Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.8K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 367
- Technical Topics 367
The Importance & Meaning for the Holy Communion
Hi,
I met this evangelical non denomination Christian, who thought that it was wrong that we have the Holy Communion. But for us as Orthodox Christians (and Catholics I suppose), this is the most important sacrament in our Church. The mass revolves around this. In fact, we spend our entire spiritual energy focusing on the Body and Blood of Christ, than we do on actual prayer (unlike the Evangelicals).
So, what is the importance of the Holy Communion?
Why IS the Holy Communion so central to our spiritual lives as orthodox christians?
What damage occurs if we do not partake of it regularly (or for some, not at all!?)?
How would you explain to an evangelical that Christ did meant we DO in fact need to partake of His Body and Blood?
With respect to the Holy Communion, I get the impression that for us, it our raison d'etre, yet for evangelicals - it is believing only in Christ. Would you agree?
I met this evangelical non denomination Christian, who thought that it was wrong that we have the Holy Communion. But for us as Orthodox Christians (and Catholics I suppose), this is the most important sacrament in our Church. The mass revolves around this. In fact, we spend our entire spiritual energy focusing on the Body and Blood of Christ, than we do on actual prayer (unlike the Evangelicals).
So, what is the importance of the Holy Communion?
Why IS the Holy Communion so central to our spiritual lives as orthodox christians?
What damage occurs if we do not partake of it regularly (or for some, not at all!?)?
How would you explain to an evangelical that Christ did meant we DO in fact need to partake of His Body and Blood?
With respect to the Holy Communion, I get the impression that for us, it our raison d'etre, yet for evangelicals - it is believing only in Christ. Would you agree?
Comments
It is indeed the case that for many evangelicals the eucharist plays a minor role. Yet not for all by any means. In my own background we had the Lord's Supper' ever Sunday and it was the main service of the week. But it was not understood in a sacramental manner.
The scriptures are very clear, to those in whom the Spirit is active, that the Church has always celebrated the eucharist (this is in the New Testament for instance, and then in the writings of the earliest Fathers - the Didache and the letters of Ignatius were written very early and dedcribe a church in which the eucharist was central and frequent) and that it has been considered a spiritual and heavenly food. (All of the references which Christ himself makes to being bread from heaven for instance).
No-one thought differently until the 15th century. An evangelical would have to explain why.
But, it is my experience that arguing never convinced anyone. It is quite possible to read the New Testament and re-inforce an evangelical point of view. I would suggest, if the person is interested, and if they are not interested then there is no value in arguing, that they look at the sections in the Didache which was written while many of the Apostles were alive and represents the life of the Apostolic Church, together with the other earliest documents, to see what the Church thought.
When speaking with Mormons I have usually said that if we want to know the truth of something we would usually go to the eye-witnesses and those who knew the eye-witnesses and followed their teaching. We wouldn't normally just make up an opinion ourselves.
Here is something from Justin Martyr for instance. It comes from about 150 AD and represents a description of the life of the sub-Apostolic Church... This is filled with useful material, and of course there is much more from these early Fathers. Not enough to argue someone into believing, but enough to gently suggest that they may want to dig a little deeper than their present knowledge allows.
Father Peter
Also, when Christ offered Himself to His Apostles, what did that mean to them? As jews, who always observed the passover, what was the significance to them when Christ offered His Body and Blood??
ps. Im not at all arguing with any evangelical christian, I just was asked about this issue, and think its good to state our faith and be done with it. There's a huge difference between expressing our faith when asked by anyone, and going up to any evangelical christian and entering in endless pointless disputes for the sake of arguing
Some Brief Thoughts on the Eucharist from St Jacob of Serugh
Father Peter Farrington
November, 2009
St Jacob of Serugh is most well known for the collection of more than seven hundred metrical homilies, many of which remain unpublished. He is second in only to St Ephrem the Syrian, the Harp of the Spirit, and is himself known as the Flute of the Spirit. He was born in the middle of the 5th century, and became a bishop only in the last years of his life, although he had been a chor-episcopus for many years, serving the rural churches in the area of Serugh, which now lies on the Turkish side of the border with Syria. In his memra or verse homily to St Simeon the Stylite he speaks of himself, saying,
I am your flute, breathe into me Your Spirit, O Son of God. Let me give forth melodies filled with wonder about this beautiful one.
Among the great many verse homilies which he composed, several deal with the Eucharist, and portions of these have been translated into European languages. While later commentators tend to concentrate on drawing out various spiritual interpretations of the rites and actions of the Liturgy, St Jacob says little directly about the rites themselves and prefers a mystical and scriptural commentary on the sacrament.
