On Communion

[Deborah13]

Here's what Augustine preached about the Eucharist:

“Augustine on the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist” Sermon 272,

What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. ..... So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. ...

"What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize."
Now let us continue in the same sermon.......
" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear "The body of Christ", you reply "Amen." Be a member of Christ's body, then, so that your "Amen" may ring true! But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: "The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body." [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. "One bread," he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the "one body," formed from many?......So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form "a single heart and mind in God" [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine......"

One can read more here but it will not confirm what you are saying Augustine meant.
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

 

[Jim Parker]

"
One can read more here but it will not confirm what you are saying Augustine meant.
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

Yes. The bread and wine are the body and blood of CHrist and we are the body of Christ.

Those are two different concepts. Both are orthodox Christianity.

 

[Roro1972]

ok I have a question for someone. when Jesus said; this is my blood; was he drinking grape juice or wine?
and if wine and today we use grape juice are we doing it wrong to change from wine?

 

[GodsGrace]

ok I have a question for someone. when Jesus said; this is my blood; was he drinking grape juice or wine?
and if wine and today we use grape juice are we doing it wrong to change from wine?

It's safe to assume there was no grape juice in Jesus' day. How would they ever keep it fresh?
Grapes were fermented for purposes of preservation. Some denominations that believe drinking wine is sinful will not agree with this - what can I say? Drinking wine can be sinful and it cannot. Depends on why you drink it and how much!

Catholics, Lutherans and other churches that believe in the real presence will use wine. When they do use wine. They don't have to since both the body and blood is in either species, and both species.

The churches that use grape juice don't believe in the real presence, but understand communion to be symbolic, so it doesn't really matter what they drink.

At the Last Supper Jesus drank wine.

Wondering

 

[childeye]

It's all readily available on line. Thank goodness we don't have to spend hours and hours at the library any more!

You have my agreement about the convenience of online information. But seriously, I am not going to go through everything Clement ever wrote so that I can begin to guess from what I have read, what it is you are referencing. So since you're the only who actually knows what you are referring to, why don't you just love us as you would want to be loved and post it?

 

[Roro1972]

It's safe to assume there was no grape juice in Jesus' day. How would they ever keep it fresh?
Grapes were fermented for purposes of preservation. Some denominations that believe drinking wine is sinful will not agree with this - what can I say? Drinking wine can be sinful and it cannot. Depends on why you drink it and how much!

Catholics, Lutherans and other churches that believe in the real presence will use wine. When they do use wine. They don't have to since both the body and blood is in either species, and both species.

The churches that use grape juice don't believe in the real presence, but understand communion to be symbolic, so it doesn't really matter what they drink.

At the Last Supper Jesus drank wine.

Wondering

So Im on the side that says we should use real wine for communion because that is wht was used back then. which brings up another question; what should the one under 21 do drink the real wine? its not enough to hurt them imo

 

[Jim Parker]

ok I have a question for someone. when Jesus said; this is my blood; was he drinking grape juice or wine? and if wine and today we use grape juice are we doing it wrong to change from wine?

They were drinking wine, not "grape juice." You may have noticed that grapes commonly have a kind of haze on them; that yeast. When the grapes are crushed, the yeast is mixed with juice and begins to convert the sugars to alcohol. The juice of crushed grapes naturally becomes alcoholic and then turns to vinegar.

We have grape juice (and apple juice and orange juice) today because we can Pasteurize it or reduce it to a "concentrate" and then add water which destroys the yeast and prevents the production of alcohol.

Back then, they didn't have that.

If you think drinking alcohol is a sin then use grape juice.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

You have my agreement about the convenience of online information. But seriously, I am not going to go through everything Clement ever wrote so that I can begin to guess from what I have read, what it is you are referencing. So since you're the only who actually knows what you are referring to, why don't you just love us as you would want to be loved and post it?

