Christians: What does communion mean to you?

[Eddi]

Christians: What does communion mean to you? And what do you believe actually happens?

For me it is simply a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, of when he died for our sins

I don't believe anything changes into anything else or that anything supernatural happens

I also see it as being a form of fellowship between those who take communion together

Also, whenever I take it I always feel much closer to Jesus even though I only believe it to be bread and wine and not his flesh and blood

 

[metis]

Christians: What does communion mean to you? And what do you believe actually happens?

It means a lot to me, but the reasons would take too much time for me to explain right now.

I don't believe anything changes into anything else or that anything supernatural happens

The key to understanding "transubstantiation" is to understand the Greek philosophy of "essence". Even Dictionary.com on this should help you.

Sorry that I gotta be so brief.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Christians: What does communion mean to you? And what do you believe actually happens?

I don't think its supposed to be easy, like just drinking something or just eating something. At the same time we probably shouldn't prevent anyone from just eating or just drinking it. We're attempting a miracle. In obedience I think we are supposed to cease to be individuals, and the pain and the joy of others belongs to each. We share our being. I think in doing so we discern the body of Christ rather than our individual lives. I think its a difficult and selfless activity, something I have not yet successfully done correctly.

 

[eik]

Christians: What does communion mean to you? And what do you believe actually happens?

For me it is simply a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, of when he died for our sins

I don't believe anything changes into anything else or that anything supernatural happens

I also see it as being a form of fellowship between those who take communion together

Also, whenever I take it I always feel much closer to Jesus even though I only believe it to be bread and wine and not his flesh and blood

"We proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." 1 Cor 11:26

Why the Lord's death? "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" Rom 5:1.

And we proclaim justification in Christ, by the cup of his blood, the reign of grace.

So its the spiritual message of the gospel, promulgated for all eternity.

 

[metis]

"We proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." 1 Cor 11:26

Why the Lord's death? "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" Rom 5:1.

The title "Lord" in the above refers to Jesus, and it's sorta similar to using the word "boss" in that context.

 

[eik]

The title "Lord" in the above refers to Jesus, and it's sorta similar to using the word "boss" in that context.

Given that Dan 7:13,14 was fulfilled in him, a designation of "Lord" is appropriate.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm going to attempt to explain the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist with a bit of hesitation. Some of this gets a bit abstract and unless you have a bit of training in aristotlean-thomistic philosophy can go over people's head but here goes for those interested.

This is only an attempt at explain what it is and not what relationship we should have with Him. For if Catholics are right, the type of relationship we should have..........should be obvious.

First off, it's important to clarify this first, there is no tangible test (weight, chemical composition or properties) that can detect a difference before and after the consecration (the act of turning it into body and blood). The only exception to this is Eucharistic miracles.

There is however a "material" change in the sense that what was once bread and wine ceases to be bread and wine. There is what the common mind thinks of as "physical" and "material," and then there is what a philosopher means by them. Both the matter and form of the bread and wine are no longer there in transubstantiation (once again, what you call communion); they are replaced with the matter and form of Christ. So it would not be proper to say wheat, carbon, and the entirety of what makes up bread and wine or anything of that sort is still there. The accidents, however, remain (the bread and wine). When the accidents disappear (whether through eating) the real presence ceases. What exactly happens after that is open to discussion and has never been settled by catholic thinkers.

By accident we do not mean material parts. It’s a language limitation with the English. Modern man use physical and material interchangeably. By accidents we mean anything which exists only in something, and unable to exist outside of it. Like color or size, etc. You cannot have blue existing by itself, there must be something that is blue. And so on.

To expand further; Christ's proper place, as we all know is heaven. His body is physically present there. If He were to be physically present here with us, it would mean that all 6’-0” 175 lbs (just a guess) of Him taking up that space here on earth is right here and not in heaven. It does not quite work that way.

Rather, it means (as noted above) that the matter and form of bread become His body (but not physically in that He does not subsume the physical accidents of the bread nor does He move from heaven). Rather, His body and His body alone are made present by the force of the sacrament and, since they are necessarily joined to His Body, His soul, divinity, blood, etc is present with it. But not His accidents as those are separable.

I know this gets abstract but I didn’t know how else to talk about it without getting philosophical.

 

[eik]

I'm going to attempt to explain the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist with a bit of hesitation. Some of this gets a bit abstract and unless you have a bit of training in aristotlean-thomistic philosophy can go over people's head but here goes for those interested.
......I know this gets abstract but I didn’t know how else to talk about it without getting philosophical.

It seems to me that this philosophizing ignores a rather simple premise. Jesus often spoke in parables. Thus John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

This doesn't mean we have to construe Jesus' body as a piece of bread. Similarly we are not obliged by his words to construe bread and wine as real flesh and blood.

 

[metis]

This doesn't mean we have to construe Jesus' body as a piece of bread. Similarly we are not obliged by his words to construe bread and wine as real flesh and blood.

The intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.-- Essence | Definition of Essence by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of Essence

also: "Essence"-- Essence - Wikipedia

 

[eik]

The intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.-- Essence | Definition of Essence by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of Essence

also: "Essence"-- Essence - Wikipedia

Did Jesus come to teach us philosophy? I think that would be to misunderstand him.

 

[Quiddity]

Did Jesus come to teach us philosophy? I think that would be to misunderstand him.

Jesus didn't say a lot of things. He didn't, for example, tell us what books belong in the Bible, yet all Christians believe it to the inspired word of God.

