Communion and Catholics

[Pard]

So, I was invited to a Catholic mass and I went. They were doing communion (not sure if that's a thing they do every mass or if it's a monthly thing) and I got up to take part in it, because hey I take part in communion at my church, all that is required to take part in communion is to believe in Jesus Christ. I was told to sit down by my friend because I wasn't allowed to take part and then some elder came and said the same thing.

So what the heck? Do the Catholics really hate the rest of us Christians so much that they won't even allow us to share in communion? Communion is like the most "together" thing a Christian can do with other Christians. It's one bread and one wine and we all share. I don't get it. Why am I being forced to stay out of one of the most important things Christians do?

But we had some Catholics at my church and they shared in our communion with us, heck they didn't even wait to get invited, they just went on ahead (which is totally fine, just saying). So... double standard much?

Am I not Christian enough for the Catholic club?

 

[WIP]

I am not a member of the Catholic church. I was so I'm going on memory here and perhaps I am wrong about this but here's what I remember. The Catholic church does not recognize other Christian churches as members of the body of Christ. The Catholic church holds fast to tradition and procedures and someone from another denomination is not considered worthy to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion because they have not fulfilled what the Catholic church believes are the required steps.

This is not common to just Catholic denominations either. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod will not allow other Christians to participate in Holy Communion either. This is one of the reasons we are hesitant to consider LCMS in our quest for association for our congregation. We do not believe this is biblical. We believe there is more required than just believing in Christ (one must examine himself worthy and partake in worthy manner) but we do not necessarily believe one must be a member of said congregation, denomination, or synod to participate. In our congregation the invitation to Holy Communion goes out to all that have rightfully examined themselves, confessed and repented of their sins, and believe that Christ is himself present.

 

[handy]

I'm in the LCMS, and to tell the truth, their stance on closed Communion was one of my biggest struggles when going through classes to become a member. And, no, we couldn't take communion until we finished the classes and stood before the church and publicly agreed with the LCMS on what communion was all about.

I still don't wholly agree with closed Communion, but I do understand the reasons behind it, and I believe that the same reasons apply in the Catholic church as well.

It's not truly a matter of being "one of the club". It's much more a matter of what the Lutherans and the Catholics believe that communion is. We have some very eloquent Catholics on this forum who can speak to their doctrine, but I have come to an understanding regarding the Lutheran doctrine, at least enough to speak to it.

Many Protestants believe that the wine and bread in communion are simple symbols, more along the line of an "object lesson" to remember Christ's death on the cross.

For Lutherans, the sacrament goes much, much deeper. It starts with Christs words: "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." "Drink from it all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."

He does not say, this "represents" or this "is a symbol of" His body and blood, but that it is indeed His body and blood.

Now, I know that the Catholics have a doctrine of how, why, and when, the bread and wine become the body and blood....Lutherans don't. Lutherans basically say, "We believe that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of our Lord, because that's what He said it was...we don't fully understand the how, why and when, but we trust in what Jesus said."

Then Lutherans get onto what is the real issue, why we take communion in the first place and that is "for the forgiveness of sins." Again, this is taking Christ at His word and not trying to theorize exactly what He meant by that.

Just as Lutherans believe that God, in His work and His work alone, works salvation in our baptism, so we believe that He works, again His work and His work alone, forgiveness of our sins when we take communion.

Not that we are continually putting "Christ on the cross", no! Not at all...Christs sacrifice is wholly different than that of the OT animal sacrifices which needed to be repeated and repeated and repeated. There is no "putting Christ on the cross" again, because Christ is in heaven. But, He gave us communion as a remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross and it's working of forgiveness of sins, and the "remembrance" isn't just a nice little symbolic act that we do, to feel good about ourselves. The taking in of Christ's true body and true blood effects real forgiveness of sins.

Needless to say, there are a lot of Protestants who will disagree and disagree vehemently with this belief about communion. I'm sure we might even hear from some of them in this very thread.

OK.

But, the question is, why closed communion?

