Communion

[Bruce Michael]

Dear Friends,


The most important substance of the Communion today (as in the past) is pure water. Dr. Steiner says that this was used in all the ancient mysteries. All water by its nature is holy. It becomes the Blood of Christ; it is life to the planet.

"Immediately blood and water flowed out." (John 19, 34)
"This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ." (I John 5,6)

Water was used in the Communions of some early Christians, as some do today.

Pure water has the marvellous quality of memory. The intentions and vocalisations of the ministrant are absorbed by it, if handled carefully.

Here is a couple of sites from the Anthro science list that examine water's memory capabilities. And certainly Dr. Emoto has made a splash .

Now, substances can be added to the water for particular purposes in the Eucharist. A colourant such red grape juice (or even beetroot) can be added mid-way. Consecrated salt has also an important purpose.... and milk- but you may have to be careful about this one.

The nature of wine has changed since the Incarnation. Wine in the Bible may mean grape juice or a cordial made from boiling down the juice. In any case the wine of Biblical times was only about six to ten percent proof due to method of fermentation in skins.

Alcohol did have a purpose in the incarnation of the ego before the time of Christ, and there are mysteries surrounding this, however its use today has now become decadent.

-Br. Bruce

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce –

In the symbolism of the Near East, and elsewhere I believe, the significance of wine is the marriage of fire and water, and this was its sybolic significance, signifying the union of spirit and matter.

Although wines were of different qualities, one should not assume they were weak, or near non-alcoholic. Jesus was accused of consorting with 'wine-bibbers', and if wine was harmless, that amounts to a pretty futile accusation. If there's a way of making strong alcohol, man would have found it.

Introducing another aspect, the possession of the self by the spirit in Near East religions was always regarded an ecstatic state in which the individual lost all sense of self, hence again the correlation with alcohol, and also with eros, hence temple prostitution and the use of sex in magical rites.

The Hebrew tradition was much more sober, in that aspect, although not without its ecstatic element, and the spiritual alchemy of Jesus is one of agape, not eros.

I do not make too much of the accidental qualities of matter – I do believe quite definitely in the memory qualities of water, but I think Jesus was operating on a level far beyond this, being Catholic, and therefore treat transubstantiation as a unique doctrine.

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Bruce –

In the symbolism of the Near East, and elsewhere I believe, the significance of wine is the marriage of fire and water, and this was its sybolic significance, signifying the union of spirit and matter.

Although wines were of different qualities, one should not assume they were weak, or near non-alcoholic. Jesus was accused of consorting with 'wine-bibbers', and if wine was harmless, that amounts to a pretty futile accusation. If there's a way of making strong alcohol, man would have found it.

Introducing another aspect, the possession of the self by the spirit in Near East religions was always regarded an ecstatic state in which the individual lost all sense of self, hence again the correlation with alcohol, and also with eros, hence temple prostitution and the use of sex in magical rites.

The Hebrew tradition was much more sober, in that aspect, although not without its ecstatic element, and the spiritual alchemy of Jesus is one of agape, not eros.

I do not make too much of the accidental qualities of matter – I do believe quite definitely in the memory qualities of water, but I think Jesus was operating on a level far beyond this, being Catholic, and therefore treat transubstantiation as a unique doctrine.

Thomas

Dear Br. Thomas,
I don't believe there was any alcoholic wine at the Last Supper.

For a start it's hametz (sp?). All yeast products were forbidden in the house at Passover.

The mission of alcohol itself has changed since the Incarnation.

As a Catholic, you might look up St. Pionious, as he is said to participated in the water Communion.

some in the early Church were afraid of the water Communion because of the significance water had in the Pagan religions.

I had already posted this on the Christianity forum:
I want to make some comments about the wine in skins.
"No one puts new wine into old wine-skins; if he does the wine will burst the skins..... "
(Matt. 9: 17, Mk. 2: 22; Lk. 5: 37, 8)

The information comes from "Alcohol & the Scriptures" by Edith A.Kerr:
The usual explanation of this parable that new skin-bags were used in order to resist the expansive force of the gas generated by the fermentation does not meet the facts of the case.