This brief article will consider portions of two homilies which touch on the Eucharist and which are available in English (Jacob of Serugh, Homily extracts, tr. R.H. Connolly. The Downside Review 27 (1908)). The first homily deals directly with the situation of Christians leaving the Church at the point when the Catechumens are dismissed. St Jacob describes in passing some of the aspects of the liturgy as he celebrated it, referring to ‘the sound of Psalms’, ‘the Prophets’, and ‘the Apostles’, which must describe the Lections of the Church. Then he speaks of the priest saying, ‘Him who is not baptised let him go forth’, which must describe the dismissal of the Catechumens. St Jacob urges those who have been born with the second birth to remain and cry out, ‘Our Father’, which must refer to the Lord’s Prayer, which only those who have been baptised and born again may truly pray.
Having warned those worldly Christians who leave the Church before the consecration so as to be about their business, he describes what they will be missing, and describes in some detail his own understanding of the meaning of the Eucharist.
In the first place he describes the priest and the people ‘beseeching the Father that he will send his Son, that he may come down and dwell upon the oblation. And the Holy Spirit, his Power, lights down in the bread and wine and sanctifies it, yea, makes it the Body and the Blood’.
He then speaks of the means by which Christ is received by the faithful, saying, ‘by his brooding he mingles them in a holy manner, and they become one with him, as it is written, mystically....But he who goes out...has cut himself off from the brooding... these mysteries full of life are administered’.
These passages teach us several things about St Jacob’s understanding. Firstly the invocation of God is a matter of the people and the priest and is not simply a clerical function. It is neither the people alone who beseech God, nor the priest alone, but the whole Church united together beseeches God. The gathered community asks that God will send his Son, and the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine. This distinguishes the teaching of St Jacob from those Protestant interpretations of the Eucharist, in which it becomes a memorial and a reminder of the sacrifice of Christ. Within the Syrian Orthodox context of St Jacob it is clearly understood as a ritual act in which the Divine presence of the Son and the Holy Spirit was earnestly sought. It is not simply a human response to the events of the Passion.
Indeed we see from these passages that in the Eucharist St Jacob understands that the Holy Spirit descends, and enters into the bread and wine in some manner and ‘sanctifies it and makes it the Body and Blood’. There is therefore a divine action in the Eucharist, a divine ownership and a divine transformation. The Holy Spirit descends, the Holy Spirit sets this particular offering of bread and wine apart for the use of God, and the Holy Spirit makes this particular offering of bread and wine which has been taken by God for his use into the Body and Blood of our Lord.
We see that St Jacob wants to use the Hebraic sense of the Holy Spirit brooding when he contemplates the Eucharist. This word ‘brooding’ is found in the account of Creation in Genesis 1:2 where the Spirit of God brooded over the face of the waters. In both the sense of Genesis and of St Jacob we may consider the Holy Spirit bringing forth life. He broods over the Eucharistic elements, but he broods over those who receive these elements and brings forth life in them.
Indeed the mysteries are full of life, being full of the Holy Spirit who is the Divine life.
Those who leave the Church before the consecration and communion do not experience this creative brooding of the Spirit of God, and do not find life being renewed within them. It is clear from the words of St Jacob that he understands these elements of bread and wine, which become the Body and Blood of our Lord, to have life within them, and to produce life in those who receive them. They are life and life-giving as being filled with the power of God.
St Jacob then addresses those Christians who decide not to attend the Liturgy until after the consecration so that they can quickly attend and receive, and then return to their business affairs. He turns to a series of metaphors and illustrations to describe the blessings he believes are present in the Liturgy for those who faithfully commit themselves to prayer and praise at this time. These are designed to shame the distracted Christian who does not think he has enough time to worship God.
St Jacob speaks of the Great Physician, who will not charge anything for his services and who will ‘apply mercy to your disease’. He speaks of entreating the Creditor, asking him ‘to cancel the note of hand that is terrifying you’. He speaks of ‘the Son of God sacrificed and set forth upon the table for sinners to pardon them’. He says that, ‘the Bridegroom has come down and given you his body and sealed you with his blood’.
It is clear that St Jacob does not consider the Eucharist to have simply one aspect. We can see from these examples that he wishes us to consider that in the Eucharist we receive healing; we find that the debt owed by our sins is cancelled; that the Son pardons us by his sacrifice of himself; and that we receive the body of the Bridegroom and are sealed by his blood. There is a personal element to many of these aspects. We do not receive these blessings in a notional and legalistic sense, but by participating earnestly in the mystery of the Eucharist we find that the Holy Spirit broods upon us and works these out in our own life.