Neither Catholics nor Lutherans believe that communion is just a little puny snack that has an important yet wholly symbolic meaning tied to it. It is the body and blood of Christ that is given, not to all mankind, but to the Church and the Church alone. And, the Scriptures show us that communion isn't just something that we do alone in our locked closet, like prayer can be. It was given to the apostles and and the apostles taught the Church to come together to take it. Think of "communion" as being "a community in union".

So, say someone comes into an LCMS church or a Catholic church and sits there with the attitude of "Boy, you guys are so off base with this idea of that bread and wine up there being the actual body and blood of Christ and that if you take it, your sins are going to be cleansed. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Now, I'm gonna take communion, but I'm taking it on my understanding of what this means, not what you guys think it means."

The problem is, there isn't unity there. There isn't a unity of purpose or of belief. And the last place that Lutherans (or Catholics) want disunity of purpose or belief would be at the altar engaged in what is supposed to be one of the most intimate of acts between the Savior and His Bride.

Now, if this was all a truly symbolic act...well, there wouldn't be a reason not to say to someone, "Listen, if you don't agree with what were doing here, just bring your own thoughts to the table."

But, if communion were truly nothing more than a symbolic act, then why did people become sick and die for taking it unworthily? Is the Holy Spirit truly going to strike a person with judgement, even unto death, just because he misunderstood the symbolism of something?

Because God takes communion so seriously that He would even discipline with death over the matter, the LCMS closes the communion table to all except those who have taken the time to truly understand why we take communion, have examined one's own self in regards to communion and agree with it's purpose. Perhaps it errs in this, but it is erring on the side of caution.

Pard, as far as the Catholics who came to your church and took communion....if they did, they probably did so against the teaching of their church. I know in our church, our Pastor is pretty clear that, while there is no reason not to visit and enjoy visiting the churches of family and friends, we should stop short of joining them in communion for the same reason why our communion table is closed.

 

[Adullam]

Any system is systematic. They follow rules and guidelines. Don't expect a system to discern by the Spirit.

 

[Jake]

So, I was invited to a Catholic mass and I went. They were doing communion (not sure if that's a thing they do every mass or if it's a monthly thing) and I got up to take part in it, because hey I take part in communion at my church, all that is required to take part in communion is to believe in Jesus Christ. I was told to sit down by my friend because I wasn't allowed to take part and then some elder came and said the same thing.

So what the heck? Do the Catholics really hate the rest of us Christians so much that they won't even allow us to share in communion? Communion is like the most "together" thing a Christian can do with other Christians. It's one bread and one wine and we all share. I don't get it. Why am I being forced to stay out of one of the most important things Christians do?

But we had some Catholics at my church and they shared in our communion with us, heck they didn't even wait to get invited, they just went on ahead (which is totally fine, just saying). So... double standard much?

Am I not Christian enough for the Catholic club?

Where is Francis when you need him? j/k
according to such catholics as himself, we are rebel brothers and sisters, and by not pledging allegiance to their "one true church" we are unable to participate with the only church in the entire universe who really believes drinking His blood and eating His flesh, is really ONLY about that and it magically turns into the blood and flesh of Christ. The "one church" who does not nor ever will understand what it means to drink His blood and eat His flesh in the spiritual sense and the steps we must take in order to do those things.

 

[WIP]

I'm in the LCMS, and to tell the truth, their stance on closed Communion was one of my biggest struggles when going through classes to become a member. And, no, we couldn't take communion until we finished the classes and stood before the church and publicly agreed with the LCMS on what communion was all about.

I still don't wholly agree with closed Communion, but I do understand the reasons behind it, and I believe that the same reasons apply in the Catholic church as well.

It's not truly a matter of being "one of the club". It's much more a matter of what the Lutherans and the Catholics believe that communion is. We have some very eloquent Catholics on this forum who can speak to their doctrine, but I have come to an understanding regarding the Lutheran doctrine, at least enough to speak to it.

Many Protestants believe that the wine and bread in communion are simple symbols, more along the line of an "object lesson" to remember Christ's death on the cross.

