The Lord's Supper is as much about the real presence of Christians to one another as it is about the real presence of Christ to believers.
...We must also remind each other that the church comes together as a family at the Lord's table, just as the nuclear family comes together at a family meal. The Lord's Supper cultivates and intensifies believers' communion as a family centered around Christ, who is its head. The word of thanksgiving and the breaking of bread accepted in faith confers the same divine quality on all as members of God's family. Jesus is the head of "a community of consumption." In place of consuming humans, Christians become increasingly consumed people through their deepening communion with Christ at the Lord's family feast. Christ consumes them even as they consume him through faith in the Spirit, intensifying their participation in his body in concrete space and time and overcoming the barriers between themselves and others. This dynamic reality of relationship signifies enlightened consumption involving people in communion from different walks of life rather than individuals or affinity groups in their own insularity.
When we dine with Christ, we also commune with his body; for as head of the church, Christ is never apart from his body (Col. 1:18). We should always approach the table mindful of the body of Christ - that is, those gathered with us; it is also important to note that the whole church is gathered together at each assembly, not just part of it (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1). Christ is united to all believing communities through the Spirit, and together they make up his body. Thus, if Christ is present, the whole church is present in a given location. These theological truths should influence our social etiquette, so that we do not hoard God's bounty to ourselves or in our individual churches.
-- Paul Metzger, Consuming Jesus
(referencing John Howard Yoder and William Cavanaugh)
Do you agree or disagree and why? What thoughts does this conjure in your mind?
True
Comments (35)
Well, I know Travis was thinking of transubstantiation a little when he posted this. There is a difference between the real presence, as used here, and the Catholic belief. Not that I don't agree with the main point of the quote. The quote is referring to the real presence of Christ at Communion, which is accurate of course, but Christ is not just present there among you, He is present in the bread and wine itself. He did not say "Join me here and eat this bread", He said "This is my body that is for you." In John 6, when He was questioned again and again, He stated, again and again, "this is my flesh". It is important distinction between having a meal with our Lord and literally filling ourselves with him.
At the very least, Protestants can affirm what Luther himself affirmed, that God is present "above, through and under" the elements. Without affirming the mechanics of trans- (or con-) substantiation, hopefully all Christians can agree that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.
Also not surprisingly, I think the Lord's Supper is partially a means of teaching us what it means to carry the cross of Christ, and as such is also God's eternal no to violence. I think communion is under valued in every Church of God congregation I've ever been part of. It's always about, "Now remember that Jesus died for you," and that's it.
There's worlds more, but that's one segment of the meaning that the Lord's Supper carries.
@SirNickDon@xanga - Without affirming the mechanics of trans- (or con-) substantiation, hopefully all Christians can agree that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.
This is illogical. How can transubstantiation be affirmed without considering the mechanics? What was once simple bread becomes the Body of Christ. Glossing over transubstantiation is the usual illogical Protestant response to something of critical importance.
I think the Lord's Supper is partially a means of teaching us what it means to carry the cross of Christ, and as such is also God's eternal no to violence.
In view of the fact that the Bible is full of God committing acts of violence the "eternal no to violence" is a clear cut denial of Scripture and a wild hallucination of meaning.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - What are your thoughts on the quote?
@LoBornlyte@xanga - I'm not asking Protestants to affirm transubstantiation, only to affirm the presence of Christ in the elements. Most Christians affirm the trinity without trying to explain the mechanics. I certainly have no objection to the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation, but I think the real presence it affirms should be the dogma, not the means of affirming real presence. If the RCC is willing to confirm married Anglican priests, I imagine there's hope the RCC could be willing to approve of a view of communion that affirms real presence without affirming the mechanism. I could definitely be wrong on that, but I would hope that could be the case.
The idea that communion is God's eternal no to violence is actually one I took from Fr. Richard Rohr. It would have to qualified (for contentious types like yourself) to say that communion models the way of sacrifice Jesus lived and consistently spoke of in connection with the 'cup of suffering,' in Gethsemane as well as when James and John misunderstood the meaning of his Messiahship. That communion is connected with a renunciation of violence is recognized in the longstanding practice of the RCC to withhold the cup from participants in even just wars for a period of penance after their return.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - This dynamic reality of relationship signifies enlightened consumption involving people in communion from different walks of life rather than individuals or affinity groups in their own insularity.
