What does your Church/Denomination teach about the Lord's Supper?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamhovey1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adamhovey1988

Guest
I am curious what your denomination or church teaches on Holy Communion
 
Transubstantiation, though I wonder if the Latin term will be offputting to some of our eastern brethren. Same with consubtantiation, though with western.
 
Wesrock said:
Transubstantiation, though I wonder if the Latin term will be offputting to some of our eastern brethren. Same with consubtantiation, though with western.
Click to expand...
I know there are some Easterners that will describe the Eucharist as being a sort of “Transfiguration”. Anyway, that’s why I put “something else” as an option.
 
The Eucharist is Jesus, and is truly the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. I yield to the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist, without attempting to use Aristotelian Metaphysics to explain how the Mystery occurs…
 
Anna_Scott said:
The Eucharist is Jesus, and is truly the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. I yield to the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist, without attempting to use Aristotelian Metaphysics to explain how the Mystery occurs…
Click to expand...
That is completely understandable. Between you and me, I just use the term because it’s useful:p
 
adamhovey1988 said:
That is completely understandable. Between you and me, I just use the term because it’s useful:p
Click to expand...
The REC/Anglo-Catholic beliefs regarding the Holy Eucharist are essentially the same as the Eastern Orthodox.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I know there are some Easterners that will describe the Eucharist as being a sort of “Transfiguration”. Anyway, that’s why I put “something else” as an option.
Click to expand...
Oh I was thinking maybe you put “something else” for those who might believe it is more than symbolic with a real presence of Christ in spirit but maybe not bodily. IOW for those who believe in a spiritual real presence but not a physical one. I think some hold to that view.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Oh I was thinking maybe you put “something else” for those who might believe it is more than symbolic with a real presence of Christ in spirit but maybe not bodily. IOW for those who believe in a spiritual real presence but not a physical one. I think some hold to that view.
Click to expand...
I just used it as a kind of catch all for “other”.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I am curious what your denomination or church teaches on Holy Communion
Click to expand...
Baha’is are non-Christian but there was a teaching about the “Last Supper” given by Abdul-Baha in a book entitled “Some Answered Questions”:

*"The disciples had taken many meals from the hand of Christ; why was the last supper distinguished from the others? It is evident that the heavenly bread did not signify this material bread, but rather the divine nourishment of the spiritual body of Christ, the divine graces and heavenly perfections of which His disciples partook, and with which they became filled.

“In the same way, reflect that when Christ blessed the bread and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This is My body,”[1] and gave grace to them, He was with them in person, in presence, and form. He was not transformed into bread and wine; if He had been turned into bread and wine, He could not have remained with the disciples in body, in person and in presence.”
[1 Matt. 26:26.]

“Then it is clear that the bread and wine were symbols which signified: I have given you My bounties and perfections, and when you have received this bounty, you have gained eternal life and have partaken of your share and your portion of the heavenly nourishment.”
*
~ Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 98
 
arthra said:
Baha’is are non-Christian but there was a teaching about the “Last Supper” given by Abdul-Baha in a book entitled “Some Answered Questions”:

*"The disciples had taken many meals from the hand of Christ; why was the last supper distinguished from the others? It is evident that the heavenly bread did not signify this material bread, but rather the divine nourishment of the spiritual body of Christ, the divine graces and heavenly perfections of which His disciples partook, and with which they became filled.

“In the same way, reflect that when Christ blessed the bread and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This is My body,”[1] and gave grace to them, He was with them in person, in presence, and form. He was not transformed into bread and wine; if He had been turned into bread and wine, He could not have remained with the disciples in body, in person and in presence.”
[1 Matt. 26:26.]

“Then it is clear that the bread and wine were symbols which signified: I have given you My bounties and perfections, and when you have received this bounty, you have gained eternal life and have partaken of your share and your portion of the heavenly nourishment.”
*
~ Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 98
Click to expand...
What a terribly sad misinterpretation. 😦

I can understand being a part of a non-Christian religion, but why impose such a false conclusion onto Jesus? Why even discuss him at all? To say that “he could not have remained with the disciples in body” if the bread became his body…gosh. That is just so arbitrary and disrespectful to the truth. Again, I understand not believing in Jesus, but I don’t understand proclaiming something like that as a truth when you don’t believe in him in the first place.
 
