Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Holy Communion/the Eucharist: What is your doctrine?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Poll Question: Are the Eucharistic gifts really the Body and Blood of Christ?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
5 [50.00%]
4 [40.00%]
1 [10.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Holy Communion/the Eucharist: What is your doctrine?
    Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 16:47

So at the risk of oversimplifying a very complex issue, I would like to see responses to the above question. If you need more information, feel free to go to the Wikipedia and look up the article "Eucharistic theologies contrasted." Please, pleeeeaaaase be civil .

So here we go, I believe that the bread and the wine at communion are essentially transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. I do not believe that the mode of that "becoming" is comprehensible, or even needs to be. Thus, I have answered "Yes."

By the way, I hope this is not too controversial, and I certainly don't mean for it to be exclusionary. Anyone of any religious background may feel free to respond to the question (like I could stop you anyway), and I honestly feel that it would be interesting to hear some non-Christian perspectives on the sacrament. That said, please do not insult anyones faith, or lack thereof.

-Akolouthos

Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 16:53
I don't think the eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ - I think it is bread and wine. But that doesn't diminish its importance, it's the symbolism that counts.

Interestingly, participating in the eucharist is only thing I refuse to do when I go to church. It's kind of an unwritten rule; it's not enforced or anything but it's just common practice. Roman Catholics will sit out for eucharist at Orthodox Churches, and vice versa, here as well. So obviously it's something very important to Christians, and to specific types of Christians.
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 17:26
Holy Communion is one of the most important mysteries,if not the most important.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
Theophos View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 12-Feb-2006
Location: Vatican City State
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
  Quote Theophos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 17:43

You are talking about transubstantiation, that is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ that occurs during the Eucharist. I believe happens so, therefore keeping the presence of Christ in the Holy Communion not just figurative, but real

About the Theology of Transubstantiation, please read (mostly taken from Wikipedia):

In this context, substance is a philosophical, not a chemical term. It indicates what something is in itself. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. The appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.

When at his Last Supper Jesus said: "This is my body", what he held in his hands had all the appearances of bread. However, though the accidents of bread remained as before, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the underlying reality was changed in accordance with what Jesus said, that the substance of the bread was converted to that of his body. And it believes that the same change of the substance of the bread and a similar change of the substance of the wine occurs at every celebration of the Eucharist.

The bread is not changed into Jesus: it is changed into his body. But where Jesus' body is, there now is Jesus. Accordingly, when bread is converted into his body, Jesus as a whole, body and blood, soul and divinity, is present by concomitance. In the same way, the wine is not changed into Jesus, but into his blood; but where his blood is, Jesus, whole and entire, is present, not just his blood.

The Roman Catholic Church accordingly believes that through transubstantiation Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and that the transformation remains as long as the appearances remain. For this reason the consecrated elements are preserved, generally in a church tabernacle, for giving holy communion to the sick and dying, and also for the secondary, but still highly prized, purpose of adoring Christ present in the Eucharist.

The Roman Catholic Church considers the doctrine of transubstantiation the best defence against what it sees as the mutually opposed errors of, on the one hand, a merely figurative understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (the change of the substance is real), and, on the other hand, an interpretation that would amount to cannibalistic eating of the flesh and corporal drinking of the blood of Christ (the accidents that remain are real, not an illusion).

Views of Orthodox Churches:

The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that the bread and wine truly do actually become the body and blood of Christ. However, they have in general refrained from philosophical speculation such as that which found expression in the theory of transubstantiation, and instead usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a "mystery", something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, preferring to say too little about the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth, they speak simply of a "change" (in Greek ) of the bread and wine. Orthodox theologians generally speak in terms of what is called metousiosis, which is used to speak of a great mystical change of essence, not only of the bread and wine, but also in those who partake of the Eucharist.

Protestantism:

Generally, Protestant Churches often hold that the holy comunion merely symbolically commemorates or memorializes Jesus' Last Supper with the disciples; this belief is known as "symbolism", "commemoration", or "transignification". Some fundamentalist Protestants see any doctrine of the real presence as idolatry, worshipping mere bread and wine as if it were God.

Personally, as I said, I stick with the traditional transubstantiation theology. I believe Christ is really there, amongst us, and in that piece of bread and wine.

"I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me."
--John 14:6
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 17:57

You are talking about transubstantiation, that is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ that occurs during the Eucharist. I believe happens so, therefore keeping the presence of Christ in the Holy Communion not just figurative, but real

As do I, although I don't quite believe in transubstantiation. There are different degrees to which people believe the presence is there, different levels on which it is there, etc. Thanks for posting that article (I got lazy ).

