"what does communion mean to me?"

[Eddi]

(((Christianity DIR)))

I wrote this to read at Zoom church, on the subject "what does communion mean to me?"

To me communion is purely symbolic, a simple memorial

I do not believe that anything transforms into anything else

Or that Jesus becomes especially present during the taking of the wine and bread

It is not possible for us to meet and break bread with Jesus Christ himself

So we do the next best thing - we meet and break bread with each other, to commemorate Christ’s generous sacrifice on the cross and his glorious resurrection

Amen.
​

That is what communion means to me

 

[PureX]

(((Christianity DIR)))

I wrote this to read at Zoom church, on the subject "what does communion mean to me?"

To me communion is purely symbolic, a simple memorial

I do not believe that anything transforms into anything else

Or that Jesus becomes especially present during the taking of the wine and bread

It is not possible for us to meet and break bread with Jesus Christ himself

So we do the next best thing - we meet and break bread with each other, to commemorate Christ’s generous sacrifice on the cross and his glorious resurrection

Amen.
​

That is what communion means to me

I think the idea is that they are the same thing. As we 'gather in the spirit of Christ' with and among each other, we are doing it 'through Christ', as Christ is God's spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity within each of us. Jesus was just the human representative on Earth of this Christ-within ideal (the revelation and the promise that goes with it). I think the ritual of holy communion is symbolic of that communion with each other, and with God, through that Christ-ideal (God's spirit within). It's intended to serve as a physical reminder that can help us remain aware in our daily lives.

 

[pearl]

So we do the next best thing - we meet and break bread with each other, to commemorate Christ’s generous sacrifice on the cross and his glorious resurrection

That represents the belief of Protestant Christianity. Catholic Christianity understands it differently.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 1Cor 16
The anamnesis, by which the Church, fulfilling the command that she received from Christ the Lord through the Apostles, celebrates the memorial of Christ, recalling especially his blessed Passion, glorious Resurrection, and Ascension into heaven.

Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Jn 6

 

[Brian2]

That represents the belief of Protestant Christianity. Catholic Christianity understands it differently.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 1Cor 16
The anamnesis, by which the Church, fulfilling the command that she received from Christ the Lord through the Apostles, celebrates the memorial of Christ, recalling especially his blessed Passion, glorious Resurrection, and Ascension into heaven.

Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Jn 6

I can understand a Catholic believing that but I don't think that what Jesus said in John 6 means that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. If it meant that then the Catholic Church would really be teaching that those who are not Catholic and who do not have the Catholic Communion (or High Church of England Communion since it seem their priests also have power to transform the bread and wine) have no life in them. I get this from verse 53 below.
When I read on I see that Jesus was not speaking about eating His real body and blood (ie no need for transubstantiation) but was referring to taking in His words (Himself being the Word of God) and believing them and acting on them, which I guess is what Jesus meant.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are spirit and life.

 

[pearl]

I can understand a Catholic believing that but I don't think that what Jesus said in John 6 means that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus.

Now it comes to interpretation. Others usually accuse the Church of not following the literal words of Scripture, except in this case, where ironically it does and others do not. The real difference is the problem of introducing the attempt to define 'how' Jesus does what he said he would do. Keep in mind that what we read was the practice of Christianity before the NT. was penned.

If it meant that then the Catholic Church would really be teaching that those who are not Catholic and who do not have the Catholic Communion (or High Church of England Communion since it seem their priests also have power to transform the bread and wine) have no life in them. I get this from verse 53 below.

Not at all. Christ is present within their gathering, he is present in the hearing of Scripture, in the anamnesis.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

I find nowhere Jesus states his words were not to be taken literally in order to put his disciples at ease. Now, granted what we have here is the high christology of John's Gospel.

since it seem their priests also have power to transform the bread and wine)

To be more correct, the priest does not transform the bread and wine, but the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is a very good aspect of your own Faith you shared with us fellow Christians.
Thank you for doing that. It is very interesting.

 

[Brian2]

I find nowhere Jesus states his words were not to be taken literally in order to put his disciples at ease. Now, granted what we have here is the high christology of John's Gospel.

I find in the words of Jesus below a place where Jesus was putting his disciples at ease and saying that His words were not to be taken literally and even giving the symbolism behind His words.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are spirit and life.

I am just talking about this particular passage however. It is no doubt harder to dispute the RC interpretation of other passages about the Communion.
I guess that could mean this passage is not about the Communion.