For Lutherans, the sacrament goes much, much deeper. It starts with Christs words: "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." "Drink from it all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."

He does not say, this "represents" or this "is a symbol of" His body and blood, but that it is indeed His body and blood.

Now, I know that the Catholics have a doctrine of how, why, and when, the bread and wine become the body and blood....Lutherans don't. Lutherans basically say, "We believe that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of our Lord, because that's what He said it was...we don't fully understand the how, why and when, but we trust in what Jesus said."

Then Lutherans get onto what is the real issue, why we take communion in the first place and that is "for the forgiveness of sins." Again, this is taking Christ at His word and not trying to theorize exactly what He meant by that.

Just as Lutherans believe that God, in His work and His work alone, works salvation in our baptism, so we believe that He works, again His work and His work alone, forgiveness of our sins when we take communion.

Not that we are continually putting "Christ on the cross", no! Not at all...Christs sacrifice is wholly different than that of the OT animal sacrifices which needed to be repeated and repeated and repeated. There is no "putting Christ on the cross" again, because Christ is in heaven. But, He gave us communion as a remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross and it's working of forgiveness of sins, and the "remembrance" isn't just a nice little symbolic act that we do, to feel good about ourselves. The taking in of Christ's true body and true blood effects real forgiveness of sins.

Needless to say, there are a lot of Protestants who will disagree and disagree vehemently with this belief about communion. I'm sure we might even hear from some of them in this very thread.

OK.

But, the question is, why closed communion?

Neither Catholics nor Lutherans believe that communion is just a little puny snack that has an important yet wholly symbolic meaning tied to it. It is the body and blood of Christ that is given, not to all mankind, but to the Church and the Church alone. And, the Scriptures show us that communion isn't just something that we do alone in our locked closet, like prayer can be. It was given to the apostles and and the apostles taught the Church to come together to take it. Think of "communion" as being "a community in union".

So, say someone comes into an LCMS church or a Catholic church and sits there with the attitude of "Boy, you guys are so off base with this idea of that bread and wine up there being the actual body and blood of Christ and that if you take it, your sins are going to be cleansed. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Now, I'm gonna take communion, but I'm taking it on my understanding of what this means, not what you guys think it means."

The problem is, there isn't unity there. There isn't a unity of purpose or of belief. And the last place that Lutherans (or Catholics) want disunity of purpose or belief would be at the altar engaged in what is supposed to be one of the most intimate of acts between the Savior and His Bride.

Now, if this was all a truly symbolic act...well, there wouldn't be a reason not to say to someone, "Listen, if you don't agree with what were doing here, just bring your own thoughts to the table."

But, if communion were truly nothing more than a symbolic act, then why did people become sick and die for taking it unworthily? Is the Holy Spirit truly going to strike a person with judgement, even unto death, just because he misunderstood the symbolism of something?

Because God takes communion so seriously that He would even discipline with death over the matter, the LCMS closes the communion table to all except those who have taken the time to truly understand why we take communion, have examined one's own self in regards to communion and agree with it's purpose. Perhaps it errs in this, but it is erring on the side of caution.

Pard, as far as the Catholics who came to your church and took communion....if they did, they probably did so against the teaching of their church. I know in our church, our Pastor is pretty clear that, while there is no reason not to visit and enjoy visiting the churches of family and friends, we should stop short of joining them in communion for the same reason why our communion table is closed.

Nicely put, Handy.

 

[WIP]

Where is Francis when you need him?

My thoughts exactly. I enjoy hearing his take on things.

 

[Jake]

My thoughts exactly. I enjoy hearing his take on things.

he would say exaclty the opposite of what i said.

 

[Mike]

WIP and Dora, if I may chime in with regard to the Lutheran LCMS communion, this is something that LCMS congregations have the autonomy to decide for themselves. Our church does not have a closed communion. We have what we call "close" communion. That is to say, before communion, our pastor explains the Lutheran understanding and invites anyone who shares in this understanding to partake.

