One of the practices from the tradition of my heritage is that of weekly communion/eucharist. I have been a part of churches that observed communion/eucharist every Sunday, and others who did it less frequently. I have a pretty firm conviction that, when done properly, the church participates in this sacrament at least every Sunday. This conviction is based on my understanding of both scripture and church history.

I haven't done extensive research on the perspective that allows for it to be done less frequently, but I have had some conversations with pastors. From these conversations, it seems like the practice of doing communion less frequently than weekly has no theological/biblical foundation at all. In many cases, it is a matter of logistics/programming (how will we fit it into an already tightly scheduled worship time, etc.). In others, it is about denominational history (e.g. the old Methodist circuit pastors would only come through town monthly).

So my question is: what am I missing? Are there good theological/biblical reasons for less-than-weekly communion? If so, what are they?

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-frequency-of-communion-calmly-considered/

See above link noting the scriptural and traditional arguments for weekly communion. New Testament doesn't directly address the issue. My personal opinion is that God likely is much more concerned about the state of your heart as you celebrate communion vs. how often you celebrate communion. Are you just going through the motions or are you fighting back tears as you remember the sacrifice?

Matt. 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

As they were eating the sacrament of the old testament, Jesus instituted the sacrament of the new testament. The sacrament of the old testament was observed annually. I don't buy the "more frequent is better." The Jews weren't any less spiritually deprived because it was annual rather than weekly.

Having said that, Scripture is silent on how often it should be taken. I've seen daily, weekly, monthly, and annually. I think weekly and annually make the most sense.

More sincere over more frequent…

Sincere question re the title of the original post: why refer to it as "Eucharist" unless it's a sacrifice? I suppose it's possible to have an understanding that it is a communion even if it's only a symbol, but I don't see how it could be Eucharist if it's not a sacrifice.

Malachi 1:11 would seem to endorse daily Eucharist


From the rising of the sun to its setting,

my name is great among the nations;
Incense offerings are made to my name everywhere,
and a pure offering;
For my name is great among the nations,
says the LORD of hosts.

Thanks for all the feedback. Y'all are giving me some good things to think about!

In reply to HarleySpoon

HarleySpoon said:

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-frequency-of-communion-calmly-considered/

See above link noting the scriptural and traditional arguments for weekly communion. New Testament doesn't directly address the issue. My personal opinion is that God likely is much more concerned about the state of your heart as you celebrate communion vs. how often you celebrate communion. Are you just going through the motions or are you fighting back tears as you remember the sacrifice?

---

Your link does provide a helpful overview of the rationale that some use. The writer's examination of the scriptures used to argue for weekly communion isn't very convincing (although he admittedly wasn't striving for a true exegesis of these passages), but the points he makes do illustrate that there is enough uncertainty involved in interpreting the relevant passages that one should not be dogmatic or divisive over this subject.

The writer is pretty dismissive of the ways that the Spirit has moved his people through history. I find this quote telling: "Thoughtful Protestants do not employ Patristic writings to establish matters about which the Scriptures themselves are reticent." I'll let others decide whether I qualify as a thoughtful Protestant, but I would say precisely the opposite. When the scriptures are reticent or unclear, we look to the ways that God's people, guided by God's Spirit, have understood and implemented that practice throughout God's story. Of course, we also employ reason and our own experiences (HT to Wesley's Quadrilateral).

Finally, his section on Doctrinal and Pastoral Questions was the least convincing of all. I don't think that matters of theological significance should ever be subordinate to the lesser considerations of programming, logistics, and scheduling.

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:

---

I recommend reading Welcoming Gifts: Sacrifice in the Bible and Christian Life by Jeremy Davis to better disambiguate the concept of sacrifice, anamnesis or memorial, and how the sacrifices of ancient Israel are fulfilled in the continuing practices of the church.

---

The more I learn about Orthodox theology, the more intrigued I become. I just wish the Orthodox church packaged it in more accessible ways. I'm sure this book is full of wonderful insights.

In reply to 88Warrior

88Warrior said:

---

More sincere over more frequent…

---

Seems like a false dichotomy

In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sincere question re the title of the original post: why refer to it as "Eucharist" unless it's a sacrifice? I suppose it's possible to have an understanding that it is a communion even if it's only a symbol, but I don't see how it could be Eucharist if it's not a sacrifice.

---

Eucharist means thanksgiving, does it not? I don't consider it only a symbol, but even those who di can see it as an occasion for thanksgiving.