St Jacob urges us to ‘bring in before him all your petitions earnestly’, and ‘pour out tears before the table of the Godhead’. It is not possible, as far as St Jacob is concerned, for a person to turn up late to the Liturgy, with his mind full of worldly affairs, receive communion and then quickly leave the Church while expecting any blessing. Though the life-giving quality of the Eucharist does not depend on the worthiness of those who receive, and who should ‘reveal your plagues, O sick soul, and show your diseases’, nevertheless if the Eucharist is not approached with earnestness and with repentance then we should not expect that the Holy Spirit will remain upon us to renew us.
St Jacob elaborates when he says, ‘In that hour when the priest sacrifices the Son before the Father, gird yourself, enter, O soul, and ask for pardon with a loud voice. Say to the Father, “Behold thy Son, a sacrifice to reconcile Thee. Pardon me in Him who died for me was buried. Behold Thy Oblation. Accept from my hands Him who is from Thee’.
It is clear that in some sense we must consider the Eucharist as a sacrifice on our behalf, or rather perhaps a participation in that one eternal sacrifice which was offered once and for all on the cross. It is because we have been baptised into Christ that we are able to remain in the Church during the consecration. Having been baptised we are able to stand before the Father in the worthiness that is in Christ, and not in our own unworthiness. This is not a mechanical view of the atonement, but it requires a continuing participation in Christ, and a continuing sense of repentance. St Jacob does not allow a casual approach to the mysteries, as if Christ had done all that was necessary. On the contrary, it is because we are in Christ that we are able to receive the Holy Spirit brooding in the Eucharist elements, but we must make every effort to be ‘in Christ’, through earnestness, tears, repentance and a committed participation in the Liturgy.
Again it is clear that St Jacob allows no room for a Protestant view of the Eucharist, but is entirely Orthodox in his understanding. The Eucharist is a sacrifice and an oblation, but it is an offering to God of that which he has already provided, just as Abraham sacrificed to God the ram which God himself provided.
This sacrifice is not a purely spiritual one, in the sense that the elements of bread and wine are purely symbolic. Rather the bread and wine are transformed into the true body and blood of our Lord so that St Jacob can speak of ‘brides eating their betrothed’, and ‘his Body and his Blood he has set forth at the feast before them that sit at table, that they may eat of him, and live with him without end. Meat and drink is our Lord at his marriage supper’. Clearly we receive divine life by consuming the Eucharist elements which are become Christ. This is both a spiritual and a physical communication. The Holy Spirit is spirit and bodiless, but he broods within us and upon us by our physical eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ. But this physical eating of the Body and Blood of our Lord also has a physical effect and unites us with Christ in his renewed humanity. Indeed it may be understood that the union of our material humanity with that of the new humanity of Christ is facilitated by the divine presence of the Holy Spirit in the same Body and Blood. This does not mean that we physically consume the divine nature of the Holy Spirit, but it does mean that the Holy Spirit is present, as he wills and knows, in the elements as we consume them, and therefore the effects are both physical and spiritual.
The same edition of the Downside Review contains excerpts from a second homily which is concerned with the Holy Week, and also refers to the teaching of St Jacob about the Eucharist. It begins with St Jacob discusses the case of Melchizedek. He says that Melchizedek offered the Eucharist in a mystical sense, but only ‘sacrificed bread and wine to God, and nothing besides’. But the bread and wine of the Eucharist ‘our Lord made Body and Blood’. It is clear that St Jacob wants us to contrast the sacrifice of Melchizedek, which was only bread and wine, with that of Christ himself, which was more than bread and wine, but was truly Body and Blood.
Yet perhaps some will say that though this sacrifice of the Eucharist is not simply bread and wine it is only in a figurative sense the Body and Blood of our Lord, indeed many Protestants have insisted on such a view in modern Christian history. But St Jacob is very clear. He says, ‘who will dare to say now that it was not his Body?’, and ‘the Apostles...while he was still alive and reclining with them, ate him’. If this is not clear enough, and if it still allows some figurative understanding then St Jacob is even clearer.
He says, ‘from when he took it and called it Body it was not bread, but his Body, and they ate him while they marvelled’. The Apostles did not question what the Lord said, and it can be understood that St Jacob is addressing this same sentiment to his congregation. At the moment of communion we do not question, but we receive what we have been taught. As St Jacob says, ‘faith stoops not to questioning; she knows to affirm’.