Protestants are notorious for violating this principle understanding of Communion. The DNA of Protestantism thus builds into the body of its miriad religions, division and factionalism.
In Protestantism the individual reigns supreme and he cleaves to those for whom he has affinity. That's why there are so many sects of Protestantism.
This one part of the quote is the theological and philosophical reason that explains the Protestant catastrophe: the failure to understand Communion as instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper.
@SirNickDon@xanga - Most Christians affirm the trinity without trying to explain the mechanics.
More irrationality. There are no mechanics in the Trinity for the Trinity is not material but spiritual. Physical bread and wine are material so at some point, through some principle, they change character and become the Body and Blood of Christ. There must be mechanics for that.
If the RCC is willing to confirm married Anglican priests, I imagine there's hope the RCC could be willing to approve of a view of communion that affirms real presence without affirming the mechanism.
You aren't imagining, you are wildly hallucinating meanings that have absolutely no connection in reality.
That communion is connected with a renunciation of violence is recognized in the longstanding practice of the RCC to withhold the cup from participants in even just wars for a period of penance after their return.
That's ridiculous. Catholic priests give Communion to soldiers going into battle. They've done so for centuries.
I just watched a documentary on the Civil War. During the Battle of Gettysburg an Irish Priest rode up and down the line giving absolution (forgiveness of sins) to the troops before they went into battle.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - How would you correct Metzger's understanding of the communion? Where do you believe he is off base?
@LoBornlyte@xanga - Here is a reference to the practice I found from a Google search, as I'm away from my library atm. It's from the Catholic Peace Fellowship, so hopefully you'll find it reputable enough. Either way, you're certainly free to disagree with the practice, but it was a longstanding practice of the medieval church.
There must be mechanics for that.
You're absolutely right, but we don't need to know them. Jesus' physical body was resurrected. We don't need to know the mechanics to gather in unity around its affirmation.
@scrambledmegsntoast@xanga - For those who adhere to the doctrine of transubstantiation, I assume they believe that in the upper room the bread and wine literally became the flesh and blood of Jesus as well, even though he was standing before them, not yet sacrificed. Would that be a correct assumption?
You know I'm already working on a blog about the doctrine but do you have any suggestions for reading matyerials centered on the doctrineand its origins?
@SirNickDon@xanga - FYI That link didn't work when I clicked on it.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Fixed and thanks.
Excellent post!
I recently have fallen in love with the Lord's supper all over again! I was listening to a podcast conversation between a Lutheran brother and a Presbyterian. The topic was what each faith held to about communion. Two things that lit my fire again were 1. The idea that when we dine on the bread and wine we are not just dining with those in assembly with us in our local church but the "entire body" around the world and from all of history! We commune from the same cup as did Paul and Peter! We take of the same bread as Polycarp and Luther! And 2. We (as Presbyterians) believe that we feed on Christ by faith. That is, we receive Christ in His body and blood in "real presence" by faith. This was good to hear again because for some time I looked lightly on that specific aspect and only focused on His work for us (not that that was a small thing) and confession of sin. Now I look forward to the table with more joy that ever before! Amen!
In response to the article, it is very good and a movement in the right direction. To quote St. Athanasius, "God became man so that men might become divine." We eat Christ to become one with Him and share in His nature. I marvel that God has chosen something so mundane and intimate for this. The Eucharist is the centerpiece of the Church: the bishop, who must be valid, celebrates the Eucharist. The Eucharist in turn actualizes the Church. The word "Church", after all, means "assembly" not "called out ones". If there is no Eucharist, there is no Church. This article is a step in the right direction.
@SirNickDon@xanga - The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a dogma that, much like the Trinity, there is absolutely no room for disagreement. However, the doctrine of Transubstantiation tries to philosophically analyze what goes on in it. "Sacrament" in Greek is μυστἠριον, mysterion. The English derivative of this word is adequate: mystery. We do not know, nor can we know, precisely how it takes place. This has always been the position of the Eastern Church (and the Latins before they broke away), so I would say that your approach to the subject is refreshing.
@SirNickDon@xanga - We don't need to know the mechanics to gather in unity around its affirmation.