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:

---

As for whether the NT directly addresses it - it in fact does. The first image we get of the church in Acts 2 is centered around three things the church steadfastly continued in, each with a definite article:

- the Teaching of the Apostles
- the fellowship (literally communion, in Greek koinonia) the breaking of the bread
- the prayers

And, just after, it says every day they were continuing with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house.

Literally the first description we get of the church is daily celebration of the Eucharist.

---

This is my understanding of those passages as well.

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

When the scriptures are reticent or unclear, we look to the ways that God's people, guided by God's Spirit, have understood and implemented that practice throughout God's story.

---

Not sure which side of this you're falling on, but it seems to me this would provide an incredibly strong case for daily or at the very minimum weekly Eucharistic celebration.

---

I fall on the side of at least weekly eucharist. My OP was trying to understand the rationale of those who favor it less frequently.

In reply to jaborch99

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sincere question re the title of the original post: why refer to it as "Eucharist" unless it's a sacrifice? I suppose it's possible to have an understanding that it is a communion even if it's only a symbol, but I don't see how it could be Eucharist if it's not a sacrifice.

---

Eucharist means thanksgiving, does it not? I don't consider it only a symbol, but even those who di can see it as an occasion for thanksgiving.

---

Agreed. Thanksgiving. Eucharistia in greek. But giving thanks by doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice? The reason the early church refered to it as a sacrifice and a thanksgiving is because they understood the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Jesus in a mysterious, miraculous way. So, when the bread and wine were consecrated and presented to God, the gift offered to God in thanksgiving went from bread and wine to the only thing truly worthy of God: himself.

Moreover, Eucharist involves an offering of self united to the perfect pascal sacrifice of Christ. Not that we add anything to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, which is being offered to the Father on our behalf, but we are invited to unite ourselves with Christ's offering of himself, his sacrifice, in thanksgiving to the Father.

There is also the sacramental aspect of Eucharist which is God offering himself right back to us in the form of the consecrated host, with which we commune with or partake of the divine nature and over time become what we consume.

In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sincere question re the title of the original post: why refer to it as "Eucharist" unless it's a sacrifice? I suppose it's possible to have an understanding that it is a communion even if it's only a symbol, but I don't see how it could be Eucharist if it's not a sacrifice.

---

Eucharist means thanksgiving, does it not? I don't consider it only a symbol, but even those who di can see it as an occasion for thanksgiving.

---

Agreed. Thanksgiving. Eucharistia in greek. But giving thanks by doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice? The reason the early church refered to it as a sacrifice and a thanksgiving is because they understood the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Jesus in a mysterious, miraculous way. So, when the bread and wine were consecrated and presented to God, the gift offered to God in thanksgiving went from bread and wine to the only thing truly worthy of God: himself.

Moreover, Eucharist involves an offering of self united to the perfect pascal sacrifice of Christ. Not that we add anything to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, which is being offered to the Father on our behalf, but we are invited to unite ourselves with Christ's offering of himself, his sacrifice, in thanksgiving to the Father.

There is also the sacramental aspect of Eucharist which is God offering himself right back to us in the form of the consecrated host, with which we commune with or partake of the divine nature and over time become what we consume.

---

Again, I do not hold a memorialist/symbolic view of communion. However, I am tolerant of it as a legitimate expression of Christian faith..

You ask, "By doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice?" By acting in obedience to Jesus' command to "do this in remembrance of me." Again, the memorialist/symbolic view may not provide the same layers of meaning as transubstantiation and consubstantiation do, but it is a bit disingenuous to claim that those who hold that view have no reason for thanksgiving when obediently observing the ritual of communion and focusing on the sacrifice that it represents.

In reply to jaborch99 I would argue that it takes a distorted understanding of both the word sacrifice and the word remembrance to hold that view. And, as a result, what they're "doing" is not the same expression of faith. When you're talking about doing <<this>> we need to agree about the <<this>>.

We don't need to try to square the circle. Baptists don't believe they're offering a sacrifice, and they don't believe anything is "happening". They don't think it is for forgiveness of sins, and they don't think it is grace-filled. So why would I argue with them?

And this is at the most central act of my faith. Whether it is legitimate or not is irrelevant - it is a material difference.

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:

---

I would argue that it takes a distorted understanding of both the word sacrifice and the word remembrance to hold that view. And, as a result, what they're "doing" is not the same expression of faith. When you're talking about doing <<this>> we need to agree about the <<this>>.

We don't need to try to square the circle. Baptists don't believe they're offering a sacrifice, and they don't believe anything is "happening". They don't think it is for forgiveness of sins, and they don't think it is grace-filled. So why would I argue with them?

