Ship of Fools: Do this to remember me

Thread: Do this to remember me Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025231

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

How do you interpret this phrase

Do you recall the first meal?

Do you bring the meal forward to today?

Do you participate in the meal as if you were back there and then?

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Wow. I've often thought that some aspects of this meal have been lost in translation. A few years back, for Maundy Thursday, our church actually had a meal. Lamb Stew in edible brad bowls and red wine -not a full Passover Seder as some Christians also do, but the idea was to take time to reflect and discuss - to bond with one another and "remember the Lord's death until He comes." At the end of the meal we broke brad and took the cup together.

I think the Corinthians fouled this one up for us, but to be sure it would be cumbersome today, and only suited for special occasions.

In a more protracted and informal setting like that, I think there is more time to reflect on, and discuss the events, the incredible courage of our Savior, the cruelty afforded Him (that exists in us all), the incomprehensible Love that would do such a thing to make things right between creature and Creator. We can learn from one another and build one another up, as the Book says.

Communion recalls the model for how we are to act as Christians, for we all sin against one another and God - yet He who did no sin took it upon Himself to come to us to make things right from His side, to offer relationship to Himself. If a blameless One can do that, should we not more do so with one another?

So to more directly answer your questions, Yes, I do often recall the first meal. I am amazed that in this simple celebration I am united with a great cloud of witnesses. And yes, I do try too look at it as the apostles must have - that's hard, we know the end of the story, they did not.

But most of all I reflect on the Lord and what He did, what He wants me to do (love Him & my neighbor), and the glorious fact that He has won, and will be coming back again. And somehow in that, He has promised to make me more like Himself.

The Peace of Christ to you,

Tom

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I grew up in a little church that took a memorialist view of communion. Trays of wee cuppies of grape juice were passed around, words were said, and we thoughtfully drank. Then trays of broken cracker bits were passed around, more words were said, and we thoughtfully ate. Normally, did this 4 times a year.

I like both that way and the liturgical "come on up to the front" style.

One advantage to memorialist way: it's not a Major Crisis if juice is spilt or crackers crumble onto the floor. They're not Jesus. It would be embarassing, but not a calamity.

FWIW.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

In my High-Anglican/ a little-bit Anglo-Catholic church we celebrate the Real Presence Eucharist weekly, using wafer bread and (for those who partake) wine.

In my house we certainly have no tradition of anything like a formal, celebratory meal except for a slighly more "formal" Sunday lunch (we have a pudding afterwards!).

[ 28. March 2013, 09:20: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
How do you interpret this phrase

Do you recall the first meal?

Do you bring the meal forward to today?

Do you participate in the meal as if you were back there and then?

I used to think that it meant the Lord's Supper was a memorial, but some years ago, High Church Anglicans told me that a proper interpretation of "Do this is remembrance of me" would be "Do this to make me real," or "present."

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

Jesus was a Jew.

Stating the obvious, but some Christians seem to be oblivious to this basic fact about Him. The depth and reality of how Jewish Jesus is didn't hit me until I saw a wonderful demonstration of the Passover by a Messianic Jew ... and boy, did a lightbulb go on. [Smile]

Several, in fact. [Cool]

Holy Communion is deeply rooted in the symbolism of Passover, symbolism that Jesus very deliberately applied to Himself.

At the same time, I do think that Communion is a 'bit more' than Passover. Jesus was instituting a New Covenant (deeply rooted in the Old), through what He was about to do.

We can't go back in time and see how exactly that secretive Passover meal played out and see exactly what Jesus and His disciples were wearing. But we don't need to, as long as we don't divorce this holy meal from its Jewish origins. We have His words. He told us to do it, to remember Him, and so we do it because we want to love and honour Him. Even more than that, Communion expresses a living reality, the life of Jesus within us.

Communion is both sacred and intimate. Whether Christians take the sacramental view of the elements, i.e. the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine, or the 'memorialist' view, Communion is special and holy for Christians of all stripes. Because it's all about what He did for us.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I used to think that it meant the Lord's Supper was a memorial, but some years ago, High Church Anglicans told me that a proper interpretation of "Do this is remembrance of me" would be "Do this to make me real," or "present."