For fermentation, grapes were put in vats open to the air even as they are today. The expansive force liberated by grape juice is enormous. "Must", that is, the crushed grapes, is one-fifth glucose. This in fermentation develops 47 times its volume of carbon dioxide which if confined would exert a pressure equivalent to that of 34.3 atmospheres (one atmosphere 15 lbs.). This is equal to about 500 lbs. to the square inch, or a pressure exerted by a modern pressure boiler, or three times the pressure of an average steam raising boiler.

Wine in its first fermentation, if poured into bottles, be they of ox or hog, would burst the skins however new and strong.

That was a fact well known over the centuries in Palestine. "Behold my belly, is as wine which hath no vent," we read in Job 32:19. "Like new bottles it is ready to burst."
The dried skin bottles used in the time of our Lord were however admirably suited to the purpose of preventing fermentation. With their seams well pitched with tar to exclude the air with its yeast spores, fermentation could not take place. It was imperative that new, perfectly
clean skins be used as any dregs left clinging to the inside of the old skin would soon set up a ferment sufficient to ruin the "new wine" being poured in, and burst the bottles.

"New wine" is the translation here of the Greek words "oinos neon" which is equivalent to the Hebrew "tirosh" indicating that the fresh juice of the grapes is being indicated.

All this was common knowledge to his listeners, hence it is clear that when Jesus said, "Fresh skins for new wine", he was not primarily concerned with the matter of the quality of wine, whether alcoholic or otherwise. It was not the nature of the wine he was thinking of, but the
necessity of keeping his new teaching pure from the corroding ferment of the conservatism and self-righteousness of the Pharisees. A "fresh skin", a new attitude, was required for the "new wine" of the Gospel."

"The Romans were ignorant of distilled liquors and the wines they were in the habit of drinking were generally of low alcoholic content."

"In natural wines the alcohol content ranges between 4 and 12 percent."

"Wine" in the Bible can refer to fresh juice, a boiled down cordial, or even raisin cakes.

Transubstantiation occurs when heavenly forces are driven down into the water. Of course this wonderful transformation is a result of Grace.

Alcohol replaces the Self or Ego with a false self- and it really looks like water. As you say "fire" or in fact sunlight- but a false one.

Heartily,
Br.Bruce

 

[Francis king]

wine is not made wth yeast, but fruit, sugar and water... ale, beer is made with yeast...

the most important part of the communion, surely, is the union of ur spirit with divinity?

 

[Thomas]

the most important part of the communion, surely, is the union of ur spirit with divinity?

Francis – we see more in common with each day. It's what RC theology refers to in drawing the distinction between the 'substance' and the 'accidents'.

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

wine is not made wth yeast, but fruit, sugar and water... ale, beer is made with yeast...

the most important part of the communion, surely, is the union of ur spirit with divinity?

Hi Sr. Francis,
There is still yeast in wine.

The important part of Communion is the union of spirit with matter.

Otherwise why bother with it?- yes it may be a fine ritual but it is more than that.

Best Regards,
Br.Bruce

 

[Dondi]

The important part of Communion is the union of spirit with matter

Explain this as opposed to what Francis said about it being the union of your spirit to divinity.

 

[wil]

I don't know about others but my history with communion has been a little bit of a dance. As a kid I don't know how my parents selected churches, we moved a lot, I think my mom must have talked with neighbors and coworkers tried a few and then stuck with one while we were in that town. But we were Presbytarian, Methodist, Lutheran it seems depending on where we were...

But we would attend weddings or funerals or some other events at others churches and whenever it was communion time it was just a mystery to us kids as we didn't know the ritual, and weren't part of that group.

So into adulthood anytime communion commenced I was one that sat while others went up, didn't ever really feel outta place cause there was always a number of us that sat. The whole body and blood thing I heard always made me a little oogie anyway.

When I was at one sermon where the preacher spoke of being a member of community and communing with G-d and that the wine represented spiritual thought and the bread physical substance and the merger of both in Christ and in you....It made me wish that I had got up just before the talk and participated in that communion....but I had sat...as was my way.

Participating in Jewish services and the breaking of bread, passing the challah, and the ceremonial drinking of the wine and reciting of scripture lent more meaning to the event.

Reading in one gospel where Judas got the bread and then was told to go do what he must and then not getting the wine brings up interesting contemplation.