And this is at the most central act of my faith. Whether it is legitimate or not is irrelevant - it is a material difference.

---

***Edited because I got someone else's comment conflated with yours.***

I'm probably spending too much time defending a position that I do not hold. I just found some of these comments a bit shocking in their seeming dismissal of the sincerely held practice of many of my siblings in Christ. Forgive me if I have misunderstood.

I'm not Baptist and have never been one, so I won't speak for them. Earlier in my life, however, I did hold strongly to a more symbolic/memorialist view (My current views are closer to consubstantiation), so I can speak with some knowledge about that view. I'll address a few of your statements/implications individually.

• Memorialists aren't offering a sacrifice. I actually agree with this. I never claimed I was making a sacrifice in communion. I believed I was remembering Christ's sacrifice and committing myself to live in appreciation of that sacrifice. I'm not sure where you got the idea that memorialists believe that communion is itself a sacrifice.
• Memorialists have a distorted view of remembrance. I guess I'm confused here. Don't memorialists pretty much believe communion is exclusively a rememberance that utilizes the symbols of bread and wine/juice to represent the body and blood of Jesus?
• Memorialists don't believe anything is "happening" in communion. I imagine that there is some variation in what people actually believe here, but I never doubted that something was happening. It was just something different than what you believe is happening. I didn't believe it was for forgiveness of sins (although i didn't believe you could be saved without it). I would have argued that it was grace-filled (although I may have used that term differently than you. I'm not sure how you're using the term). I believed that God had given us bodily actions/rituals to perform. His provision of these instructions came about only by his grace. Therefore any good that comes from my obedience to his instructions is attributable not to me, but to him. So if in communion I am convicted of sin, that is God's action. If I am motivated to renew my commitment to Jesus, that is God's action. So I always believed that God was acting - things were happening - that would not have happened without communion.

No analogy is perfect, but please indulge me and forgive the rough edges. Say you instruct your child to look both ways before crossing the street so that she isn't hit by an oncoming car. As a bad listener, your child hears your instruction but not the rationale behind it. She looks both ways before crossing the street but later reveals to you that she did it because she thought you liked seeing her pigtails swing from side to side. Would you tell her she did well and continue to work in relationship with her to understand the deeper truths behind your instruction, or would you scold her for disobedience because she did not fully grasp your rationale?

I may be misreading your posts, but it sounds like your view is that God is displeased with the obedience of his children if they don't have an accurate understanding of the rationale/theology behind his instructions. So much so that he would reject their obedience as being a materially different faith altogether.

I simply believe that God receives our acts of devotion and our efforts at obedience as a loving father - always desiring us to mature more fully while also joyfully watching us stumble forward.

In reply to jaborch99

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sincere question re the title of the original post: why refer to it as "Eucharist" unless it's a sacrifice? I suppose it's possible to have an understanding that it is a communion even if it's only a symbol, but I don't see how it could be Eucharist if it's not a sacrifice.

---

Eucharist means thanksgiving, does it not? I don't consider it only a symbol, but even those who di can see it as an occasion for thanksgiving.

---

Agreed. Thanksgiving. Eucharistia in greek. But giving thanks by doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice? The reason the early church refered to it as a sacrifice and a thanksgiving is because they understood the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Jesus in a mysterious, miraculous way. So, when the bread and wine were consecrated and presented to God, the gift offered to God in thanksgiving went from bread and wine to the only thing truly worthy of God: himself.

Moreover, Eucharist involves an offering of self united to the perfect pascal sacrifice of Christ. Not that we add anything to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, which is being offered to the Father on our behalf, but we are invited to unite ourselves with Christ's offering of himself, his sacrifice, in thanksgiving to the Father.

There is also the sacramental aspect of Eucharist which is God offering himself right back to us in the form of the consecrated host, with which we commune with or partake of the divine nature and over time become what we consume.

---

Again, I do not hold a memorialist/symbolic view of communion. However, I am tolerant of it as a legitimate expression of Christian faith..

You ask, "By doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice?" By acting in obedience to Jesus' command to "do this in remembrance of me." Again, the memorialist/symbolic view may not provide the same layers of meaning as transubstantiation and consubstantiation do, but it is a bit disingenuous to claim that those who hold that view have no reason for thanksgiving when obediently observing the ritual of communion and focusing on the sacrifice that it represents.

---

Sorry. Didn't intend to be unkind. My apologies.