We would not refuse it if someone approaches the altar, because this is between them and God. One difference between the Catholic communion and ours is that in the Catholic church, the priest actually changes the elements from bread and wine to His Body and Blood. We don't hold that the pastor is given this roll.

Having grown up in the Catholic church, I was given "permission" by a priest to receive it when we visit my parents' church. I don't, however. It's just something I'm not square with.

It's important to remember that it is more meaningful when you believe it is literally (not figuratively) you are receiving His Body and Blood, so I'm not surprised that there would be more attention paid to who receives it. If it's just a symbol, it seems less significant. I'm not saying it isn't meaningful; just less so.

 

[Jake]

I'm in the LCMS, and to tell the truth, their stance on closed Communion was one of my biggest struggles when going through classes to become a member. And, no, we couldn't take communion until we finished the classes and stood before the church and publicly agreed with the LCMS on what communion was all about.

I still don't wholly agree with closed Communion, but I do understand the reasons behind it, and I believe that the same reasons apply in the Catholic church as well.

It's not truly a matter of being "one of the club". It's much more a matter of what the Lutherans and the Catholics believe that communion is. We have some very eloquent Catholics on this forum who can speak to their doctrine, but I have come to an understanding regarding the Lutheran doctrine, at least enough to speak to it.

Many Protestants believe that the wine and bread in communion are simple symbols, more along the line of an "object lesson" to remember Christ's death on the cross.

For Lutherans, the sacrament goes much, much deeper. It starts with Christs words: "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." "Drink from it all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."

He does not say, this "represents" or this "is a symbol of" His body and blood, but that it is indeed His body and blood.

Now, I know that the Catholics have a doctrine of how, why, and when, the bread and wine become the body and blood....Lutherans don't. Lutherans basically say, "We believe that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of our Lord, because that's what He said it was...we don't fully understand the how, why and when, but we trust in what Jesus said."

Then Lutherans get onto what is the real issue, why we take communion in the first place and that is "for the forgiveness of sins." Again, this is taking Christ at His word and not trying to theorize exactly what He meant by that.

Just as Lutherans believe that God, in His work and His work alone, works salvation in our baptism, so we believe that He works, again His work and His work alone, forgiveness of our sins when we take communion.

Not that we are continually putting "Christ on the cross", no! Not at all...Christs sacrifice is wholly different than that of the OT animal sacrifices which needed to be repeated and repeated and repeated. There is no "putting Christ on the cross" again, because Christ is in heaven. But, He gave us communion as a remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross and it's working of forgiveness of sins, and the "remembrance" isn't just a nice little symbolic act that we do, to feel good about ourselves. The taking in of Christ's true body and true blood effects real forgiveness of sins.

Needless to say, there are a lot of Protestants who will disagree and disagree vehemently with this belief about communion. I'm sure we might even hear from some of them in this very thread.

OK.

But, the question is, why closed communion?

Neither Catholics nor Lutherans believe that communion is just a little puny snack that has an important yet wholly symbolic meaning tied to it. It is the body and blood of Christ that is given, not to all mankind, but to the Church and the Church alone. And, the Scriptures show us that communion isn't just something that we do alone in our locked closet, like prayer can be. It was given to the apostles and and the apostles taught the Church to come together to take it. Think of "communion" as being "a community in union".

So, say someone comes into an LCMS church or a Catholic church and sits there with the attitude of "Boy, you guys are so off base with this idea of that bread and wine up there being the actual body and blood of Christ and that if you take it, your sins are going to be cleansed. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Now, I'm gonna take communion, but I'm taking it on my understanding of what this means, not what you guys think it means."

The problem is, there isn't unity there. There isn't a unity of purpose or of belief. And the last place that Lutherans (or Catholics) want disunity of purpose or belief would be at the altar engaged in what is supposed to be one of the most intimate of acts between the Savior and His Bride.

Now, if this was all a truly symbolic act...well, there wouldn't be a reason not to say to someone, "Listen, if you don't agree with what were doing here, just bring your own thoughts to the table."