-Akolouthos

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 06:16

Originally posted by Mila


Interestingly, participating in the eucharist is only thing I refuse to do when I go to church. It's kind of an unwritten rule; it's not enforced or anything but it's just common practice. Roman Catholics will sit out for eucharist at Orthodox Churches, and vice versa, here as well. So obviously it's something very important to Christians, and to specific types of Christians.

Which branches of Christianity can take communion in other churches depends on whether they are 'in communion' with one another. The Greek Orthodox and the Anglicans are in communion with one another, but not with one another (last I heard). I believe the Marionites and the Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Roman Catholics.

It's largely a matter of whether each church accepts the valid ordination of the others' priests.

In none of them can children take part until they are confirmed, 'First Communion' being therefore an important rite of passage at least for Catholics.

I would be interested to know whether Roman Catholics here think that transubstantiation takes place when the host is blessed by an Orthodox or Anglican priest. And vice versa of course.

(As a non-Christian I obviously don't believe in transubstantiation. I didn't vote because I think the vote would only be interesting if restricted to Christians.)

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 07:19
Originally posted by gcle2003

In none of them can children take part until they are confirmed, 'First Communion' being therefore an important rite of passage at least for Catholics.


First communion and confirmation are two diferent rituals ("sacraments"). First communion happens at about 7 y.o. among catholics and is like saying you are now old enough to be a member of the religious community. Confirmation is made at about 16-18 y.o. and means that the belonging is consolidated.

In practice most people I know confirmed for their parents, not to make them feel bad, even if they were total atheists.


I would be interested to know whether Roman Catholics here think that transubstantiation takes place when the host is blessed by an Orthodox or Anglican priest. And vice versa of course.

Too technical but probably yes. Most or even all sacraments can be performed, depending on the circumstances, by seglars. For instance, any Catholic can perform baptism with any water if there's death danger.

Most intelectual Catholics would say that the intention is what matters.

...

As a Pantheist, and therefore a meta-Christian, meta-Muslim, meta-Jew, meta-Hindu, meta-Buddhist, meta-Satanist, etc. I did vote "other".

I think that sharing bread, wine or whatever other foods is a very beautiful gesture that shows the will of sharing among the present ones and therefore the has that sense of effectively creating a community among tose that share. Meats have always been used as communitary catalyzers and I think it is a pity that Christians have lost the essential concept and do not anymore share a true meal, with bread and wine as Jesus and the apostles allegedly did. If Christians met all Sundays or at least on occasion to have a community meal in the Jesuisian fashion, they would probably benefit more of that action than from the empty rituals they perform in the aseptic churches.

...

Btw, on the original question, I truly hope that there is no true transformation of the bread and the wine into the flesh and blood of a person. That would be canibalism and truly, when I eat bread, I like bread, not the slice of some Jewish prophet of 2000 years ago, thanks.


Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 07:35

I think that sharing bread, wine or whatever other foods is a very beautiful gesture that shows the will of sharing among the present ones and therefore the has that sense of effectively creating a community among tose that share. Meats have always been used as communitary catalyzers and I think it is a pity that Christians have lost the essential concept and do not anymore share a true meal, with bread and wine as Jesus and the apostles allegedly did. If Christians met all Sundays or at least on occasion to have a community meal in the Jesuisian fashion, they would probably benefit more of that action than from the empty rituals they perform in the aseptic churches.

Actually, some friends of mine who are completely non/anti-denominational do just this. After they pray they sit down and have a meal, generally kinda barbeque/picnic style. Personally I don't think that this is the entirety of what the Last Supper is supposed to mean for us (though the thought has crossed my mind), but others would beg to differ. I do think that you are right, and that a sense of community needs to develop outside of the Liturgy, as well as in it. Anyway, I love these people to death, so I have celebrated with them before anyway .

Interesting fact, and I don't know whether all Anglican Churches do it or not, but back when I was a member of the U.S. Episcopal Church, we had an agape meal on Holy Thursday in the Church. It was always one of my favorite parts of the Liturgical Year. BTW, Maju, thanks again for teaching me how to quote .

-Akolouthos

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 07:12
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Interesting fact, and I don't know whether all Anglican Churches do it or not, but back when I was a member of the U.S. Episcopal Church, we had an agape meal on Holy Thursday in the Church. It was always one of my favorite parts of the Liturgical Year.