I'm saying that when Jesus said "Do this in memory of me" that statement was immediately preceded by "take and eat. This is my body. Take and drink. This is my blood." So the doing IT was specifically in reference to that and it was more than just a memorial.

I'm simply saying that if you take the way the church generally understood the Eucharist for the first 1,500 years of its existence, it included a sacrificial aspect that was underpinned by the offering of the Jesus's body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. That's what Eucharist meant historically and still means today in most Christian churches around the world. If that's how you understand it then by all means continue using Eucharist to describe it.

In reply to jaborch99 You can be shocked, but in this I don't feel the need to mince words.

Memorialists aren't offering a sacrifice. Right - but the Church is, unequivocally, 100%, offering a sacrifice at the Divine Liturgy.

Memorialists have a distorted view of remembrance. Yes. The word remembrance is an English word that sounds like the word for "remember" and so we think "hey this means we're supposed to remember something". But that's anachronistic and a basic misunderstanding of the word and concept of anamnesis. This is not us remembering, but us participating, making present His sacrifice. This is the literal meaning. Israel did not merely remember the passover, but they re-enacted it, and the words of the ritual are spoken in the present tense. Christ's command to do this in [anamnesis] of Me would have been heard by His apostles and understood in the ritual context of worship which they were intimately familiar. Not a mere intellectual recall of past events, but in making those events real and present in our lives. Thus when St Paul invokes that command in 1 Cor 11, he says - for whenever you do this, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. There is a connection between this making presence and covenant, and it is the same as the Hebrew word zikkaron, which is almost always connected to temple sacrifice.

Memorialists don't believe anything is "happening" in communion. I said baptists, so maybe it is best to be specific. But most people who invoke a symbolic view don't believe in the Presence of the Lord, that it is in truth His Body and Blood, that it is "just a symbol", that it is not salvific, it does not impart grace, it is not for the forgiveness of sins, it is not for life everlasting.

Quote:

---

would you scold her for disobedience because she did not fully grasp your rationale?

---

If my kid misunderstood me, and once reprimanded decided it was better to leave the family than accept instruction, who would be in the wrong? This is a 10000% matter of schism in clear terms over what is a matter of clear historical and theological unity for centuries.

Quote:

---

So much so that he would reject their obedience as being a materially different faith altogether.

---

I'm more concerned about the disobedience.

Quote:

---

I simply believe that God receives our acts of devotion and our efforts at obedience as a loving father - always desiring us to mature more fully while also joyfully watching us stumble forward.

---

We can just use this to allow any and all beliefs and practices. There are limits and definitions to what is and is not the historical faith as the prophets foretold, as Christ revealed, as the Apostles taught, and as the fathers dogmatized. The Eucharist is a pretty key part of the Christian faith.

In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sincere question re the title of the original post: why refer to it as "Eucharist" unless it's a sacrifice? I suppose it's possible to have an understanding that it is a communion even if it's only a symbol, but I don't see how it could be Eucharist if it's not a sacrifice.

---

Eucharist means thanksgiving, does it not? I don't consider it only a symbol, but even those who di can see it as an occasion for thanksgiving.

---

Agreed. Thanksgiving. Eucharistia in greek. But giving thanks by doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice? The reason the early church refered to it as a sacrifice and a thanksgiving is because they understood the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Jesus in a mysterious, miraculous way. So, when the bread and wine were consecrated and presented to God, the gift offered to God in thanksgiving went from bread and wine to the only thing truly worthy of God: himself.

Moreover, Eucharist involves an offering of self united to the perfect pascal sacrifice of Christ. Not that we add anything to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, which is being offered to the Father on our behalf, but we are invited to unite ourselves with Christ's offering of himself, his sacrifice, in thanksgiving to the Father.

There is also the sacramental aspect of Eucharist which is God offering himself right back to us in the form of the consecrated host, with which we commune with or partake of the divine nature and over time become what we consume.

---

Again, I do not hold a memorialist/symbolic view of communion. However, I am tolerant of it as a legitimate expression of Christian faith..

You ask, "By doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice?" By acting in obedience to Jesus' command to "do this in remembrance of me." Again, the memorialist/symbolic view may not provide the same layers of meaning as transubstantiation and consubstantiation do, but it is a bit disingenuous to claim that those who hold that view have no reason for thanksgiving when obediently observing the ritual of communion and focusing on the sacrifice that it represents.

---

Sorry. Didn't intend to be unkind. My apologies.

I'm saying that when Jesus said "Do this in memory of me" that statement was immediately preceded by "take and eat. This is my body. Take and drink. This is my blood." So the doing IT was specifically in reference to that and it was more than just a memorial.