Depending on what and where and when...today sometimes I sit, and sometimes I participate...depending on if I feel a member of that community or not....but lately I've been wondering if I'm not really a member of all communities....

 

[Bruce Michael]

Explain this as opposed to what Francis said about it being the union of your spirit to divinity.

A very good question indeed.

Why do Christians have to take part in such an artificial ritual, with incense, gestures etc. etc.? What has all this got to do with acts of love? Very little on the surface.

Why do we need the spiritual medicine of Communion?

I have intimated that there is a science to it as well.

You deserve an answer .

I will post one later- just keep reminding me if I don't...

 

[Dondi]

A very good question indeed.

Why do Christians have to take part in such an artificial ritual, with incense, gestures etc. etc.? What has all this got to do with acts of love? Very little on the surface.

Why do we need the spiritual medicine of Communion?

I have intimated that there is a science to it as well.

You deserve an answer .

I will post one later- just keep reminding me if I don't...

Communion is not part of my salvitic belief. I do not partake in the Lord's Supper so that I can get saved by it, but rather I partake of it in rememberance of the One who died for me. We must remember that when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, He was celebrating the Passover meal.

The Passover is celebrated in rememberance of the Exodus of Egypt by the children of Israel. It was the last plague that the Lord warned Pharoah about that He would send the angel of death to kill all first born sons, except for those households that ate and spread the blood of an umblemished lamb on their doorposts, hence death passed over those households that obeyed. And every year the Jews celebrate the Passover to commemorate this in memory of their deliverance from Egypt.

When Jesus celebrated the passover with his disciples in the upper room, He proclaimed Himself as the Passover Lamb. The elements are symbols of the sacrifice He was about to offer:

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." - Luke 22:19-20

In the New Covenant, like the Old Covenant, the disciples were to celebrate the Passover with Jesus in mind, and to continue therein until they celebrate with Him in the coming Kingdom.

"Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." - Mark 14:25

It isn't the act of the ritual that is important, it's what's behind the meaning of it, the fact that Jesus gave His life for us so that we might be saved and granted entry into the Kingdom of God:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13

There's where you act of love is.

 

[Thomas]

Communion is not part of my salvitic belief. I do not partake in the Lord's Supper so that I can get saved by it, but rather I partake of it in rememberance of the One who died for me. We must remember that when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, He was celebrating the Passover meal.

Hi Dondi –

You highlight one of the major disputes of the Reformation.

Christianity, up to that point, held that Christ was present in the Eucharist, Luther believed this, although with some reservation, but subsequently Zwingli and Calvin et al denied it, and from then on man has rationalised and reduced the Rite to one of a purely human memorial.

In Catholic theology, the idea is based on the understanding of Christ as coeternal within the Trinity, and utilises such texts as Matthew 18:20:
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

No-one would assume that when two or three people think of me, I am midst of them in quite the same way as this verse implies - but yet I have felt precisely that, in recalling a friend with friends, there is that feeling that he or she might walk in at any moment...

Anamnesis, the Greek term translated as 'remembrance' takes on therefore a particular metaphysical and theological nuance ... we are distanced from the upper room by some 2,000 years, but Jesus is outside of time and space, so whilst we remember events that occurred in the past, He is immanently present in that remembering, and the Eucharist, which He established, is a unique gift and means of the transference of grace ... so in short, whilst we are contingent and limited, He is not, and we would be mistaken in assuming He is subject to the same limitations we are.

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

Hi Dondi –

You highlight one of the major disputes of the Reformation.

Christianity, up to that point, held that Christ was present in the Eucharist, Luther believed this, although with some reservation, but subsequently Zwingli and Calvin et al denied it, and from then on man has rationalised and reduced the Rite to one of a purely human memorial.

In Catholic theology, the idea is based on the understanding of Christ as coeternal within the Trinity, and utilises such texts as Matthew 18:20:
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

No-one would assume that when two or three people think of me, I am midst of them in quite the same way as this verse implies - but yet I have felt precisely that, in recalling a friend with friends, there is that feeling that he or she might walk in at any moment...

