Despite your protest, alchemy must be involved if real presence is going to exist.

Nope. That's just ignorant.

But others have already pointed that out, so I won't go through the difference yet one more time. <_<

If you don't know what you are talking about, it's best to go to some other thread where the topic.

 

[Particular]

Nope. That's an ignorant thing to say. But others have already pointed it out.

If you don't know what you are talking about, it's best to go to some other thread.

Well, since the Roman Catholic Church holds to Real Presence and the wafer and wine have to actually, literally become the body and blood of Christ, it seems you are in denial. Moreso, your church didn't show up until the 1500s so your view isn't any older than any other Protestant view.
Perhaps the ignorance is more about your quasi-position that no church held until your own Reformer came along.

 

[Albion]

Well, since the Roman Catholic Church holds to Real Presence

Wait a minute. You didn't say "The Roman Catholic Church believes in alchemy." You said that to believe in the Real Presence is to believe in alchemy. That's totally wrong.

 

[Particular]

Wait a minute. You didn't say "The Roman Catholic Church believes in alchemy." You said that to believe in the Real Presence is to believe in alchemy. That's totally wrong.

Real Presence is the Roman Catholic position. Lutherans have a quasi-position that floats in limbo somewhere between real body and real blood vs symbolic body and symbolic blood. It's not real presence as was taught in the Roman Catholic Church. So, you have 500 years of your teaching being held by a small group of Christians.

 

[Albion]

Real Presence is the Roman Catholic position.

Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic position.

IT was new in the Middle Ages. [/QUOTE]

The Apostolic belief was Real Presence.

Your belief was an innovation of the 16th century and considered radical by Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans alike.

 

[Particular]

Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic position.

It's real presence.
You are avoiding the fact that your denomination came up with a different position 500 years ago.

 

[Albion]

duplicate.

 

[Albion]

You are avoiding the fact that your denomination came up with a different position 500 years ago.

It is the position of the Early Church Fathers. I said this before.

But the Anglican church, one of the oldest in Christendom, is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Particular]

It is the position of the Early Church Fathers. I said this before.

But the Anglican church, one of the oldest in Christendom, is not the topic of this thread.

It's your claim.
I claim the Apostles teach my position.
The Anglican Church is the Church of England. It's young. You have no substantive argument. Your church is 500 years old.
On a side note, off-topic, every denomination that was once propped up by governments making them the State Church are all diminishing and getting smaller. Meanwhile God is growing Baptist churches (always promoters of separation of church and state) all around the world. Perhaps Baptists have been blessed by God because they are striving to follow the scriptural model of communion, baptism and evangelism.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

It's your claim.
I claim the Apostles teach my position.
The Anglican Church is the Church of England. It's young. You have no substantive argument. Your church is 500 years old.
On a side note, off-topic, every denomination that was once propped up by governments making them the State Church are all diminishing and getting smaller. Meanwhile God is growing Baptist churches (always promoters of separation of church and state) all around the world. Perhaps Baptists have been blessed by God because they are striving to follow the scriptural model of communion, baptism and evangelism.

 

[Particular]