So we either accept that man is a participant in the equation (like assembling the books, like rationalizing concepts in the Scriptures, etc.) or we are left to the most simplistic of understandings. Which would be no problem at all, except that simplistic doesn't mean it's correct either.

 

[metis]

Did Jesus come to teach us philosophy? I think that would be to misunderstand him.

Since the NT was written in Koine Greek, it reflects Greek idioms and terms, which one should expect as the authors were undoubtedly also writing for the extended audience in the diaspora, and Greek was that medium.

BTW, basic theology, thus including Christianity, is a form of philosophy based on the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. And just for your information, the use of "essence" is also used in the Tanakh as well.

 

[eik]

Since the NT was written in Koine Greek, it reflects Greek idioms and terms, which one should expect as the authors were undoubtedly also writing for the extended audience in the diaspora, and Greek was that medium.

BTW, basic theology, thus including Christianity, is a form of philosophy based on the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. And just for your information, the use of "essence" is also used in the Tanakh as well.

The use of ousia does not occur in the NT, and its introduction was long contested prior to the Nicene creed as deriving from Greek paganism. Some say it was Constantine, who himself was steeped in Greek philosophy, who demanded its introduction.

 

[eik]

Jesus didn't say a lot of things. He didn't, for example, tell us what books belong in the Bible, yet all Christians believe it to the inspired word of God.

So we either accept that man is a participant in the equation (like assembling the books, like rationalizing concepts in the Scriptures, etc.) or we are left to the most simplistic of understandings. Which would be no problem at all, except that simplistic doesn't mean it's correct either.

Occam's razor is useful in all things. "entities should not be multiplied without necessity." Per Wiki, William of Ockham espoused fideism, stating that "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover."

1Co 1:20
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

I agree that man is a participant, and so is able to philosophize, but just because he can does not always mean that he should (2 Tim 2:14) as it is frequently unprofitable. For how is it profitable to believe that bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, when the purpose of communion is to "show forth the lord's death until he comes?" 1 Cor 11:26? If such a philosophy is made a requirement, does not it mean that many will be precluded from communion, by reason of excommunication for non adherence to the prevailing philosophy?

 

[metis]

The use of ousia does not occur in the NT, and its introduction was long contested prior to the Nicene creed as deriving from Greek paganism. Some say it was Constantine, who himself was steeped in Greek philosophy, who demanded its introduction.

Of course it doesn't occur in the NT as a word-- that's not the point. Nor does the use of "essence" as a theological concept imply that the Church uses "Greek paganism". And Constantine did not write the Creed nor did he get involved beyond ordering the bishops to decide on the matter of Jesus' and the HS's relationship to God as he was not in any way a theologian.

Simply put, it's obvious that do not understand what you're talking about on this matter, so maybe consider doing some studying before posting. Here's maybe where you can start: Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

 

[eik]

Of course it doesn't occur in the NT as a word-- that's not the point. Nor does the use of "essence" as a theological concept imply that the Church uses "Greek paganism".

If Christ and his apostles did not use the words ousia or homoousia, then what occasion would Christians have to use it except to sinfully introduce a quarrel about words (2 Tim 2:14)?

The question goes to the core about what Christianity is really about: is Christianity the supreme religion that demands universal adoption and universal obedience, or is it more akin to a philosophical debating society established by Christ after the babbling of Greek philosophers, who even erected a monument to an "unknown god?" Heretical deism is the direct offspring of "philosophical Christianity."

Many unbelievers who are no more than deists have masqueraded as Christians just because they can subscribe to philosophies offered by the churches. Love of philosophy as a means to self-exaltation was surely the root sin of the "deist" Pharisees and the teachers of the law in Christ's time.

Perhaps the reason why "ousia" does not appear in the bible is because Christianity never had any need to use the word, even if "theologians" (for which read those who sought to make themselves supreme in the church) did.

The need to employ "ousia" and "homoousia" is not a sign of strength, but of weakness and fallibility, and of not grasping what Christianity is all about.

And Constantine did not write the Creed nor did he get involved beyond ordering the bishops to decide on the matter of Jesus' and the HS's relationship to God as he was not in any way a theologian.

That is not what I read. In an article "The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity" by Pier Franco Beatric, I find that "it is an indisputable fact that Eusebius of Caesarea unambiguousy stated that it was Constantine and nobody else who wanted the word homoousia, and that it was only later on a pretext of explaining the insertion of the new word that other bishops (Ossius and Alexander) drew up a formulary quite different from the one he had prepared with the Emperor's approval"

Later on in the article, I read "Homousious was in fact a foreign body, a stumbling block for all the people attending the Council without distinction, arians and anti-arians, and for this reason it soon disappeared in the following debates. To find homousious again we have to wait for Athanasius, about fifteen years after the Council [who had other agendas],"

Simply put, it's obvious that do not understand what you're talking about on this matter, so maybe consider doing some studying before posting. Here's maybe where you can start: Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

I think the above demonstrates I have some relevant views on this topic that are more advanced than you suppose.

 

[metis]

I think the above demonstrates I have some relevant views on this topic that are more advanced than you suppose.

Not really.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Communion, for me, is inviting God in and Him sharing Himself with us. It's also a source of connectedness between me and every other believer who receives it.

I believe in the Real Presence, where the wine and the bread literally become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. I don't pretend to know how this happens and the process is irrelevant to me. I just know I prefer to receive it reverently while kneeling at the altar rail, like at the Episcopal church I go to. Sad that that was dumped in modern Catholicism.