Anamnesis, the Greek term translated as 'remembrance' takes on therefore a particular metaphysical and theological nuance ... we are distanced from the upper room by some 2,000 years, but Jesus is outside of time and space, so whilst we remember events that occurred in the past, He is immanently present in that remembering, and the Eucharist, which He established, is a unique gift and means of the transference of grace ... so in short, whilst we are contingent and limited, He is not, and we would be mistaken in assuming He is subject to the same limitations we are.

Thomas

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." - Matthew 18:20

I don't see anywhere in the context of this passage that this is specifically referring to the Eucharest. In fact, vs 19 says this, "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."

This is all about being in agreement in prayer in certain matters. Jesus is truly in the midst of decisions being made in the church. It speaks of being in harmony in the members of the Body of Christ. If you wish to include the Eucharest within that context, that's all perfectly well. But this is a pretty vague passage of scripture to use in support of transubstiation.

When I take the Lord's Supper, I do feel the Presence of God. I reflect on the sacrifice Jesus made, how he shed His Blood and bore the marks on His Body. The elements remind me of this. And I am ever grateful that He died for me, especially in the suffering manner that He did. And I cling to that old rugged cross for my salvation. What am I missing?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Dondi –

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." - Matthew 18:20
I don't see anywhere in the context of this passage that this is specifically referring to the Eucharest.

I don't think it does, specifically, but then I would refer to the discourse in John at the Last Supper for that. But I do think that when we have a specific ordinance from Jesus Himself to do something 'in memory of me', I think that text above does add weight to the argument.

In fact, vs 19 says this, "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."

Well in the RC/EO Rite, the mass is a celebration in which the celebrant and the community ask that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the remembrance becomes something more than mere memorial, but actually becomes the gateway to the Mystery of the Life in Christ ... so again, I would say the Reformation deciding that this was asking too much of God, or that the whole idea of God being present anywhere, at any time, in any manner whatsoever, is a nonsense ... is, as one might imagine, I don't agree.

This is all about being in agreement in prayer in certain matters. Jesus is truly in the midst of decisions being made in the church. It speaks of being in harmony in the members of the Body of Christ. If you wish to include the Eucharist within that context, that's all perfectly well. But this is a pretty vague passage of scripture to use in support of transubstiation.

Agreed. It was an example, that's all.

I would argue that if Christ is not present in the Eucharist that He instituted, He is not present anywhere, so 'in the midst' and 'harmony' and 'Body of Christ' become, like 'remembrance', mere figures of speech.

In short, if you undo one, you undo all by the same token.

When I take the Lord's Supper, I do feel the Presence of God. I reflect on the sacrifice Jesus made, how he shed His Blood and bore the marks on His Body. The elements remind me of this. And I am ever grateful that He died for me, especially in the suffering manner that He did. And I cling to that old rugged cross for my salvation. What am I missing?

Well first of all I will not comment on your sense of the Presence of God – it is not my place – nor has my intention been to suggest that you do not.

What I would say is the Eucharist is, to us, a Mystery rather than a memorial ... were Jesus just a man, then it would be so, but He is not, and His words open into dimensions that mere human words do not ... the Eucharist and its doctrine are indeed difficult, but then Mysteries are always difficult, and at a last resport I would recall John 6 – it's a tough text:

"I am that bread of life... I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world... Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me... From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
John 6:48-68

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

There is indeed a Communion that is taking place today, yet I am finding that often times it occurs even outside the boundaries of the Church (Roman Catholic or Christian) altogether. Here's a link to a post I made the other day that explains such Communion:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/favourite-poems-6328-5.html#post106743​

~andrew

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Dondi,

You are correct- the stirring of deep memory is an important aspect of Communion.
What are the benefits of Communion over such practices as meditation, prayer or other exercises?
There is the aspect of the community gathering- "When two or more are gathered together in my Name..." By reanimating deep memory the Communion strengthens community by returning us to the state where we were fed by the One Mother.

[FONT=&quot]The Communion is not neccessary for salvation. You might be a very loving person, acting out in a practical way because of that love. And this has built your relationship with Christ. For others, we have the Eucharist to build that realtionship to Christ- until we have contained that love in our souls. The Body and Blood of Christ works in us as a powerful medicine to our wanting soul. [/FONT]

Bruce

 

[Thomas]

From the C/O position, the point often missed, and will be missed if one does not accept Jesus Christ as the Logos of God, is that the Eucharistic Meal celebrated in the Upper Room is not simply 'a' communion, one among many forms visible in the sacred practices of the planet, but for the Christian esoterist – and esoterism generally – establishes in space and time 'the' principle of communion.