But, if communion were truly nothing more than a symbolic act, then why did people become sick and die for taking it unworthily? Is the Holy Spirit truly going to strike a person with judgement, even unto death, just because he misunderstood the symbolism of something?

Because God takes communion so seriously that He would even discipline with death over the matter, the LCMS closes the communion table to all except those who have taken the time to truly understand why we take communion, have examined one's own self in regards to communion and agree with it's purpose. Perhaps it errs in this, but it is erring on the side of caution.

Pard, as far as the Catholics who came to your church and took communion....if they did, they probably did so against the teaching of their church. I know in our church, our Pastor is pretty clear that, while there is no reason not to visit and enjoy visiting the churches of family and friends, we should stop short of joining them in communion for the same reason why our communion table is closed.

with all due respect Dora as I do agree with you on many matters, but it seems the Catholic communion is more highly regarded than the protestant communion, that you see our communion as not as important because we do see them as a symbol and it's pointless for us to take communion because it's not really His blood and flesh.
I can assure you, we do see this as an ordinance from the Lord, and I know you have stated you don't completely agree with it, but the closed communion seems very unbibical as we are the Body of Christ and He told us when we come together to partake of the communion - together - so in Catholic/Lutheran we are not part of the Body.

 

[Bonairos]

For Lutherans, the sacrament goes much, much deeper. It starts with Christs words: "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." "Drink from it all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."
He does not say, this "represents" or this "is a symbol of" His body and blood, but that it is indeed His body and blood.

Fair enough and thank you for sharing. However, to my knowledge, when Christ’s said those words (to His disciples), His body was neither broken nor was His blood poured out at the time. How could one be in error of interpreting it as representing or symbolic?

Then Lutherans get onto what is the real issue, why we take communion in the first place and that is "for the forgiveness of sins." Again, this is taking Christ at His word and not trying to theorize exactly what He meant by that.
Just as Lutherans believe that God, in His work and His work alone, works salvation in our baptism, so we believe that He works, again His work and His work alone, forgiveness of our sins when we take communion.

As so does Protestants (and so do us Pentecostals! HAHA)

But, He gave us communion as a remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross and it's working of forgiveness of sins, and the "remembrance" isn't just a nice little symbolic act that we do, to feel good about ourselves. The taking in of Christ's true body and true blood effects real forgiveness of sins.

Seriously, to feel good about ourselves? Any sinner needing forgiveness can hardly take part in a symbolic act “calling to mind†(key in acting upon remembrance) Christ’s sacrifice and feel good about themselves.

Neither Catholics nor Lutherans believe that communion is just a little puny snack that has an important yet wholly symbolic meaning tied to it. It is the body and blood of Christ that is given, not to all mankind, but to the Church and the Church alone.

It may be semantics, but nonetheless. I believe the body and blood of Christ was indeed given to and for all mankind. HOWEVER, not all mankind receives it; and as a result aren’t able to benefit from it. Because of this, taking communion serves no purpose for those outside the Church. And therefore it is not for them but those who are now called The Church. And yes, it is far from being a puny little snack.

And, the Scriptures show us that communion isn't just something that we do alone in our locked closet, like prayer can be. It was given to the apostles and the apostles taught the Church to come together to take it. Think of "communion" as being "a community in union".

True, however Paul also stated, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.†And I believe this proclaiming can also include being alone. For the “unity†is not so much about a number of people physically gathered together, but more so spiritually so that when we do come together we are of same purpose and beliefs.

Now, if this was all a truly symbolic act...well, there wouldn't be a reason not to say to someone, "Listen, if you don't agree with what were doing here, just bring your own thoughts to the table."

Sure there would still be reason. That is if we emphasize the purpose of communion and not the protocol of communion.

But, if communion were truly nothing more than a symbolic act, then why did people become sick and die for taking it unworthily? Is the Holy Spirit truly going to strike a person with judgement, even unto death, just because he misunderstood the symbolism of something?

