Body and the Blood

[Oats]

Is the sacraments the literal body and blood of Christ

 

[Drew]

Is the sacraments the literal body and blood of Christ

I do not believe so.

But neither do I think taking communion is purely symbolic, either. I suggest that the act of consuming the elements "changes the universe" in some fundamental sense.

 

[westtexas]

I do not believe so.

But neither do I think taking communion is purely symbolic, either. I suggest that the act of consuming the elements "changes the universe" in some fundamental sense.

I agree. I was raised to believe it was a "memorial" and symbolic. "Do this in remembrance of Me". I believe it is much more than that. I can agree with Luther's view of consubstantiation, the literal presence of Christ under the bread and wine, while still retaining their natural properties.

Westtexas

 

[jasoncran]

the same here, one cant ignore the fact that we ought to take the partaking of communion seriously.

 

[Oats]

the same here, one cant ignore the fact that we ought to take the partaking of communion seriously.

Thanks

 

[francisdesales]

Is the sacraments the literal body and blood of Christ

Catholics believe that they partake in the literal body and blood of Christ, but it is sacramental in form, thus, it doesn't drip literal blood, etc. It looks and appears as bread/wine, but by faith, we believe that Christ is giving His literal LIFE to us, just in a more "palatable" form. Obviously, the purpose is spiritual, not for physical nourishment.

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

I do not believe so.

But neither do I think taking communion is purely symbolic, either. I suggest that the act of consuming the elements "changes the universe" in some fundamental sense.

I agree. I was raised to believe it was a "memorial" and symbolic. "Do this in remembrance of Me". I believe it is much more than that. I can agree with Luther's view of consubstantiation, the literal presence of Christ under the bread and wine, while still retaining their natural properties.

Westtexas

Oooh, I though Luther's position was one of a spiritual presence. I believe there is a very spiritual aspect to the communion.

 

[francisdesales]

I was raised to believe it was a "memorial" and symbolic. "Do this in remembrance of Me". I believe it is much more than that. I can agree with Luther's view of consubstantiation, the literal presence of Christ under the bread and wine, while still retaining their natural properties.

Westtexas

Oooh, I thought Luther's position was one of a spiritual presence. I believe there is a very spiritual aspect to the communion.

Westtexas is correct on Luther, and so are you, Vic, on the spiritual aspect. All of us believe that Communion has spiritual aspect, I would think...

Regards

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

Perhaps if you could explain "sacramental form".

JamesG

 

[Mike]

In keeping with my Lutheran (LCMS) understanding of the Lord's Supper, I have it that the Body and Blood are present IN AND WITH the bread and wine.

I have to admit though, this is my greatest leap of faith in my faith. I pray on it all the time, and it is purely by faith in Him that I am able to grasp on and maintain this belief. Obviously, there are different interpretations of the Scripture that applies to Holy Communion. I would hope that Christians of all denominations look seriously into it, that it be very meaningful. As an elder at my church, I assist in serving communion, and it's saddening to see people with seemingly no thought of it as they receive. I can't look into their soul, though, so this is a judgment call that I shouldn't make.

 

[francisdesales]

.
Francisdesales

Perhaps if you could explain "sacramental form".

JamesG

A visible sign or form which "masks" the hidden actuality.

So water is the sacramental form of the Holy Spirit washing our sins away and destroying the old man (themes of water in the old testament - birth and death).

In this case of Eucharist, we have bread masking the glorious and Risen Lord's True God and True man united. In a sense, Jesus of Nazareth is the sacramental presence of God Himself (He is the image of the invisible God, correct?)

"Sacramentalism" is seeing God's presence in the visible. Bible reading, Liturgy, fellowship, serving the poor, loving our wives, looking at a sunset, all are example of sacramentalism.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

In keeping with my Lutheran (LCMS) understanding of the Lord's Supper, I have it that the Body and Blood are present IN AND WITH the bread and wine.

I have to admit though, this is my greatest leap of faith in my faith. I pray on it all the time, and it is purely by faith in Him that I am able to grasp on and maintain this belief. Obviously, there are different interpretations of the Scripture that applies to Holy Communion. I would hope that Christians of all denominations look seriously into it, that it be very meaningful. As an elder at my church, I assist in serving communion, and it's saddening to see people with seemingly no thought of it as they receive. I can't look into their soul, though, so this is a judgment call that I shouldn't make.

Indeed, the sacrament is a sacrament of faith, since there is no indication that this piece of bread is Jesus, except by trusting in what He said...