According to St Jacob we affirm the reality of the Eucharist because it would never have crossed the minds of the Apostles to consider that the one who was alive with them at the table should be understood as dead, and sacrificed as the bread and wine they were consuming. Therefore the institution of the Eucharist is a matter of revelation by Christ himself. St Jacob says, ‘He stood as Priest and performed the priest’s function upon himself among his disciples, that he might depict a type to the priesthood for it to imitate, he taught them... he made known to them...he gave an example’.
Therefore the Eucharist is not rooted in the exercise of man’s religious and spiritual imagination, but it is part of the Apostolic deposit, received from Christ himself. Indeed we pray in our ancient Orthodox and Catholic Liturgies, ‘in the night when he was betrayed, he took the bread into his holy, undefiled, blameless and immortal hands...’. This is the teaching of St Jacob; that the most shocking aspect of the Eucharist, that in the mysteries we truly receive the Body and Blood of Christ for the renewal of our lives and for forgiveness of sins, is not an invention of later generations of Christians, but is at the very core of our Faith, having been received from the very mouth of Christ himself.
The language of Eucharistic sacrifice, of Body and Blood, or priest and oblation, are inseparable from our Faith, as far as St Jacob is concerned. We are not gathered to make a human commemoration of an historic act, or to worship a God who is not present. But equally the Eucharist is not a human response to God, but is God’s offering of himself. To receive such a gift, the gift of life in the Holy Spirit, demands our wholehearted and complete devotion. Upon those who approach the altar and commune with repentance and a sense of their own unworthiness the Holy Spirit descends and broods creatively, bringing life and forgiveness of sins.
why did Christ offer His Body and Blood for the remission of sins? Why was that a condition for the remission of sins? What would have happened if Christ had not had the last supper?
Can you use jewish traditions in your answer?
This is what God has ordained for our salvation.
The whole of the history of the universe includes the presentiment of the eucharist for our salvation. So much of the Old Testament history of salvation prefigures the eucharist. It is what God has always planned. Therefore we cannot ask what would God have done if he had not done it in the way he did do it. It IS the way he did it, and the way he planned it and the way he willed it.
Father Peter
It is a non-question really. (I don't mean that dismissively)
This is what God has ordained for our salvation.
The whole of the history of the universe includes the presentiment of the eucharist for our salvation. So much of the Old Testament history of salvation prefigures the eucharist. It is what God has always planned. Therefore we cannot ask what would God have done if he had not done it in the way he did do it. It IS the way he did it, and the way he planned it and the way he willed it.
Father Peter
Well, I would still appreciate an answer.
Can you elaborate? I do think this question is valid for Tasbeha.org whether for lent or not.
I'd like to know anyway regardless of anyone evangelical knowing also.
So, can you summarise why the Eucharist is so central to our salvation?
Thanks
You are asking why did God do it this way and not some other way. That is a non-question. It is not one we can ask or answer since it is a given in the universe.
It is like asking why did God make the Sun a sphere and not a pyramid? Or why did God not create three genders instead of two. They are not questions we can answer and not questions we can ask.
We can ask why the eucharist is important and the article I just posted gives you lots of answers. Have you read it? But we cannot ask 'why did God choose this way and not some other way'.
Father Peter
It has nothing to dio with Lent.
You are asking why did God do it this way and not some other way. That is a non-question. It is not one we can ask or answer since it is a given in the universe.
It is like asking why did God make the Sun a sphere and not a pyramid? Or why did God not create three genders instead of two. They are not questions we can answer and not questions we can ask.
We can ask why the eucharist is important and the article I just posted gives you lots of answers. Have you read it? But we cannot ask 'why did God choose this way and not some other way'.
Father Peter
I don't mean to ask why did God choose it this way, and not another way.
Not at all.
I just wanted verses from the Bible that indicate the importance of the Eucharist (from the OT and the NT).
See, to you its so obvious, yet to evangelists, they believe that this is so unimportant (the Eucharist). I'm not asking to know how to pursuade evangelists (although that would be useful at times), Im asking because I don't know the answer.
If you study all of the verses in the Gospels in which our Lord speaks of bread.
One is,
John 6:47-58 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (48) I am that bread of life. (49) Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. (50) This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. (51) 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. (52) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (53) 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. (54) Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (55) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (56) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (57) As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (58) This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Father Peter
Where was the significance of the Eucharist in the OT?
Surely, there was some symbolism of it in the OT FOR the remission of sins?? I can think of the manna being one.. but it is not explicit. I mean, we view the manna that came down from heaven as a symbol of the Eucharist.