It’s not the symbolism of something that causes mankind to become sick and die. Neither is it the fact if one believes it is literally the body and blood of Christ or not. It is the lack of faith or belief in the message of what the symbols (for lack of a better word) represent. Unfortunately, there are those who have knowledge of communion (be it through denominational classes or not); partake of communion; and still become sick and/or bring judgment upon themselves. Why? No faith. No belief. No “calling to mind†of what Christ did for the person individually.


I’m with Pard on this one. The catholic church missed an opportunity to see in action what they profess the purpose of communion to be; unity in the spirit. Yet we are cautioned to not exclude Catholics as being “Christians†when they (in this regard) exclude non-Catholics from a ordinance meant for all Believers.

For me personally, I open communion up to all (saved and non-saved). What an opportunity to remind (or inform for the first time) Who Christ is and what He’s done for us. If they partake without faith (which is an unworthy manner) that is between them and God. If they do, the kingdom expands and is strengthened.


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Sparkey]

I wonder if Peter would object to Gentiles sharing communion after witnessing them being baptized in the Holy Ghost (in Acts 10). We know that he said, "(Act 10:34, 47-48 KJV) - "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: ... Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Peter explained later about what had happened as seen in chapter 11:

"And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

When they [of the circumcision] heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

For the scripture has indeed declared, "Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

 

[handy]

Lot's of responses and I'll not be able to respond to all the good points being made.

First, just a personal note as to where the "puny little snack" comes from: For years I worked at a day-care center with young preschool kids. One day a little boy came in after having taken communion for the first time, at least I think it was the first time. Anyway, he was telling the other kids and me about it during our own snack time. That day we were having bananas sliced into vanilla pudding with graham crackers as a snack. And this little boy said, "I like this snack. It's better than what they served at church yesterday...boy, that was a puny little snack." ;)


Mike, thanks for the clarification. I'm still a newbie to the LCMS and am still unsure of what is common across the denomination and what individual churches within the denomination free-wheel on.

"To feel good about ourselves", perhaps wasn't expressed very well. Frankly, I was drawing upon my own background, which wasn't in the LCMS or Catholic tradition and in which communion was very much taught as a wholly symbolic act. For me, it was a "feel good" act, one in which I was drawn into remembrance of what Christ did for me and the joy I felt when the weight of sin was lifted. But, re-reading my sentence there, I came off as belittling any who view communion as symbolic...mea culpa...

Bonairos: "It may be semantics, but nonetheless. I believe the body and blood of Christ was indeed given to and for all mankind."
The reason why I would differ with you on this one is because of what our Lord Himself said, "Drink from it all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."

This probably gets too far into another, yet probably quite interesting discussion as to the work of the cross, the death of Christ, and the forgiveness of sins. I believe that Christ's death was for all mankind, not just the elect (as the Calvinist's believe) but all. However, I also believe that communion is only for those who receive Him. But again, to go into why takes us too far away from the topic.

Rocky: "with all due respect Dora as I do agree with you on many matters, but it seems the Catholic communion is more highly regarded than the protestant communion, that you see our communion as not as important because we do see them as a symbol and it's pointless for us to take communion because it's not really His blood and flesh.
I can assure you, we do see this as an ordinance from the Lord, and I know you have stated you don't completely agree with it, but the closed communion seems very unbibical as we are the Body of Christ and He told us when we come together to partake of the communion - together - so in Catholic/Lutheran we are not part of the Body."

Again, forgive me for expressing myself badly...I truly wasn't trying to so belittle those who take communion as a symbolic act as opposed to seeing as the true body and blood of Christ. I've only been in the LCMS for about a year and a half...up until then, I took the elements as symbolic and yet communion was always a highly spiritually intimate time for me as well.

My point wasn't to try to elevate one belief about communion over the other. However, I'm also not going to say that "it-doesn't-matter" because both ideas about communion, literal body and blood vs. symbolic of the body and blood, are mutually exclusive and one, if not both, are wrong. So, if we are partaking in communion, and yet are not even in basic agreement as to what communion is, nor what it's purpose is, then true communion isn't achieved.