I did but here it is again:

Here ya go:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Alexandria

"Clement has also been accused of Docetism in his teachings on the Incarnation. According to him, the body of Christ was not subject to human needs. See the following passage from Stromateis which clearly denies Christ's full humanity:

In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as afterwards some did certainly supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain." 2

2. Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1. Collegeville, MN:The Liturgical Press, pg. 184. Copyright 1970, The Order of Saint Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, MN. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 0-8146-0432-3.

 

[Deborah13]

Here ya go:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Alexandria

"Clement has also been accused of Docetism in his teachings on the Incarnation. According to him, the body of Christ was not subject to human needs. See the following passage from Stromateis which clearly denies Christ's full humanity:

In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as afterwards some did certainly supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain." 2

2. Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1. Collegeville, MN:The Liturgical Press, pg. 184. Copyright 1970, The Order of Saint Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, MN. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 0-8146-0432-3.

Thank you, this helps. I am not defending Clement's idea about pain or physical needs of Christ but at the same time this statement does not determine that he taught Docetism either, imo.
This is the definition of Docetism, which I am sure you know, but for the sake of other readers here it is.

"Docetism (or Illusionism) is a Christological heresy, the teaching that Jesus Christ only appeared to be man but was not in actuality. The word is derived from the Greek dokein, meaning "to seem" or "to appear". According to Docetae (Illusionists), the eternal Son of God did not really become human, have a physical body, or suffer on the cross; he only appeared to do so, i.e., his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion."

Clement did believe that Jesus had a physical body.
" For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as afterwards some did certainly supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm."
These were the Gnostics that supposed such a thing and Clement taught much against pagan Gnostic beliefs.

To be sure I think Clement had some odd philosophical beliefs. From the little I have read, he believed that because Jesus was such a pure, sinless man (God in the flesh) He was not subject to pain or emotional feelings. To him pain, like sin, entered the world at the fall.
Before the fall man's body didn't need anything, being made perfect in the image of God, therefore, Jesus, being who He was, would not have needed anything either.

One question that has been asked here on this forum was 'could Jesus have sinned?' Another question I have seen is 'Did Adam and Eve, Need to eat food seeing that they were immortal at that point in time?'
Clement attempted to answer these types of questions and I think that may be where some of his religious philosophy came from.
Many of the early church fathers spoke highly of his writings, such as Eusebius, and he was included, for centuries, in the book of saints, so I am not ready to throw him out as a heretic.

 

[Deborah13]

So Im on the side that says we should use real wine for communion because that is wht was used back then. which brings up another question; what should the one under 21 do drink the real wine? its not enough to hurt them imo

What does the person who is allergic to alcohol do? Or the person who is a recovering alcoholic? Some churches use both for these reasons.

 

[jasonc]

Getting drunk from a tiny sip or drink of whine isn't likely.mouth wash has alcohol in it.

 

[Deborah13]

Getting drunk from a tiny sip or drink of whine isn't likely.mouth wash has alcohol in it.

I think the idea is about putting a stumbling block, temptation, before them, not that they will get drunk.

 

[jasonc]

I think the idea is about putting a stumbling block, temptation, before them, not that they will get drunk.

I was talking about those that don't have a drinking issue and thought it was a sin to have thar tiny amount

 

[Deborah13]

I was talking about those that don't have a drinking issue and thought it was a sin to have thar tiny amount

I see now.
If I had never eaten a chocolate bar I wouldn't be so tempted to eat it again. May be that is also part of the thinking?

 

[childeye]

Here ya go:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Alexandria

"Clement has also been accused of Docetism in his teachings on the Incarnation. According to him, the body of Christ was not subject to human needs. See the following passage from Stromateis which clearly denies Christ's full humanity:

In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as afterwards some did certainly supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain." 2

2. Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1. Collegeville, MN:The Liturgical Press, pg. 184. Copyright 1970, The Order of Saint Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, MN. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 0-8146-0432-3.

Thank you for posting this. An Interesting read. I do see how what he says could be construed to mean Jesus was not a man like any other man, in saying he did not need food to maintain his body.

