MennoNet.com

It is interesting at all the variations of this practise even within Anabaptism. And then there is the whole issue of whether this is a sacrament or an ordinance. Sacrament often considered a means of God's grace as a blessing, salvation or sanctification. Ordinance usually means it is not a conduit of grace but rather an act of obedience. However, some use these terms interchangeably.

I remember once when I referred to this practise in the MB church as a sacrament and quickly was corrected by the pastor that this was an ordinance and not a sacrament. He seemed to be very strong on there being no salvation properties in this practise.

And then there are the Salvation Army and Quakers who do not have this practise at all.

The Salvation Army's Founders felt that many Christians had come to rely on the outward signs of spiritual grace rather than on grace itself. William and Catherine Booth believed, with the Apostle Paul, that salvation came solely from the grace of God personally received by faith. They felt that much of what passed for Christianity in their day was primarily an observance of outward ritual.

The Church we attend has communion once a month. It is during the evening service. This is because the assumption is the more serious attendees and or actual members go to evening service. There's a little almost warning about who should take it.
I don't like that they use white wine or juice instead of red. That's unusual to me.

I was reading the huge section on "The Eucharist" in David Bercots "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs." The first statements revealing practice & beliefs were 105 ad
Reading through this section I can tell the Catholics & Orthodox beliefs about it are much closer to the earliest Church statements. It was not "symbol only".
In fact, there were statements about the gnostics being heretics because they didn't believe in the real presence. Gnostics were heretics for other reasons too.

In Davids book he said ";The Latish speaking church referred to baptism and communion as "sacraments". The Greek speaking church referred to these same rites as "mysteries". So the difference between earliest Church and later developing denominations seems vastly different on belief and practice.

It’s interesting to read what was actually said

am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49  Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50  This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 6:51  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.
Joh 6:52  The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53  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.
Joh 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58  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.
Joh 6:59  These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

As often, He then explained to his disciple what He meant

Joh 6:60  Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61  When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62  What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 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.

For further clarification

Luk 22:19  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.
Luk 22:20  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And if you recall, John 6:63 He said the flesh had no value, it was the Word that saved
Paul later speaks as well and doesn’t add any extra mysticism to it.
John says

1Jn 3:24  And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

I believe that “commandments” could also be interpreted as word.
We don’t need to add some extra meaning past what Jesus and His apostles said. It’s enough that we obey and I personally can accept calling it a “mystery” I believe, like baptism, that something is happening in the spiritual world we don’t understand, but I firmly disagree that we eat blood and flesh.

Soloist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 6:17 am It’s interesting to read what was actually said

am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49  Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50  This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 6:51  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.
Joh 6:52  The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53  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.
Joh 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58  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.
Joh 6:59  These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

As often, He then explained to his disciple what He meant

Joh 6:60  Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61  When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62  What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 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.

For further clarification

Luk 22:19  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.
Luk 22:20  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And if you recall, John 6:63 He said the flesh had no value, it was the Word that saved
Paul later speaks as well and doesn’t add any extra mysticism to it.
John says

1Jn 3:24  And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

I believe that “commandments” could also be interpreted as word.
We don’t need to add some extra meaning past what Jesus and His apostles said. It’s enough that we obey and I personally can accept calling it a “mystery” I believe, like baptism, that something is happening in the spiritual world we don’t understand, but I firmly disagree that we eat blood and flesh.

I'm thinking Apostles taught more than the obvious orally. Reason being, Ignatius was the first in Davids book of quotes to reveal it was more than symbolic & heretical not to see it as the Church did.

So who was he? From David Bercot's book:


Ignatius (35-107) Bishop of the Church at Antioch and a personal disciple of one or more Apostles. He was executed in Rome in 107. On his way to Rome as a prisoner, Ignatius wrote letters to several churches, these letters give considerable insight into the structure and beliefs of the churches of Asia Minor at the close of the apostolic age."

So he was taught by the Apostles.
Maybe why Lutheran's did not discard the belief in the real presence like the rest of the Protestants, or in the earliest days, the gnostics. Not sure how else all the earliest churches believed it that way when they were taught by the Apostles.

Well said Soloist. Most, if not all the observances given to the church are mysterious and span the material and immaterial worlds, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, Marriage, anointing with oil for healing, Evangelism, close attention to the scriptures ect...

Valerie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 7:56 am I'm thinking Apostles taught more than the obvious orally. Reason being, Ignatius was the first in Davids book of quotes to reveal it was more than symbolic & heretical not to see it as the Church did.

I don’t accept that argument I understand it though.
My concern with Ignatius is that there are at least two different versions of his writings and I’m uncertain as to the chain of custody and which version is accurate if either.

So he was taught by the Apostles.
Maybe why Lutheran's did not discard the belief in the real presents like the rest of the Protestants, or in the earliest days, the gnostics. Not sure how else all the earliest churches believed it that way when they were taught by the Apostles.

I’m saying something is happening in the spiritual world, I suspect that mere human words can not explain it. I don’t know that I agree with real presence and I also don’t know that I disagree with it.
The logic that something so important was not wrote down yet teachings about it were wrote down to the point of telling people to eat at home first… I just don’t buy it.

Valerie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 5:47 am
In Davids book he said ";The Latish speaking church referred to baptism and communion as "sacraments". The Greek speaking church referred to these same rites as "mysteries".

Interestingly, Catholic scholars use the terms sacraments and mysteries interchangeably. The term Mysteries is often used to describe the mechanism of action of the sacraments and the two terms are thus interchangeable in Catholic lexicon.

MaxPC wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 11:58 am

Valerie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 5:47 am
In Davids book he said ";The Latish speaking church referred to baptism and communion as "sacraments". The Greek speaking church referred to these same rites as "mysteries".

Interestingly, Catholic scholars use the terms sacraments and mysteries interchangeably. The term Mysteries is often used to describe the mechanism of action of the sacraments and the two terms are thus interchangeable in Catholic lexicon.

Are they interchangeable? My understanding is sacraments are clearly defined things.

MaxPC wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 11:58 am

Valerie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 5:47 am
In Davids book he said ";The Latish speaking church referred to baptism and communion as "sacraments". The Greek speaking church referred to these same rites as "mysteries".

Interestingly, Catholic scholars use the terms sacraments and mysteries interchangeably. The term Mysteries is often used to describe the mechanism of action of the sacraments and the two terms are thus interchangeable in Catholic lexicon.

Orthodox do too Max. That was just David Bercot's statement.

seinetsodumm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:21 pm The blessing of Communion is in being obedient to Christ. I think it is very important not to fall into argument over the variance among groups (Although it is interesting to see how others practice Communion, and how those practices evolved). From its birth, Anabaptism was about simple obedience to Christ. Obey Christ, read His Word and follow the leading of His Spirit.

Blessings!

Yes I agree, I think Apostle Paul brought up to Corinthians milk teachings verses meat teachings, I think some are more spiritually discerned. Certainly need to not argue just share.