I'm simply saying that if you take the way the church generally understood the Eucharist for the first 1,500 years of its existence, it included a sacrificial aspect that was underpinned by the offering of the Jesus's body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. That's what Eucharist meant historically and still means today in most Christian churches around the world. If that's how you understand it then by all means continue using Eucharist to describe it.

---

Are Orthodox Christians allowed to use the term eucharist even though they have just as high a view of church history/tradition as Catholics (arguably higher) yet take a view that is far less dogmatic, and possibly not even transubstation at all? (Orthodox posters, feel free to correct me if I'm off here). Or are Catholics the only ones who are allowed to use the term in your view?

The RCC and Orthodox view on the Eucharist is functionally identical. Transubstantiation is not a deal breaker for being in communion, and that is not what caused or continues schism.

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:

---

Memorialists have a distorted view of remembrance. Yes. The word remembrance is an English word that sounds like the word for "remember" and so we think "hey this means we're supposed to remember something". But that's anachronistic and a basic misunderstanding of the word and concept of anamnesis. This is not us remembering, but us participating, making present His sacrifice. This is the literal meaning. Israel did not merely remember the passover, but they re-enacted it, and the words of the ritual are spoken in the present tense. Christ's command to do this in [anamnesis] of Me would have been heard by His apostles and understood in the ritual context of worship which they were intimately familiar. Not a mere intellectual recall of past events, but in making those events real and present in our lives. Thus when St Paul invokes that command in 1 Cor 11, he says - for whenever you do this, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. There is a connection between this making presence and covenant, and it is the same as the Hebrew word zikkaron, which is almost always connected to temple sacrifice.

---

Thank you for this! I learned something and I need to think about it further.

Zobel said:

---

Memorialists don't believe anything is "happening" in communion. I said baptists, so maybe it is best to be specific. But most people who invoke a symbolic view don't believe in the Presence of the Lord, that it is in truth His Body and Blood, that it is "just a symbol", that it is not salvific, it does not impart grace, it is not for the forgiveness of sins, it is not for life everlasting.

---

There are two statements at odds here. You said in a previous post that they don't believe that anything is happening. Now you equate that to your list of beliefs above. My only point is those two statements are not equivalent. They can believe that something is happening without affirming the above items. I realize that you disagree with their view of what is actually happening, but that's not what you said.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

would you scold her for disobedience because she did not fully grasp your rationale?

---

If my kid misunderstood me, and once reprimanded decided it was better to leave the family than accept instruction, who would be in the wrong? This is a 10000% matter of schism in clear terms over what is a matter of clear historical and theological unity for centuries.

Quote:

---

So much so that he would reject their obedience as being a materially different faith altogether.

---

I'm more concerned about the disobedience.

---

You're equating a conscious choice to turn ones back on the family of God (which is what that would be in the analogy) with people seeking to obey and drawn near to God in ways that are, in your view, inadequate.

You are more concerned about the disobedience, but God is more concerned with our hearts (ref. any number of passages here).

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I simply believe that God receives our acts of devotion and our efforts at obedience as a loving father - always desiring us to mature more fully while also joyfully watching us stumble forward.

---

We can just use this to allow any and all beliefs and practices. There are limits and definitions to what is and is not the historical faith as the prophets foretold, as Christ revealed, as the Apostles taught, and as the fathers dogmatized. The Eucharist is a pretty key part of the Christian faith.

---

Not really. An effort at obedience has to reference an instruction that was given. Since we have the scriptures, we can't just make up instructions. We reference instructions that God gave. So God instructs us to "do this in remembrance of me." Out of my love for and devotion to Him as my Lord, I seek to obedient to that. So I try to figure out how to do so most faithfully and maybe I misunderstand some things or receive bad council. But I do the best I can with the resources I have. THAT is an effort at obedience that any loving father would accept. How much more the God of beggars and thieves?

On the other hand, we can't call anything and everything an effort at obedience because we can only attempt to obey instructions that are actually given.

Maybe we're actually discussing two separate things. You're trying to give a strict definition of and identify the boundary lines around a certain category (the historical faith). That is an important conversation, but not the one I'm trying to have in this thread. Originally, I was just trying to understand the theological rationale of those who have communion less than weekly. However, the conversation took a turn and I'm now trying to discuss how a gracious God views his children when they accidentally fail to color in the lines. Your comments (and some others) seemed to be very dismissive - even judgmental - of the sincere attempts at obedience that my brothers and sisters are making. I don't think that response reflects the heart of God for his children.

