Replies

FK: "With this approach the relationship appears far less personal and direct. Or, the personal relationship is really with people, present or departed, instead of with God."

Kolo: Certainly we have these relationships among ourselves and very much so with the saints. This isn't the end purpose of what The Church teaches, though it is very nice, rather The Church teaches that within the ecclesia at the Divine Liturgy, we partake of the true Body and Blood of Christ

I suppose for the Protestants it is difficult to see that the Communion is believed to be the most direct participation with God, even more so than through prayer, because to them communion is a ritual of memorial significance and not a sacrament (mysterion).

FK: "Likewise, the Orthodox embrace a "collectivist" approach to faith, but completely reject communism."

Kolo: The collectivist mindset of the early Church which the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have preserved, long preceded the communist perversion of that aspect of society.

Good answer, Kolo mou. However communism has no connection to Christian communion with God (i.e. becoming one with him through grace). Communism* is a Utopian state where all means of production and state wealth are supposed to be collectively owned and at a disposal of anyone who needs them. Of course no such state ever existed, except maybe in the most basic form on some California hippie commune.

*Distinguished from socialism, which is a transient state leading to communism in theory.

Speaking for myself I would agree with you in that I do not see how Communion would be superior to prayer in communicating with God. I suppose I see the Lord's Supper as a combination of remembrance, prayer, and ritual, with the prayer part being the communication.

Communism* is a Utopian state where all means of production and state wealth are supposed to be collectively owned and at a disposal of anyone who needs them. Of course no such state ever existed, except maybe in the most basic form on some California hippie commune.

Real life communism was tried by the Pilgrims at Plymouth. Here is an excerpt from The American Christian History Page:

"Just how do you suppose the Pilgrims became involved in communism in labor and supply? The answer to this question is simply that this was the way in which colonization was done at this time. In the Spring of the year 1620, the Pilgrims entered into a joint-stock enterprise with the Virginia Company of London. They were unhappy with some of the conditions of their contract, but it was the only way, at the time, to acquire the religious liberty which they so dearly desired. The particular condition in the contract that established a communism in labor and supply was: "That all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provision out of ye common stock & goods of ye said colony."

..................... Let us now look into Governor William Bradford's history Of Plimoth Plantation, and examine the picture which he so clearly draws of the evils of communism.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince, the vanity of that conceit of Plato & others ancients, applauded by some of later times; that ye taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community... was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort... The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals & cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter ye other could; this was thought unjust... As for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes & etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon ye point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in ye like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off ye mutual respect that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to ye course it self. I answer, seeing all men to have this corruption in them. God in His wisdom saw another course fiter for them." (emphasis added)

It failed miserably as could be expected, and soon free-enterprise took over. The Protestant work ethic had come to America.

No, it's not. Unlike most Catholics I've run into, we can see outside the box and have the ability to look at something from a perspective other than our own. Not to mention that many of us were raised and taught Catholic and remember what we were taught and what we believed.

Catholics as a group seem to be singularly incapable of getting outside the doctrines that have been hammered into their heads from birth and looking at it from another point of view.

I know what Catholics believe about communion and I disagree with it anyway, which I realize is beyond the comprehension of most Catholics.

There is this fallacy floating around which I've encountered quite often that goes along the lines of, *Well, you obviously don't understand ________, because if you did you would most certainly agree with us.* as if the evidence or reasoning is so compelling that if one only *KNEW* what the other person knew, that they would OF COURSE believe like them.

Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it.

That said, I find plenty of Scriptural support for the conclusion that the elements in communion are and remain simply bread and wine and are representative of Christ, just as they were in the Passover meal. Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong.

Now, if some Catholic could actually wrap their minds around that, ......