There is a thread on this topic in Limbo.

Moo

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I used to think that it meant the Lord's Supper was a memorial, but some years ago, High Church Anglicans told me that a proper interpretation of "Do this is remembrance of me" would be "Do this to make me real," or "present."
There is a thread on this topic in Limbo.

Moo

That thread starts by saying that according to Anglican definitions, 'Anamnesis' means, 'to make effectively present', thus affirming the Real Presence. I don't know if this is actually the Anglican official statement on the matter. Does anyone know of a source for this? The wikipedia article on anamnesis says only that it means 'to remind, to recall', nothing about 'making present'.

IMO Christ is always spiritually present within Christians. I believe that communion assists us to recall that presence, both by its symbolism of existing spritual facts, and its referencing back to historical facts. But it is a remembrance, a calling to mind, of that which is already true, it does not have any effect beyond that.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
IMO Christ is always spiritually present within Christians.

We believe that too. We also believe he is present in the Elements of Communion in a different way than that.

Just as God is everywhere present, but when our Lord was incarnate, he was different from other men, and that difference had to do with the presence of God. There's present, and there's present.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We had an interesting discussion during a men's breakfast meeting where our Anglican group heard from a Mennonite minister. Mennonite is proportionally large denomination in western Canada. There are some different subdivisions, with the dominant one here being extremely conscious of social gospel matters, and doing tangible things to make life better.

The perspective added to my understanding of communion, eucharist etc, was the inclusive nature of it. All received the bread and wine, and it is a reflection of Jesus' other inclusive acts, such as feeding everyone with loaves and fishes, willingness to associate with diseased people and hated people. It may be at times a stretch of the actual stories as recorded, and an interpretation to fit the point made, but it is a good point.

I am uncomfortable with excessive veneration of the eucharist itself, but cannot resolve a tension among memorialism, real presence, sacrifice, and the social context. It seems to me to be one of the "mysteries of faith", with mysteries being things which our modern society should be solved, an oft unfortunate orientation.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

My take on it is somewhat different. I suppose George Macleod is responsible with his "re-member" but I was struggling before that, and that was just a legs up.

The answer I have there is that the sharing of the meal is part of becoming the body of Christ. My emphasis would therefore be on the sacrificial meal as a shared event with all eating together rather than on the elements as sacrifice. As a place of community (common and unity at play there), and as an echo of the ceremony of covenanting.

Jengie

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
IMO Christ is always spiritually present within Christians.
We believe that too. We also believe he is present in the Elements of Communion in a different way than that.

Just as God is everywhere present, but when our Lord was incarnate, he was different from other men, and that difference had to do with the presence of God. There's present, and there's present.

See, that's where you lose me I'm afraid. I get how Christ can be spiritually present in us, and how God could be present in Jesus, since we, and Jesus, are alive, and have minds and souls that respond to Him, and resonate with Him. But how can inanimate objects contain the presence of God in any sense other than the fact that God is omnipresent? I agree God is in the wafer, but he is also in the plate holding the wafer, the box they came in, and the wrapping that's been thrown out with the recycling, in the sense that all creation bears the image of its creator. But how is God 'more' present in the wafer than that?

I strongly suspect I just don't understand what you mean by presence. Is it explainable?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

How could the ground Moses stood on be holy? How can the altar in the temple be more holy than the ground out back? How can the Ark of the Covenant be holy, but the box in the next tent not? I guess it's a question of whether you think the holiness of these things is metaphorical or real?

The Biblical evidence is that God was more present in the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire than in the surrounding countryside. More present on the mercy seat than in other parts of the temple/tabernacle, let alone the world outside it.

Can I explain what "God's presence" means? No, other than to say that he is present through his energies, which is an Orthodox buzzword meaning roughly that he makes himself present in our world in ways we can experience (kinda circular). To know exactly how that is accomplished, we'd have to know a heck of a lot more about God than we have been given. So we take at face value, and just say he can be more present in some places than in others.

