Communion

[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

[AndrewX]

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]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

Originally Posted by Thomas

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

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

Originally Posted by Thomas

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]

Originally Posted by Dondi

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]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

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.

Bruce

I can respect that.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

By Book, I assume you mean the Bible. So scripturally, you I feel safe with the inspired Word of God. It is the anchor from which my faith is grounded.

But I think that by keeping the Book, they actually re-established history and tradition, namely that of the Jews. By that I mean the history of the Israelites. I frankly do not see why we need to set ourselves so far apart from the Jews. Rather we ought to embrace it. They are after all the root of our religion. The book is all about Israel, in both Testaments, in fact, all the way to Revelation. So in this sense, the Reformist do have a reference to community, in the long traditions before, during, and immediately after the advent of Christ. The Early church was primarily Jewish.