Comments on: Communion – Getting it Sorted

By: the rev

the rev — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:39:21 +0000

Mark R,

It is my opinion that you always start with Jesus and work your way out from there. Never the other way around.

rev

By: Mark r

Mark r — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:44:55 +0000

is it in the Old Testament we should begin to look for meaning on this topic as it unfolds in the New?

By: Gav

Gav — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:53:33 +0000

I blame my parents for where I was born I escaped to Perth 6 years ago!

Gav

By: Chris Kan

Chris Kan — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:41:54 +0000

You are from Sydney!

By: Jarrod McKenna

Jarrod McKenna — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:15:33 +0000

So you’ve found out who Calvin and Luther are Gav!

By: Gav

Gav — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:47:49 +0000

small correction: Luther was idiosyncratic on Lord’s Supper. Cranmer and the CoE’s (Anglicans) followed Calvin on the Lord’s Supper, the bread and wine feed the body, the gospel of Jesus to which they point as symbols, feed the soul. For Calvin and Cranmer the Lords’ supper is more than Anzac day ( a memorial if you take my meaning) Faith in the Gospel to which the bread and the wine point us feed the soul. Article XXVIII of the 39 arts.

Modern Anglican teaching went loopy after the enlightenment.

Gav the Anglican

By: Chris Kan

Chris Kan — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:29:34 +0000

That would be right Grendel.

A certain local theologian from my tradition, who best remain nameless here, maintians that all three eucharistic theologies can be maintained similtaneously. So celebrating communion can be seen in term of transubstantion (traditional catholic view a la Vatican 1), consubstantion (Luther / middle Anglican, and memorial (Baptist etc / Zwingli). I quite like that idea as it pulls down barriers between what “I” believe , and what “others” think.

By: Grendel

Grendel — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:05:30 +0000

I dunno she seems pretty coherent to me. . .

Hamo, from what I understand of catholic teaching Jesus in not just present at the ‘event’ but present in the host and the wine. From that perspective I think the Catholics get the best of both worlds in that they can have a sacremental and commemorative aspect. If you come at it from a commerative approach alone, that is all it can be and much of the mystery is lost.

By: Hamo

Hamo — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:42:02 +0000

Honestly John – I really don’t know!

I’d be interested to hear what you think. Its obviously not literal otherwise Jesus’ followers would have had a bit of roast thigh and type O for dinner!

As I re-read my thoughts on communion I may have distanced myself from sacramentalism a bit more than i intended.

I have no doubts Jesus can be present in this event – as in any event – but this has not been the way my thinking has been formed primarily so it is hard for me to ‘get’.

I recently read a book on ‘Baptist sacramentalism’ (an oxymoron not unlike ‘non violent cage fighter’) and I thought it made some good points, that we do see Christ as present in some things (eg preaching) but not others eg communion. I wonder if it is simply a product of tradition.

Please ignore the incoherent rantings of my wife

By: The Wife

The Wife — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:06:10 +0000

1987 – hmmm I didn’t know him then but I could give you a few clues Grendel. I could also give you multiple other dates, starting with yesterday!