Some people also view the manna that came down as God's word (i..e The Bible), so I'm not sure if that counts.
If the Eucharist is essential for salvation, then there must have been reference to it in the OT. It is nothing haphazard. That's why Im saying on that night, when Christ offered Himself (His Body and Blood), that His Apostles, having in been raised in the jewish traditions, understood that their partaking of His Body and Blood was what Christ had come for.
They didn't question it.
When Christ told His Apostles to partake of His Body, what was going on in their minds ; what conclusions did they draw as to the nature of Christ, and the reasons for His coming?
Sorry, I obviously misunderstood your question.
If you study all of the verses in the Gospels in which our Lord speaks of bread.
One is,
John 6:47-58 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (48) I am that bread of life. (49) Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. (50) This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. (51) 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. (52) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (53) 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. (54) Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (55) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (56) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (57) As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (58) This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Father Peter
I'm honestly asking this out of sheer curiosity, and nothing more.
Given all these proofs of the importance of the Eucharist, how is it protestants, evangelicals and some anglicans think this is not essential to partake of the Eucharist? What do they interpret by all these verses that clearly state the importance of the Eucharist? If partaking of the Eucharist is so essential, as seen from these verses, then how could they justify that Christ did not mean literally for us to also eat of His Body and Blood??
The reason why I am asking for verses/explanations from the OT, is because that if any of these verses in the NT could be misinterpreted, then if we have their equivalence from the OT, then there can be no dispute as to the importance of partaking of the Eucharist. If it is God's plan that we "eat Him" , then by not eating Him, we are going against His Plans - and I'd like to know the consequences of this.
What made me think of this issue really was the fact that I realised that the main difference between us and Evangelicals is that they spend more time in personal prayer in their Churches than we do. We focus more on the Eucharist. The entire Orthodox liturgy is a celebration of the life of Christ through the Eucharist. This is the focus of our prayers. Our supplications and worship is directed to the Eucharist. Therefore, although there is perhaps less personal prayer time, we gain in other ways that they do not gain in.
but i think the eucharist is stressed enough in the NT for all Christians to see its importance.
in 1 corinthians 11, it is clear that instructions regarding the Eucharist were passed on by Jesus and then passed onto the church by saint paul. they are then told 'do this in rememberance of Me'.
surely that is clear enough!
as father peter said, most protestant churches do celebrate the Eucharist (though not all in the same way we do), it is a reletively modern thing not too.
anglicans (episcopalians), baptists, evangelicals, methodists (like congragationalists), lutherans and presbyterians all attach great importance to celebrating the eucharist.
from what i can see, it is mainly the newer african (and maybe american, i don't know much about usa) churches that emphasize a 'spontaneous' service with less attention paid to any tradition. in europe, these groups are in the minority, i don't know about your part of the world.
hope this helps, may God give you wisdom in your discussions :)
EDIT: thanks mabsoota sorry I was just sending my reply (before reading yours)
May I humbly suggest mentioning also the fact that Our Lord Jesus Christ was described by St John the Baptist in the Gospel as the Lamb of God who redeems the world.
Christ is the ultimate, the complete and the only valid sacrifice for the total remission of our sins thus He is the Holy Sacrificial Lamb offered by God for the reconciliation of mankind with Himself.
It is one of the reasons why it was the OT priests who led Jesus Christ to death on the Cross.
What rites had to be followed concerning different sacrifices in the OT?
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:36
And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, “Behold the Lamb of God!”
Revelation 7:10
and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”
Christ is the eternally accepted full redeeming Holy Sacrifice on mankind's behalf.
Glory is to the Lord for ever.
GBU
There are many "Types" (pre-figurement) of the Eucharist in the OT. I just gave one in the paragraph above and also the eating of Manna during the Exodus sustained the Hebrews in the desert for 40 years. The Body and Blood of Christ gives us spiritual Life. The sacrifices of animals for the forgiveness of Israel's sins prefigure the Crucifixtion of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins. The word "Remembrance" in Greek is "Anamnesis" which means more than just remember (memory-wise) but to live in the moment of the event in this case the Sacrifice on Calgary. In every Passover meal a cild asks their father what makes that night different from every other night and the response is the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt is what's 're-lived'. We offer the Eucharist (the sacrifice of the Christ) to God for our forgiveness and sanctification for our Exodus from death to Life!
Please forgive me for the lack of Bible verses and Patristic commentaries. All the above can be found in the Holy Scriptures. Abouna Peter Farrington can explain soooo much better. Thank you.