We hope in time they become more serious and recognize the Lord in the breaking of the Bread...

Regards

 

[westtexas]

I do not believe so.

But neither do I think taking communion is purely symbolic, either. I suggest that the act of consuming the elements "changes the universe" in some fundamental sense.

I agree. I was raised to believe it was a "memorial" and symbolic. "Do this in remembrance of Me". I believe it is much more than that. I can agree with Luther's view of consubstantiation, the literal presence of Christ under the bread and wine, while still retaining their natural properties.

Westtexas

Oooh, I though Luther's position was one of a spiritual presence. I believe there is a very spiritual aspect to the communion.

Luther says in his Small Catechism pg. 150 "It is the True Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,under the bread and wine, given unto us Christians to eat and to drink, as it was instituted by Christ Himself...........so that when the communicant receives the bread he receives also the body of Christ, and when he receives the wine, he receives also the blood of Christ."

Westtexas

 

[Mike]

Luther says in his Small Catechism pg. 150 "It is the True Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,under the bread and wine, given unto us Christians to eat and to drink, as it was instituted by Christ Himself...........so that when the communicant receives the bread he receives also the body of Christ, and when he receives the wine, he receives also the blood of Christ."

That's what I said...

In keeping with my Lutheran (LCMS) understanding of the Lord's Supper, I have it that the Body and Blood are present IN AND WITH the bread and wine.

 

[westtexas]

Luther says in his Small Catechism pg. 150 "It is the True Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,under the bread and wine, given unto us Christians to eat and to drink, as it was instituted by Christ Himself...........so that when the communicant receives the bread he receives also the body of Christ, and when he receives the wine, he receives also the blood of Christ."

That's what I said...

In keeping with my Lutheran (LCMS) understanding of the Lord's Supper, I have it that the Body and Blood are present IN AND WITH the bread and wine.

Sorry 'bout that. I responded to Vic before I read everyone else's answers. I guess it's kinda like a re-run on TV. Everyone has to watch it twice!

Westtexas

 

[Mike]

Sorry 'bout that. I responded to Vic before I read everyone else's answers. I guess it's kinda like a re-run on TV. Everyone has to watch it twice!

Westtexas

 

[Theofilus]

If you ask me, the qeustion itself is a bet ridiculous. Whatever you may have been taught about it being instituted by Jesus, the fact is that communion as we know it today is an entirely man-made custom. How can a man-made custom turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ? The whole idea doesn't make any sense.

But what about the last supper, you may ask. The last supper was not a rite or a sacrament. It was a meal. In fact, it was the biggest meal of the year and included a whole roast lamb which had to be completely consumed in one night. If the first Christians had been eating tiny pieces of bread and drinking just a few drops of wine, then what did Paul mean in I Cor. 11 when he accused some of getting drunk during the Lord's supper and keeping others from taking part so they had to leave hungry? It was obviously a meal. Communion as we know it didn't come until much later.

 

[jasoncran]

jesus instituted the new commuinion, the last supper was the last time the lord and the disciples would celebrate the passover.

the passover is symbolic of the cross to the jew, but the communion is rememberance of the blood shed on the cross.

 

[Mike]

If you ask me, the qeustion itself is a bet ridiculous. Whatever you may have been taught about it being instituted by Jesus, the fact is that communion as we know it today is an entirely man-made custom. How can a man-made custom turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ? The whole idea doesn't make any sense.

But what about the last supper, you may ask. The last supper was not a rite or a sacrament. It was a meal. In fact, it was the biggest meal of the year and included a whole roast lamb which had to be completely consumed in one night. If the first Christians had been eating tiny pieces of bread and drinking just a few drops of wine, then what did Paul mean in I Cor. 11 when he accused some of getting drunk during the Lord's supper and keeping others from taking part so they had to leave hungry? It was obviously a meal. Communion as we know it didn't come until much later.

Theo, I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Do you reject the Gospels accounts of the last supper with Jesus breaking bread and passing the cup and suggest that they had a full Cedar meal? The Lord's Supper was modeled by Jesus, and we were told "When ever you do this...", not "if you ever do this..."

I realize different denominations have different interpretations of Jesus saying it was His Body and His Blood, but I've never heard anyone suggest that He didn't model what we should be doing. Your comment that this discussion is "ridiculous" is a bit harsh. We do what we do, as He said, in remembrance of Him. :yes

 

[Mysteryman]

I Corinth. 11:20