[ 28. March 2013, 17:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

Here's something I find curious about Protestants who hold a memorialist view of the Eucharist. Probably none of them would hesitate to affirm that the Church *is* the Body of Christ--the Bible says so. Yet they tend to back off any similar affirmation that the Communion bread *is* Christ's Body or the wine (or grape juice) *is* his Blood--even though Jesus says "this is my body" and "this is my blood." I'd chalk this up to anti-Catholic bias, but I wanted to throw it out there to get any other points of view.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The operative word is 'this'.

Do THIS in remembrance of me, referring, of course, to the food and situation before them.

In other words, in the context of a new covenant and the old covenant, Jesus is saying, when he took the third cup of wine, instead of remembering the exodus when you have a passover meal, remember me.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
of course

There is no "of course" in theology or Christian practice.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The operative word is 'this'.

Do THIS in remembrance of me, referring, of course, to the food and situation before them.

In other words, in the context of a new covenant and the old covenant, Jesus is saying, when he took the third cup of wine, instead of remembering the exodus when you have a passover meal, remember me.

Is it? Is that what the Greek actually says? It's a genuine question - I don't know Greek. But it's my understanding that the subject of that sentence in English is not necessarily the same as in the Greek. Of course what you interpret it as saying may well be the case, but it's not the only possible explanation.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The question is, when Jesus said 'do this...' what was he doing?

He was 'doing' the passover meal, and specifically he was holding one of the four cups of wine or one of the pieces of unleavened bread that were rich in 'Exodus symbolism.' These things were done in remembrance of that Exodus.

Jesus was changing the meaning.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Here's something I find curious about Protestants who hold a memorialist view of the Eucharist. Probably none of them would hesitate to affirm that the Church *is* the Body of Christ--the Bible says so. Yet they tend to back off any similar affirmation that the Communion bread *is* Christ's Body or the wine (or grape juice) *is* his Blood--even though Jesus says "this is my body" and "this is my blood." I'd chalk this up to anti-Catholic bias, but I wanted to throw it out there to get any other points of view.

Yes - I've realised the same things myself. Once you start to think this way, you wonder how you couldn't see it before, or understood it all in such a seemingly muted, impotent way.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The operative word is 'this'.

Do THIS in remembrance of me, referring, of course, to the food and situation before them.

In other words, in the context of a new covenant and the old covenant, Jesus is saying, when he took the third cup of wine, instead of remembering the exodus when you have a passover meal, remember me.
Is it? Is that what the Greek actually says? It's a genuine question - I don't know Greek. But it's my understanding that the subject of that sentence in English is not necessarily the same as in the Greek. Of course what you interpret it as saying may well be the case, but it's not the only possible explanation.

Just had a look at the Luke passage--it's clearly "you [plural] do this [thing] ". You don't need to specify what thing "this" refers to, anymire than you do in the English. The immediate context of actions will tell the hearers what is meant. ( and I have a hard time imagining that the Twelve eyewitnesses and tge whole church descended from them got it wrong, while at this end of history somebody else has figured out what he rea,ly meant.)

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Thanks to both Mudfrog and Lamb Chopped for clarification.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I thing we need to take a look at the Greek word anamnesis. While most English translations have it as "remembrance," it means much more than recalling or even re-enacting something of the past. It actually means taking the past and making it present once again. Time stops momentarily and past and present become the same.

Likewise, when the Jews celebrate Passover, they are suspending time and bringing their whole history to the present.

I have also seen these with the Armenians. Mention the Armenian Holocaust to one and it is like they are still experiencing it.

Anyway, on this side of the world we will be concluding Mandy Thursday. Good Friday is upon us. Three days from now will be Easter Sunday.

Remember. Past and Present are the same.

Peace

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Here's something I find curious about Protestants who hold a memorialist view of the Eucharist. Probably none of them would hesitate to affirm that the Church *is* the Body of Christ--the Bible says so. Yet they tend to back off any similar affirmation that the Communion bread *is* Christ's Body or the wine (or grape juice) *is* his Blood--even though Jesus says "this is my body" and "this is my blood." I'd chalk this up to anti-Catholic bias, but I wanted to throw it out there to get any other points of view.