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:

---

The RCC and Orthodox view on the Eucharist is functionally identical. Transubstantiation is not a deal breaker for being in communion, and that is not what caused or continues schism.

---

I stand corrected.

In reply to jaborch99

Quote:

---

There are two statements at odds here. You said in a previous post that they don't believe that anything is happening. Now you equate that to your list of beliefs above. My only point is those two statements are not equivalent. They can believe that something is happening without affirming the above items. I realize that you disagree with their view of what is actually happening, but that's not what you said.

---

When I said they don't believe anything is happening it was shorthand - they don't believe that the actual ritual act is doing anything, that the bread and wine themselves are not special or particular, that they are only symbols. The ritual is an odd appendage that they do because Jesus said so (which is admirable in its own way) but its done merely for that fact and not for any particular value it has in itself.

Quote:

---

You're equating a conscious choice to turn ones back on the family of God (which is what that would be in the analogy) with people seeking to obey and drawn near to God in ways that are, in your view, inadequate.

You are more concerned about the disobedience, but God is more concerned with our hearts (ref. any number of passages here).

---

You're only able to claim ignorance as long as you are ignorant. I don't judge people, but I do recognize that at some point the schism perpetuates because people refuse. In my opinion, knowing what we know today about the historical church, and with the wealth of patristic and historical evidence, there is no excuse for certain forms of heretical beliefs about the Eucharist to persist.

Disobedience is a matter of the heart. God commands obedience - extremely exacting, and specific obedience - from His people. And this absolutely extends to not only the intent of their worship but also the means. If anything, the means are a way to lead us to intent, the strict attention paid to examine the worthiness of the sacrifice leads us to understand the gravity of the examination we make of ourselves. The strict attention required of the priests in their sacrifice shows us how seriously we should take this subject in our own worship.

Separating from the Eucharist is literally separation from Christ and His Body, because it is precisely through the Eucharist that we are in communion par excellence. Denying it is denying Him. Unity is found through Him, and the NT is clear that it is precisely in and through the Eucharist that we are one. Just as circumcision (or marriage to a circumcised man) and eating the Passover is what made one an Israelite, the Eucharist is part of what makes one a Christian. This is an extremely serious and grave subject, and this topic alone is worth any effort to reconcile.

Quote:

---

Since we have the scriptures, we can't just make up instructions

---

I mean, the irony of this is pretty telling. Modern protestant worship looks nothing like the worship of the Apostles, almost by intent. Modern non-Eucharistic worship is actually not even worship, strictly speaking, because worship always involves sacrifice in the scriptures. It is in a way a denial of worship, anti-worship in the Greek sense (the thing other than). The scriptures are clear: THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD. Christian interpretation of these words was unanimous and unequivocal for centuries.

We are not called to "figure out how to do" anything. We are called to be obedient and submit to our spiritual leaders.

That doesn't mean God doesn't honor the intent. But just as God's grace is not a license for sin, it is not license for continued rebellion and active disobedience. "Do this in remembrance of me" is a command, is it not? Should we make sure we follow it exactly? Isn't a promise of the Spirit that we will walk in His statutes, keep His ordinances and obey them, and in that be His people and He our God?

If we can't agree on this most central and in a way most basic command - the hallmark of Christian worship, the fulfillment of the Torah, the culmination and end of the Law, the sacrifice and celebration of the Lord's death and resurrection... what are we even doing here? You have to jettison the entire understanding of fellowship, hospitality, celebration, gift giving, mutual relationship, pledging of self and obedience that is the reality of sacrifice in the OT and in the NT.

Priests are bound to the altar they serve - this is part of the meaning of the ordination of a priest in the Torah, where the blood is marked on the priest's ear, thumb, and big toes, and the altar. We are bound to the table of the Lord, and in the sacrifice our priesthood is actualized. We are participating in His priesthood, through Him, and in His sacrifice, in ourselves. St Paul says offering ourselves as living sacrifice is our form of rational worship. This is what we do in anamnesis every Divine Liturgy. What altar do these people serve? At some point it is a denial of the very essence of the thing.

Without this, apart from all of this understanding, I genuinely believe the Apostles would absolutely understand people who have a separate worship, a separate teaching, a separate or even no altar, and no sacrifice at all, to be practicing a different faith. It looks nothing at all like that of Israel, given by the same Yahweh who became Man and was crucified for us.

In reply to jaborch99

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sincere question re the title of the original post: why refer to it as "Eucharist" unless it's a sacrifice? I suppose it's possible to have an understanding that it is a communion even if it's only a symbol, but I don't see how it could be Eucharist if it's not a sacrifice.