Eucharist is not an affirmation. It is the Body and Blood of Christ. The priest stands in for Christ and calls down the Holy Spirit to change common bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
That is transubstantiation.
And having soldiers do penance after they return from war is not because soldiering is a substandard vocation. It is an act of mercy shown by the Church to the soldier because of the horrific things soldiers must do in war.
Your constant hallucination of meaning and your constant efforts to pervert Church teachings to fit your personal world view is unsettling. The Protestant world is full of people who do what you do. That's why it is so fractured, so disunited, so incoherent.
@SirNickDon@xanga - Hey Nick, Could you expound on this.
The idea that communion is God's eternal no to violence is actually one I took from Fr. Richard Rohr
Is it your contention that the Lord had "Non violence" in mind behind the Lords supper and that Christ Himself as propitiation and indwelling is of lesser concern? Im asking because I know that non violence and anti war themes are central to your thinking but to state that pacifism is in mind in any place in scripture over Christ and his work for sinners is a bold statement.
Jesus states without equivocation or further definition that it "is" His body and blood. Paul reiterates such. To go beyond that is delving into speculation. To go beyond that is an attempt to alter a Greek verb of 'being' with human sophistry.
The horizontal aspect suggested by the original post (fellowship with one another communing, even if not physically present) is part of the concept, as well as the vertical aspect.
@SirNickDon@xanga - Here is a reference to the practice I found from a Google search, as I'm away from my library atm. It's from the Catholic Peace Fellowship, so hopefully you'll find it reputable enough.
It is not reputable. That entire piece was nothing but propaganda.
Harkening back to Medieval practices is BS. By your insane logic the Church should reinstate the Inquisition or initiate another Crusade to the Holy Land after all they were Church practices.
Using a poor confused soldier who has just come back from war as a propaganda vehicle is reprehensible.
SHAME ON YOU!
@LoBornlyte@xanga - And having soldiers do penance after they return from war is not because soldiering is a substandard vocation. It is an act of mercy shown by the Church to the soldier because of the horrific things soldiers must do in war.
Yes, thank you for bringing that point out.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - For the record, the soldier wasn't the one who wrote the article. He may not have even been aware of the medieval practice. He was just mentioned by the article writer, a member of the Catholic Peace Fellowship. As I say, you can disagree with the practice, though your quote from above indicates that it has a place, but it was a practice of the medieval church that tells us something of how the church has viewed the Eucharist.
@MC_Shann@xanga - I wouldn't say (of course I wouldn't!) that nonviolence as a philosophy is more central to the Eucharist than the atonement, the institution of the new covenant or the defeat of God's enemies. But they're all in there as shades of its meaning. The reason I say the Eucharist is God's eternal no to violence is that Jesus seems to speak of drinking from the same cup as him as meaning following in the way he models. It all sort of comes together in Mark 10, where Jesus most clearly names his own messianic mission "to give his life as a ransom for many," but names it in the context of teaching what the politics of the kingdom (and hence, the church) would be. I have difficulty understanding participating in the Lord's Supper without being impressed that part of its meaning is that we join Christ in the way of sacrificial suffering for those who hate us enough to kill us. How else can we drink from the cup Christ offers?
@SirNickDon@xanga - Got ya. Thanks...
@MC_Shann@xanga - I hope that ellipsis isn't an ominous one...
@TheGreatBout@xanga - How would you correct Metzger's understanding of the communion?
Though the quote is theologically sound as far as it goes, it doesn't tell the entire story. As a consequence anybody can read it and make of it anything they want.
For example:
Sir Nick thinks it's a statement for his beloved cause of pacificism and McShann will now be happier at his Sunday-Go-To-Meetin'. And Canicus likens it to a movement (re: bowel movement).
@LoBornlyte@xanga - And you will view it as another chance to tear into the flesh and and drink the blood of yet another man. Since the law will not allow you to do it legally, your traditions gives you the chance theologically.
@MC_Shann@xanga - And you will view it as another chance to tear into the flesh and and drink the blood of yet another man.
Yep, that's me, the cannibal Catholic. But outside of Church I also slurp and knosh on les femmes, especially atheist femme. YUMMIE!!
@LoBornlyte@xanga - I KNEW it!!! I bet your on team Edward too!