From a worldly perspective, the act of breaking bread is widespread as to be universal, and in fact the term 'Covenant', common in the politics of Antiquity and upon the sacred dimension of which the Old Testament is founded, was often established and confirmed by the sharing of a meal.

It recalls the making of a pact, and that's all it does.

But what renders the Eucharist superior to all other forms of covenant, and in fact all other forms of approach, is that it is a Sacred Rite, and as such a Divine Ordinance ...

... Do not lose sight of the fact that the whole life of the Church is ordered according to its liturgical calendar, and the liturgical calendar is a cycle of the life of Christ, the culminatioin of which is Easter ... the whole life of the Church is ordered according to the Mass, and the Mass is ordered according to the Eucharist ... so to say 'where two or more are gathered in my name' applies with no greater conviction than when the Eucharist is celebrated, because the community come together in the fellowship towards that end and no other.

The Holy Spirit is present in the Eucharistic species, and as such it is a sumation of the whole Passion of the Cross, because in so doing the Son delivers Himself once again into the hands of the people ... regardless of any measure of their 'worthiness' measured by any qualitative means.

This last aspect is the one that invariably causes a revolt in the refined sensibility of the jnani, the gnostic ... the idea that God might hand Himself over to someone, anyone, who bothers to approach the rail ... it seems to mock everything they believe in ... in fact everything the Church says regarding man's sinful nature.

But it nevertheless is the case. In the Eucharist the whole Life of Christ is summed up and made real and present, we receive the bread of life and in so doing we receive the Word of God, not as a remembrabce but as a Living Word, the word made flesh ... and that Word gives Itself without let or hindrance, to all and to any who care to receive it ... because the Word is Love.

And blessed are those, poor in spirit, who come to the rail with a grasp of nothing more than a kindergarden catechism, but a faith and hope in a God who loves, for the Spirit will make His home in them.

For in them God sees every good reason why they should come,
whilst the (historical) gnostic sees no reason for their being there at all.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Hmmm. Thomas, I think of it like this:

And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know, wo wo wo
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray, hey hey hey
Hey hey hey

(Simon & Garfunkel, Mrs. Robinson)
​

 

[Dondi]

I don't think it does, specifically, but then I would refer to the discourse in John at the Last Supper for that. But I do think that when we have a specific ordinance from Jesus Himself to do something 'in memory of me', I think that text above does add weight to the argument.

I would be interested in precisely what passage in John you are referring to. I scanned over the discourses in John chapters 13-17, which is set around the Last Supper, but haven't a clue to what you mean.

Well in the RC/EO Rite, the mass is a celebration in which the celebrant and the community ask that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the remembrance becomes something more than mere memorial, but actually becomes the gateway to the Mystery of the Life in Christ ... so again, I would say the Reformation deciding that this was asking too much of God, or that the whole idea of God being present anywhere, at any time, in any manner whatsoever, is a nonsense ... is, as one might imagine, I don't agree.

I am not familiar with that particular Reformist thinking. I believe God is immanent and transcendent, and that the Presence of God can appear to anyone at anytime. I don't limit God, nor put Him in a box. Nor would I say that God isn't present in the lives of those who partake in the Eucharest in the interaction of that ritual together in the gathering of the community in a parish.

But really what are we talking about when we speak of the Mystery of the Life of Christ? Why does it have to be such a mystery anyway? Did not Paul speak of this mystery as being revealed?

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever" - Romans 11:25-27

I would argue that if Christ is not present in the Eucharist that He instituted, He is not present anywhere, so 'in the midst' and 'harmony' and 'Body of Christ' become, like 'remembrance', mere figures of speech.

In short, if you undo one, you undo all by the same token.