---

Eucharist means thanksgiving, does it not? I don't consider it only a symbol, but even those who di can see it as an occasion for thanksgiving.

---

Agreed. Thanksgiving. Eucharistia in greek. But giving thanks by doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice? The reason the early church refered to it as a sacrifice and a thanksgiving is because they understood the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Jesus in a mysterious, miraculous way. So, when the bread and wine were consecrated and presented to God, the gift offered to God in thanksgiving went from bread and wine to the only thing truly worthy of God: himself.

Moreover, Eucharist involves an offering of self united to the perfect pascal sacrifice of Christ. Not that we add anything to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, which is being offered to the Father on our behalf, but we are invited to unite ourselves with Christ's offering of himself, his sacrifice, in thanksgiving to the Father.

There is also the sacramental aspect of Eucharist which is God offering himself right back to us in the form of the consecrated host, with which we commune with or partake of the divine nature and over time become what we consume.

---

Again, I do not hold a memorialist/symbolic view of communion. However, I am tolerant of it as a legitimate expression of Christian faith..

You ask, "By doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice?" By acting in obedience to Jesus' command to "do this in remembrance of me." Again, the memorialist/symbolic view may not provide the same layers of meaning as transubstantiation and consubstantiation do, but it is a bit disingenuous to claim that those who hold that view have no reason for thanksgiving when obediently observing the ritual of communion and focusing on the sacrifice that it represents.

---

Sorry. Didn't intend to be unkind. My apologies.

I'm saying that when Jesus said "Do this in memory of me" that statement was immediately preceded by "take and eat. This is my body. Take and drink. This is my blood." So the doing IT was specifically in reference to that and it was more than just a memorial.

I'm simply saying that if you take the way the church generally understood the Eucharist for the first 1,500 years of its existence, it included a sacrificial aspect that was underpinned by the offering of the Jesus's body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. That's what Eucharist meant historically and still means today in most Christian churches around the world. If that's how you understand it then by all means continue using Eucharist to describe it.

---

Are Orthodox Christians allowed to use the term eucharist even though they have just as high a view of church history/tradition as Catholics (arguably higher) yet take a view that is far less dogmatic, and possibly not even transubstation at all? (Orthodox posters, feel free to correct me if I'm off here). Or are Catholics the only ones who are allowed to use the term in your view?

---

The Roman Catholic Church and those churches in communion with it and the Orthodox Churches are nearly, if not exactly, identical in their understanding of the Eucharist. When I read Zobel's post above I thought "yep, yep, yep" to literally everything he said.

East and west split tragically, but the differences were not about how we understood what Catholics call the Liturgy of the Eucharist and what Orthodox call Divine Liturgy. There's practically no light between us.

In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Sincere question re the title of the original post: why refer to it as "Eucharist" unless it's a sacrifice? I suppose it's possible to have an understanding that it is a communion even if it's only a symbol, but I don't see how it could be Eucharist if it's not a sacrifice.

---

Eucharist means thanksgiving, does it not? I don't consider it only a symbol, but even those who di can see it as an occasion for thanksgiving.

---

Agreed. Thanksgiving. Eucharistia in greek. But giving thanks by doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice? The reason the early church refered to it as a sacrifice and a thanksgiving is because they understood the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Jesus in a mysterious, miraculous way. So, when the bread and wine were consecrated and presented to God, the gift offered to God in thanksgiving went from bread and wine to the only thing truly worthy of God: himself.

Moreover, Eucharist involves an offering of self united to the perfect pascal sacrifice of Christ. Not that we add anything to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, which is being offered to the Father on our behalf, but we are invited to unite ourselves with Christ's offering of himself, his sacrifice, in thanksgiving to the Father.

There is also the sacramental aspect of Eucharist which is God offering himself right back to us in the form of the consecrated host, with which we commune with or partake of the divine nature and over time become what we consume.

---

Again, I do not hold a memorialist/symbolic view of communion. However, I am tolerant of it as a legitimate expression of Christian faith..

You ask, "By doing what and offering what in thanksgiving? Offering God some crackers and grape juice?" By acting in obedience to Jesus' command to "do this in remembrance of me." Again, the memorialist/symbolic view may not provide the same layers of meaning as transubstantiation and consubstantiation do, but it is a bit disingenuous to claim that those who hold that view have no reason for thanksgiving when obediently observing the ritual of communion and focusing on the sacrifice that it represents.