It is sometimes done in Anglican churches, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were copied from the US example.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 07:20
Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by gcle2003

In none of them can children take part until they are confirmed, 'First Communion' being therefore an important rite of passage at least for Catholics.


First communion and confirmation are two diferent rituals ("sacraments"). First communion happens at about 7 y.o. among catholics and is like saying you are now old enough to be a member of the religious community. Confirmation is made at about 16-18 y.o. and means that the belonging is consolidated.

You may be right for Roman Catholicism. I was going by Anglican practice in which you cannot take communion until you are confirmed (I agree they are different sacraments: I never meant to imply they were the same.) Confirmation takes place around 14 among Anglicans.

I guess this is a matter of church discipline rather than anything theological.

However you certainly cannot take communion without being baptised.

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 08:14
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by gcle2003

In none of them can children take part until they are confirmed, 'First Communion' being therefore an important rite of passage at least for Catholics.


First communion and confirmation are two diferent rituals ("sacraments"). First communion happens at about 7 y.o. among catholics and is like saying you are now old enough to be a member of the religious community. Confirmation is made at about 16-18 y.o. and means that the belonging is consolidated.

You may be right for Roman Catholicism. I was going by Anglican practice in which you cannot take communion until you are confirmed (I agree they are different sacraments: I never meant to imply they were the same.) Confirmation takes place around 14 among Anglicans.

I guess this is a matter of church discipline rather than anything theological.

However you certainly cannot take communion without being baptised.



You certainly can take communion even if you are excommunicated: you just enter in a church and take it. I bet you that there's not going to be any lighting that punishes you for breaking the rule and that the priest will be unable to pick you apart from the others.

But, staying within the rules of the Catholic Church, you can't have the first communion without having baptism first and you can't have communion without celebrating the first communion in advance. Normally you are baptized when you are a baby (what I find outraging: poor kids!) and then when you are 6 or 7 y.o. you are put into that catwalk of the first communion.

I can tell you that when I first heard that some people were going to go dressed as admiral or things like that, I thought it was a custom party and said: "I will go as a cowboy". Sadly it was all very boring - except for the presents.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Theophos View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 12-Feb-2006
Location: Vatican City State
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
  Quote Theophos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 09:50
Originally posted by Maju

Normally you are baptized when you are a baby (what I find outraging: poor kids!)
 
Really, it can't have done that much harm to you. If the person simply doesn't believe, baptism is indifferent to him/her. But if you feel outraged, you've got to be outraged at the kids' families, then.
"I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me."
--John 14:6
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 20:25

Definitely not trying to be confrontational here, but in my particular Episcopal church I received communion many times before I was confirmed. Can't remember what the kids at my Catholic school did...

Anyway, I was wondering if that might be a difference between the other Anglican churches and the Episcopal church (as if there weren't enough already ).

-Akolouthos

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 23:32
Originally posted by Theophos

Originally posted by Maju

Normally you are baptized when you are a baby (what I find outraging: poor kids!)
 
Really, it can't have done that much harm to you. If the person simply doesn't believe, baptism is indifferent to him/her. But if you feel outraged, you've got to be outraged at the kids' families, then.


Don't you see kids crying when they are thrown that water on their heads without any contempt?

Anyhow, its's outraging that they make you a member of their church without allowing you to grow up before you can decide.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
docyabut View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
  Quote docyabut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 08:56

I think Jesus was simply saying to his friends at the last supper, remember me with food and drink, just like someone would say today by giving a toast. However  to bring about all of Jesus`s goods doing and words into a religion there had to be such ceremony. I think the whole darn  Da Vinci Code is a big joke.

  Baptism, the ritual was performed  long before Jesus,  cleaning the spirit . However in Jesus time only the rich that could pay were baptize. Jesus stress that all the poor and unhealty should have the same right.

 To truely be baptize is to accept all people into a holy spirit, as one.

 

 

Back to Top
vespasian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 58
  Quote vespasian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 19:40

Well, OK, here's my $.02....

I voted no. It seems to me that Christ meant this to be symbolic, not literal. The proof that is used for this is (most times) is John 6. Christ may say "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" to have eternal life, but at the end of the chapter he says something to the effect of "my words are spirit and life", not "my flesh".  So, I've always taken it as a symbol. Well, there you go. Later.

Is someone going to tell Triple H that someone beat him to the title "King of Kings"?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.