Again, while I would not argue that Christ isn't present in the Eucharest, I find it hard to believe scriptually that this is the focal point in the doctrine of salvation. Don't get me wrong, I believe it vital to understand the sacrifice our Savior endured of the Cross, and by that our sins were borne with Him. But it seems to me that much more would have been made mentioned of the Eucharest in the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Epistles, the Letters of Peter, James, John, and even Revelation than what we read. The only real mention of the Lord's Supper is in I Corinthians 11, and that really a rebuke by Paul to the church at Corinth not to partake of the Lord's Supper unworthily, in context to some of the other errors that this particular church was involved in. If this was such a vitally important doctrine, it should have been redundantly repeated all through the rest of the NT with exorbant emphasis and compulsion to partake.

Well first of all I will not comment on your sense of the Presence of God – it is not my place – nor has my intention been to suggest that you do not.

What I would say is the Eucharist is, to us, a Mystery rather than a memorial ... were Jesus just a man, then it would be so, but He is not, and His words open into dimensions that mere human words do not ... the Eucharist and its doctrine are indeed difficult, but then Mysteries are always difficult, and at a last resport I would recall John 6 – it's a tough text:

"I am that bread of life... I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world... Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me... From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
John 6:48-68

So this ought to be taken literally?

Might I turn your attention to one of the verses you selectively did not quote:

John 6:63 - "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

We even have Peter's refrain, "...thou hast the words of eternal life."

The context of John 6 must be viewed with the events preceding this discourse, namely the feeding of the 5,000 earlier in the chapter (which, btw, is quite removed from the Lord's Supper, which occurs much later). Afterward, many of the people wanted to follow Jesus, not because of the miracles, but because they were filled. But Jesus told them not to look for meat that perishes, but that which He gives them that will endure for eternal life. It is not the physical element that Jesus is alluding to, for several chapters back in John 4 after His encounter with the woman at the well:

"In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.

But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." - John 4:31-34

This is right after He spoke to the woman about living water, a "well of water springing up into everlasting life". Now if we are going to be consistent and speak of the need for a physical element in our communion with Christ, then surely we ought to not only have the elements of bread and wine, but also water in the Eucharest. But do you suppose Jesus was referring to actual physical water here?

Symbols are powerful things. In scripture, they represent physically that which is spiritual. The writers of Hebrews expressed it this way:

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:" - Hebrews 9:24

Bread is symbolic of the Word, which is the bread for the soul. Jesus told His disciples that they were "clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15:3). Jesus as the Word of God, operates within His Word to bring forth salvation. It is thematic in numerous places in the NT:

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:17

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." - Ephesians 5:25-27

 

[Thomas]

Again, while I would not argue that Christ isn't present in the Eucharest, I find it hard to believe scriptually that this is the focal point in the doctrine of salvation...

I think this is the element that was lost when the Reformation abasndoned Tradition, they abandoned their history, and kept a Book which became devorced from the reference of the community.

The whole life of the Christian was focussed on the Eucharist, that's what set them apart from the Jews and from everyone else, that was the one Mystery of the Faith, and everything was a preparation towards that end.

The teaching of the catechumen took three years, and the catechumen entered 'The Discipline of the Arcana' and took a vow of secrecy, the only content of which has been revealed by those who left, and the accounts of those who were tortured during the various persecutions.

The Eucharist is not spoken openly in Scripture because it is a Mystery entered into, and the Christian was careful not to caste his 'pearls before swine' or 'cast what is holy to the dogs' ...

... Only in the 4th century, when the Arian dispute threatened the fabric of the empire, did the secret 'come out' as such, as the Christological dispute had a profound effect upon the idea of God as such.

Christ left two commandments: Love God, and love one's neighbour.
Christ left two instructions: Baptism and the Eucharist.

Baptism is done in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is, I believe, an error to assume that the Eucharist is less than baptism, in fact every Scriptural reference points to its being that for which Baptism is a preparation.

So again, we're back to whether the phrase 'in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit' is just a saying, or is there any reality to the words.

I think, from the Reformation on, the West has followed this tangent in assuming the words are signs, but in themselves empty ... and likewise thenm Christ's gestures were just signs, but in themselves empty...

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

[FONT=&quot]The Communion is not neccessary for salvation. You might be a very loving person, acting out in a practical way because of that love. And this has built your relationship with Christ. For others, we have the Eucharist to build that realtionship to Christ- until we have contained that love in our souls. The Body and Blood of Christ works in us as a powerful medicine to our wanting soul. [/FONT]

Bruce

I can respect that.