In the American Baptist church I attended in my youth the pastor always quoted from 1 Corinthians ("this is my body which is broken for you ... this cup is the new covenant in my blood"), though admittedly I can't tell if he used the word "is" with asterisks or not.

I had thought this was pretty much the standard -are you saying that in memorialist congregations, communion is often performed without such quotations? If so, I rather wonder what they say instead - "over the teeth, past the gums, look out stomach, here it comes"?

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The question is, when Jesus said 'do this...' what was he doing?

He was 'doing' the passover meal, and specifically he was holding one of the four cups of wine or one of the pieces of unleavened bread that were rich in 'Exodus symbolism.' These things were done in remembrance of that Exodus.

I hold as follows:

1) The Last Supper was not a Passover banquet. I accept the Johannine chronology as the more historically plausible, even though John's chronology is just as theologically motivated as the synoptic authors'.

2) Even if the Last Supper had been a Passover banquet, the use of exactly four cups of wine is not attested until much later, when it is prescribed in the Mishnah.

3) Whether it was a Passover banquet or not, the occasion would have included a bread-blessing before the meal (compare Acts 27.35) and, after the meal, a blessing-after-food, in this case with a cup of benediction. Paul says that a cup was shared "after supper", "in the same way" as the bread had been. I take "in the same way" to mean that he gave thanks over the cup as he had over the bread. Luke's "likewise" also implies that Jesus gave thanks over that after-supper cup as he had with the former cup and with the bread. Paul also calls the cup a "cup of benediction", and explicitly states that Christians "bless" it. Chistianity's Jewish inheritance seems the most likely source of such a custom. Also, Sirach 33.13 and Jubilees 22.6 seem to refer to the custom of a blessing-after-food.

4) On the basis of Sirach, Jubilees, and the later Didache, I conclude that the blessing-after-food,at the time of the Last Supper, had no fixed words, but had conventional subject-matter in some Jewish circles. The leader would give thanks to God in his own words for (a) creation and (b) food (possibly quoting Psalm 145.16). Jubilees implies that on a festival day the leader might add "we thank you, O our God, who hast brought us to this day."

5) When Jesus instructed his disciples to "do this in remembrance", he meant: When in the future they gathered for a meal they were to give thanks over the bread beforehand in words that explicitly remembered him; and afterward, the blessing-after-food over a cup of benediction was also to contain words of thanksgiving that explicitly remembered him.

6) The rite evolved to its present form in which the meal itself was omitted, and only the bread, wine, and blessings in Jesus' name remained. I think this was a loss in some ways, but reviving the earlier custom would be hard; it could only work well in small gatherings.

[ 29. March 2013, 03:32: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In the American Baptist church I attended in my youth the pastor always quoted from 1 Corinthians ("this is my body which is broken for you ... this cup is the new covenant in my blood"){....}

I had thought this was pretty much the standard -are you saying that in memorialist congregations, communion is often performed without such quotations? If so, I rather wonder what they say instead - "over the teeth, past the gums, look out stomach, here it comes"?

In my experience, some people say: "Let us eat the bread, remembering that Christ died for us." etc. At more length, they will explain that the bread and the cup are simply props, memory aids, to remind us about the events of the gospel. They specifically shy away from any mention of eating Christ's "body" or drinking Christ's "blood", despite the Pauline verse about "is it not a fellowship in the body/blood of Christ?" (1 Cor 10.16)

They don't believe they receive anything by eating and drinking - they simply believe that they are deliberately thinking about Christ while they eat and drink and as a result receive whatever blessing comes from such solemn thinking. Perhaps communion, in their understanding, could be viewed as a form of meditation with food and drink as an aid to being mindful.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In the American Baptist church I attended in my youth the pastor always quoted from 1 Corinthians ("this is my body which is broken for you ... this cup is the new covenant in my blood"){....}