---

Sorry. Didn't intend to be unkind. My apologies.

I'm saying that when Jesus said "Do this in memory of me" that statement was immediately preceded by "take and eat. This is my body. Take and drink. This is my blood." So the doing IT was specifically in reference to that and it was more than just a memorial.

I'm simply saying that if you take the way the church generally understood the Eucharist for the first 1,500 years of its existence, it included a sacrificial aspect that was underpinned by the offering of the Jesus's body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. That's what Eucharist meant historically and still means today in most Christian churches around the world. If that's how you understand it then by all means continue using Eucharist to describe it.

---

Are Orthodox Christians allowed to use the term eucharist even though they have just as high a view of church history/tradition as Catholics (arguably higher) yet take a view that is far less dogmatic, and possibly not even transubstation at all? (Orthodox posters, feel free to correct me if I'm off here). Or are Catholics the only ones who are allowed to use the term in your view?

---

The Roman Catholic Church and those churches in communion with it and the Orthodox Churches are nearly, if not exactly, identical in their understanding of the Eucharist. When I read Zobel's post above I thought "yep, yep, yep" to literally everything he said.

East and west split tragically, but the differences were not about how we understood what Catholics call the Liturgy of the Eucharist and what Orthodox call Divine Liturgy. There's practically no light between us.

---

I stand doubly corrected.

I'll try to find the article I read from an Orthodox cleric that gave me a different impression.

Just to be clear... Is transubstantiation the shared view?

In reply to jaborch99 Transubstantiation is a kind of scholastic philosophical exercise which seeks to systematically explain the change. That there is a change is agreed, and that it is the body and blood of Christ is agreed. The rigor of the definition is different - the East tends to err on the side of silence. But the Greek equivalent metaousios is used by the eastern fathers as well. It's just not strictly dogmatized.

Ive plagiarized / posted this before but here is a list of terms used to describe the Eucharist by orthodox writers

an anointing (chrisis Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homily 16.12, ST 145, 553);
a becoming (genesis Serapion of Thmuis, "Prayer of the Offering," The Sacramentary of Serapion [Thessaloniki: 1967], 125);
a blessing (eulogia Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great: "And bless [these Gifts] and sanctify them and show them to be);
a bringing into sight (hyp'opsin agoge Dionysios the Areopagite, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia 3.3.2-13, PG 3, 444A-444C);
a completion (teleiosis Germanos of Constantinople, Historia Ecclesiastica, et Mystica Contemplatio PG 98, 437A);
a consecration (hierourga Gregory of Nyssa, In Baptismum Christi, PG 46, 581C);
a conversion (conversio Ambrose of Milan, De Sacramentis 4.5.23, SC 25, 114);
a divinization (theourgia Theodore the Studite, Epistolarum 2.203, PG 99, 1617C);
a descending upon/dwelling in (epidemia Serapion of Thmuis, "Prayer of the Offering," The Sacramentary of Serapion, 125);
an immixture (emmixis Eutychios of Constantinople, Sermo de Paschate et de Eucharistia 2, PG 86-2, 2393C);
a making (poiesis Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogiae 5.7, SC 126, 154);
a making-divine (theopoiesis Symeon the New Theologion, Ethical Discourses 3, SC 122, 428);
a manifestation (apophansis Irenaius of Lyons, Fragmenta 38, PG 7, 1253B);
a mutation (mutatio Ambrose of Milan, De Mysteriis 9.52 SC 25bis, 186);
a sanctification (hagiasmos Mark of Ephesus, De Corpore et Sanguine Christi, PG 160, 1080A);
a sending upon (katapempsis Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom);
a showing forth (anadeixis Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sancto 27.66, SC 17bis, 480);
a transelementation (metastoicheiosis Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio Catechetica 37, PG 45, 97B);
a transformation (metaskeue John of Damascus, Vita Barlaam et Joasaph, PG 96, 1032A);
a transmutation (metabole Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom; Theodoret of Cyr, Eranistes 1, PG 83, 56B);
a transorientation (metarrythmisis John Chrysostom, De Proditione Iudae 1.6, PG 49, 380);
a transubstantiation (metousiosis Gennadios Scholarios, De Sacramentali Corpore Christi 1, PG 160, 360C);
a transversion (metapoiesis Cyril of Alexandria, In Mattheum 26.27, PG 72, 452C);
a uniting (syzeuxis Samonas of Gaza, De Sacramento Altaris, PG 120, 829B);
a visitation (epiphoitesis John Chrysostom, On John 45.2, PG 59, 253).