But to attempt to understand Clements thoughts on this, I must ascertain what he means by "which had it's continuance from a holy power". The context seems to be about faith and God's providence. One thing I noticed right away, is when he says "in regards to the savior" in conjunction with "some did certainly suppose that he had appeared as a mere phantasm", he could be referring to when Jesus appeared after his resurrection and they thought he was a ghost. This power that resurrects is in Jesus, it may be that power he is referring to.

The context is important. Clement is talking in prior paragraphs about the impossibility of contemplating the Eternal, Faith is the necessary mechanism, and about divine providence. The Word through which the universe and everything in it, was made flesh. Did he need to work for food? For in the prior sentences, he mentions that God is apprehended through divine providence according to what is suitable for all, be they tillers, nomads and city dwellers. Notice that when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, he was not just tempted with bread, but rather he was tempted to turn the stones into bread. Man must live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God was his reply. He walked on water, and commanded the storm to stop, raised the dead, healed the infirm, fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and some fish. He could reverse all types of corruption. Is it inconceivable that he did not need food?

He was in general dispassionate and no movement of feeling penetrated him, whether pleasure or pain.

We know elsewhere that Clement speaks about the Christ suffering for righteousness' sake. So we know he knows Christ suffered. I therefore think he means emotional pleasure or pain. The phrase 'generally dispassionate' tends to support this. It brings to mind how Jesus tarried while Lazarus died. Clement could be right. It's hard to say for certain what he means, but I see no reason to count him a heretic from what I have read.

I have shown other ways his words could be interpreted. Hence I believe we are left, as usual, arguing semantics.

 

[childeye]

Which means that we, by extension, also must discern His body in the eucharist. Ignatius never says this discernment has anything to do with symbolism.

I agree with this. I would also mention that it is conceivable to me, that Ignatius would not mention symbolism, since the topic of the letter is not actually about communion.

You're no. 26 above doesn't demonstrate anything to me. It's just saying to remember Him each time we eat and drink. It doesn't speak to whether the elements are changed or not. Although He does say "eat" or "drink". Real verbs, even in English.

The point was to note that the significance of the communion was that it shows his death. Hence the body that we are showing reverence for is in the form of giving up his life. Hence when he say this is my body which shall be given for you, he is talking about his personal sacrifice.

As to what a sacrament is. I could go with your definition, but everything to do with God is sacred. A more clear definition would be that a sacrament is a visible sign to man of the love God has for us and of His grace. Something sacred could be FOR God. For instance, a bldg could be sacred - but a sacrament is given to us FROM God.

Everything to do with God could be called sacred, yet as pertains to life, pretty much everything we experience has to do with God. I like your definition. But do you realize that a sign of something means symbolic of something?

Your pp no. 6 is very interesting and brings up a whole new point. When Jesus held the bread at the Last Supper and said This Is My Body, did it change at that moment, or only after He died and was resurrected? I'll leave that one to the theologians. There's argumentation that makes sense for either way. Pretty much like for this argument which is why I almost hesitate to continue, but I'm willing to put forth what I believe, although I'm sure we've both thought about it a lot and won't be changing each others minds - but it's still interesting.

The blood of Christ is not to be taken lightly, that's for sure. I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss it. Let me say, that I don't take offense, and I do not want to offend. I sense no guile in you, I sense only Love.

Now the apostle Paul clearly says "it shows his death", and that of course is a past event when he says it.

"It shows His death" is not past tense although I'm not sure why this is important.

"He was crucified". That is past tense. So, to do this in remembrance of me because it shows his death where he was crucified means to me, that the body we discern when we eat, is the one nailed to the cross, and not the bread turned into his dead flesh. In other words, it's not cannibalism Jesus is talking about.

Regarding taking the cup unworthily - I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean a sinful state or could it mean an unworthy way of receiving that cup. Like when Paul said that Christians were to eat and drink at home and show respect for the communion meal when having a service and getting together.
1 Corinthians 11:17-22
and then he continues with 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 which is re your last pp.