I had thought this was pretty much the standard -are you saying that in memorialist congregations, communion is often performed without such quotations? If so, I rather wonder what they say instead - "over the teeth, past the gums, look out stomach, here it comes"?
In my experience, some people say: "Let us eat the bread, remembering that Christ died for us." etc. At more length, they will explain that the bread and the cup are simply props, memory aids, to remind us about the events of the gospel. They specifically shy away from any mention of eating Christ's "body" or drinking Christ's "blood", despite the Pauline verse about "is it not a fellowship in the body/blood of Christ?" (1 Cor 10.16)

They don't believe they receive anything by eating and drinking - they simply believe that they are deliberately thinking about Christ while they eat and drink and as a result receive whatever blessing comes from such solemn thinking. Perhaps communion, in their understanding, could be viewed as a form of meditation with food and drink as an aid to being mindful.

IME, they say the "words of institution" (Body and Blood quotes). They believe that God is always there, so it's not a matter of special presence.

As to why not take it more literally: when I was a kid, I figured out that this was a difference in which verses you take literally. E.g., RCs take those verses literally (in one way or another), and fundamentalist Protestants take other verses literally.

And...well, in the RC mass, the priest says "Lord accept this sacrifice at my hands", etc. Memorialists think that Jesus was sacrificed once for all, and think that anything else is wayyyyy off base.

*Sometimes*, there's knee-jerk anti-Catholicism. OTOH, many memorialists are fine with RCs as fellow Christians. But the theology of Communion/Eucharist is a serious sticking point. (My church thought the Baptists were wrong, too--though about different things!)

FWIW.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:

5) When Jesus instructed his disciples to "do this in remembrance", he meant: When in the future they gathered for a meal they were to give thanks over the bread beforehand in words that explicitly remembered him; and afterward, the blessing-after-food over a cup of benediction was also to contain words of thanksgiving that explicitly remembered him.

6) The rite evolved to its present form in which the meal itself was omitted, and only the bread, wine, and blessings in Jesus' name remained. I think this was a loss in some ways, but reviving the earlier custom would be hard; it could only work well in small gatherings.

This would actually be my view now, as a Salvationist. We would suggest that all meals can be a time and place where Christ is remembered.

From what I read about Jesus I hesitate to believe that Jesus instituted a binding ceremony, a ritual, upon which our salvation and state of grace depended.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Putting "do this" into the context of a Passover meal (which the Last Supper may well not have been anyway) seems to miss the real point: putting those words into the context of what had just happened. Jesus said "this is my body ... this is my blood". Surely that is the primary context into which to put those words. Surely those things - "this is my body ... this is my blood ... do this" can't be separated.

Some people find the words about body and blood to be incomprehensible, unacceptable, or even offensive. My advice to them would be to read chapter 6 of John's gospel.

Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some people find the words about body and blood to be incomprehensible, unacceptable, or even offensive. My advice to them would be to read chapter 6 of John's gospel.

Some people are very useful as moral compasses. If you offend them, you know you're doing the right thing.

Posted by Pilot Light (# 17549) on :

Back in my student days it was the daring thing to do to hold an "agape meal" - don't know if people still do it! Our student house put out an invitation, and we borrowed a stack of cushions from the chaplaincy, (so everyone could sit comfortably on the floor) and served up a meal to everyone. We had some key readings and prayers as we sat then shared the bread and wine together. It was a most moving and powerful occasion and I recommend it to anyone. There were probably around 30 people at it.

My two penn'orth regarding the act of communion is this: as any parent knows, trying to get kids to eat can often be very trying. This got me thinking about the act of receiving communion, in that we take something into ourselves which will literally become part of our bodies (ie eat!) and in that same way we take Christ into ourselves to be part of us - there is an act of submission and trust in the physical act of eating. So whilst I can't go with transubstantiation, I do fully accept the duality of the physical and holy presence in communion.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
From what I read about Jesus I hesitate to believe that Jesus instituted a binding ceremony, a ritual, upon which our salvation and state of grace depended.

Straw horse. I don't know any Catholic, Anglican, or Orthodox who would say that either.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0