Anna_Scott said:
The Eucharist is Jesus, and is truly the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. I yield to the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist, without attempting to use Aristotelian Metaphysics to explain how the Mystery occurs…
Click to expand...
I understand if by leaving it a myatery you wish to avoid using a word to describe it, but the use of the word transubstantiation in the Latin Church predates any favor towards Aristotlean metaphysics, so it’s a myth that the word is “Aristotlean.” That’s not to say you have to use it, of course.
 
1neophyte said:
What a terribly sad misinterpretation. 😦

I can understand being a part of a non-Christian religion, but why impose such a false conclusion onto Jesus? Why even discuss him at all? To say that “he could not have remained with the disciples in body” if the bread became his body…gosh. That is just so arbitrary and disrespectful to the truth. Again, I understand not believing in Jesus, but I don’t understand proclaiming something like that as a truth when you don’t believe in him in the first place.
Click to expand...
Er, they believe he is the greatest of prophets and their Messiah (in a kingly, successor, sense, even as a “Manifestation of God” and being a “mirror of the divine” (in the sense that all of us have the potential to be mirrors, but only in a few, such as Jesus, can be polished to give a perfect reflection of God) and possessing divine attributes, though not as fully encompassing the divine essence or being a divine person, I believe. Anyone more knowledgeable, please correct me). So it’s understandable that they’d have specific beliefs regarding his actions and what they signify, especially on points central to the beliefs of others which are understood differently. Apologetics, if you will. Not that I agree with their conclusions, but Jesus means a lot to them, which is why they have an opinion.
 
Wesrock said:
I understand if by leaving it a myatery you wish to avoid using a word to describe it, but the use of the word transubstantiation in the Latin Church predates any favor towards Aristotlean metaphysics, so it’s a myth that the word is “Aristotlean.” That’s not to say you have to use it, of course.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say transubstantiation is Aristotelian or that Aristotle’s metaphysics predates transubstantiation. 🙂
 
Wesrock said:
Er, they believe he is the greatest of prophets and their Messiah (in a kingly, successor, sense, even as a “Manifestation of God” and being a “mirror of the divine” (in the sense that all of us have the potential to be mirrors, but only in a few, such as Jesus, can be polished to give a perfect reflection of God) and possessing divine attributes, though not as fully encompassing the divine essence or being a divine person, I believe. Anyone more knowledgeable, please correct me). So it’s understandable that they’d have specific beliefs regarding his actions and what they signify, especially on points central to the beliefs of others which are understood differently. Apologetics, if you will. Not that I agree with their conclusions, but Jesus means a lot to them, which is why they have an opinion.
Click to expand...
I still don’t understand that conclusion. He claimed to fully encompass the divine essence. He claimed to be a divine person. If he did not and was not, that would make him a pretty terrible and unreliable prophet.
 
1neophyte said:
I still don’t understand that conclusion. He claimed to fully encompass the divine essence. He claimed to be a divine person. If he did not and was not, that would make him a pretty terrible and unreliable prophet.
Click to expand...
I’m not defending their position as correct (nor should you take my summary of their position as an entirely correct or thorough synopsis; I’ll leave it to a Baha’i to properly explain their belief, or if you wish to review an article written by a Bah’i, that’s your choice). Your original statement though seemed to say they shouldn’t even have an opinion as Jesus is not part of their beliefs. But he is a central part of their beliefs. Therefore you’re going to see Baha’i commentary on such things. Certainly we can debate them on such topics in appropriate forums, but it’s not as if they have no theological stake/interest in the topic and are commenting as just a third party looking in.
 
By the way, if someone chooses “other”, please explain to me why. God bless. (It seems people already are)👍
 
Wesrock said:
I’m not defending their position as correct (nor should you take my summary of their position as an entirely correct or thorough synopsis; I’ll leave it to a Baha’i to properly explain their belief, or if you wish to review an article written by a Bah’i, that’s your choice). Your original statement though seemed to say they shouldn’t even have an opinion as Jesus is not part of their beliefs. But he is a central part of their beliefs. Therefore you’re going to see Baha’i commentary on such things. Certainly we can debate them on such topics in appropriate forums, but it’s not as if they have no theological stake/interest in the topic and are commenting as just a third party looking in.
Click to expand...
This is exactly right. I am just seeing how people view the Lord’s Supper in their respective traditions. Non-Christians are welcome to comment if they have a view in their tradition. You haven’t got to agree with them, I certainly don’t agree with my Baptist friends and neighbours on their view of this topic, but I still would not mind their (name removed by moderator)ut. Knowing where someone stands makes it a lot easier to dialogue with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top