Personally, I first meditate on the extent he suffered for our sin. Then as honestly as possible I look at myself, to see whether I am carrying my cross as I should, and also whether I am making the cross of someone else more burdensome.. That's how I eat and drink him. That's where I believe his righteousness unto eternal life is realized. So as to Love others as I would want to be loved. That's where I dwell in him and he in me.

But in all honesty, I don't meditate on being convinced the bread and wine turned into his flesh and blood so I can dwell in him and he in me.
John 6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

 

[Roro1972]

They were drinking wine, not "grape juice." You may have noticed that grapes commonly have a kind of haze on them; that yeast. When the grapes are crushed, the yeast is mixed with juice and begins to convert the sugars to alcohol. The juice of crushed grapes naturally becomes alcoholic and then turns to vinegar.

We have grape juice (and apple juice and orange juice) today because we can Pasteurize it or reduce it to a "concentrate" and then add water which destroys the yeast and prevents the production of alcohol.

Back then, they didn't have that.

If you think drinking alcohol is a sin then use grape juice.

iakov the fool

My point was if wine was used by Jesus and he said to do this and 2000 thousand years later we use grape juice we are not following what he said. I am aware one sip of wine is highly unlikely to make one drunk. the other point was if we do use wine because Jesus said to use wine how would some one under 21 be handled they could not get drunk off one sip.

 

[Roro1972]

What does the person who is allergic to alcohol do? Or the person who is a recovering alcoholic? Some churches use both for these reasons.

Im not sure thats why im asking these questions. Hoping someone will have a reasonable answer. I do think an alcoholic could live with one sip of wine once a year; I could be wrong though. this may pertain to the allergic and may even apply to the alcoholic it could be ok for them to not use wine the rest would not have that kind of reason so they should use wine. Now the biggest problem I see with communion is that churches allow non saved people to partake which I feel is wrong.

 

[childeye]

Okay. This will be short. This thread is moving along too quickly!

If you agree that Jesus is fully man and fully God, how is that a false dichotomy???

A false dichotomy is to claim two things must be either or, and imply they cannot be both. So I was saying it is a false dichotomy to argue that one can argue how much of jesus is man and how much is divine. I probably confused you because it was brought forth on this thread that Clement allegedly denied the full humanity of Jesus. I find it to be arguing semantics. The first schism happened essentially over the same argument. But it was over whether Jesus was begotten or made. But yet Jesus was not born of Adam like all other men

I agree 100% with your pp 3 and I'm doing the same, but we come up with different understandings!

So you arrived at the conclusion that the bread and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus of your own accord ? In other words no one told you to interpret it in scripture that way? Cannibalism?
Jesus did say you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but I think he's referring to his death and not the Eucharist, even though the Eucharist is referring to his death also. Consequently it's not entirely wrong to say he's referring to the Eucharist. That's probably the mix up.

 

[GodsGrace]

So Im on the side that says we should use real wine for communion because that is wht was used back then. which brings up another question; what should the one under 21 do drink the real wine? its not enough to hurt them imo

Hi Roro,
Going down the list - this might be answered already --
You only take a small sip. No problem! No one is going to jail!
The problem might come in if someone is an alcoholic. In that case only the host (wafer) would be taken and it's okay because both the body and blood is contained fully in each species - fully in the wine or fully in the host.
IOW, you could abstain from taking a sip of wine and still have received communion fully.

I would add that a lot of churches (that believe in the real presence) don't give the wine part of communion for different reasons, and use only the wafer.

Also, we shouldn't get too crazy about stuff like this. What if you go to a church that doesn't believe in the real presence. Are you going to abstain from communion because you've learned that Jesus used wine and you want to do the same thing? Then you'd have to change your church. See?

I can say that those churches that believe in the real presence have a different type of reverence to the communion table. I went to communion once in a Lutheran church and the pastor actually stopped me (since he didn't know me) and asked me if I knew the Lord. This really impressed me. It is not done, however, in every real presence believing church.

Sorry for the long answer.

Wondering