Now, many churches as well as many fine pastor's such as Brother Bonairos, view communion to be a time when we set aside our differences and join in what we have in common and leave the issue of taking it in a worthy manner the individual communicant. But, for those who choose to close the communion, priests, a lot in the LCMS and a lot in the Orthodox Presbyterian Churches as well, their reason for doing so comes down more on the side of seeking to draw full unity within the body, from a shared belief of the realness of the body and blood, the shared belief that in partaking in the body and blood we are receiving forgiveness of sin, right there, at that moment.

I still lean towards the former being far more biblical, but I can understand why some pastors and priests opt for the latter. Really, it's not a slap in the face saying "You're not good enough to commune with us" but rather a matter of taking seriously the issues that do divide us, sometimes with a lot of heat and anger, and viewing them as being important enough to resolve before entering into communion together.

I guess my bottom line here is to try to help Pard and others to walk the mile in the other's moccasins. To not look at this issue from your own POV, and take offense at what seems to be an offensive exclusion, but to rather look at it from the POV of those who do close communion and at least understand where they are coming from, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[Free]

I strongly disagree with the Catholic and Lutheran understanding of the communion elements and I don't understand why they would keep other professing Christians away on the basis of this difference in understanding.

Mat 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."
Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:29 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." (ESV)

Clearly verse 29 shows that Jesus did not think that they were partaking of his literal "blood," as he clarifies what he means with "this fruit of the vine." Not to mention he had not been crucified yet; his blood had not yet been poured out. By extension then, his "body" would be symbolic as well.

And note that it is not the drinking of "his blood" that is for the forgiveness of sins, but rather the pouring out of his blood. Even then, even if we believe the Lord's Supper to be a means of forgiveness, why keep people away who profess Christ but believe differently? Can't God work through the Communion to bring about proper belief? That act in itself produces disunity amongst believers. There seems to me to be a disconnect there.

Having said that, I do think there is more to communion then just remembrance and I do not take it lightly. I believe it very well could be a means of conferring grace.

Anyway, I'm thankful that the Anglican church I have attended several times in the past allowed all who professed Christ to join in communion, as it should be.

But, if communion were truly nothing more than a symbolic act, then why did people become sick and die for taking it unworthily? Is the Holy Spirit truly going to strike a person with judgement, even unto death, just because he misunderstood the symbolism of something?

In context:

1Co 11:18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,
1Co 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.
1Co 11:22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
1Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
1Co 11:31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
1Co 11:33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--
1Co 11:34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come. (ESV)

As we can see, Paul's reference to taking the Lord's Supper unworthily has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one considers the elements to be the literal body and blood of Christ, or even whether or not there is agreement in that matter, but rather is about the attitude of the heart.

 

[Mike]

I'm not sure it will be fruitful to make this a discussion about the validity of one view of communion or the other. There have been centuries of differing, well studied arguments, and I rather doubt that anything will be agreed upon here now. For those do don't believe in a literal presence of the Body and Blood, I get that. If they're honest, most Christians who hold to the Lutheran understanding have to take it on faith, because it's a very weighty thing to consider. This isn't to say we are simply believing what we've been taught by men. There is sound scripture that has lead much of the Church to hold to this for a very long time.

What I really wanted to re-emphasize, along with Dora, is this. In this element of the liturgy, we believe there is a very real physical meeting with Christ when we receive communion. Insomuch as we believe we are encountering Christ, if someone believes they are receiving a symbol of His Body and Blood, this is something quite significant. I hope we can adequately express that it's not meant to be demeaning or insulting, but I think it would help to try to see it from our POV.

The Lutheran LCMS also differs with Catholics in that Catholics believe a complete transformation takes place, and when the Priest invokes the change, there ceases to be bread and wine present. We believe there is the Body and Blood "in and with" the bread and wine and as I said earlier, the pastor is merely an "announcer" of what the Lord has done; not the initiator.

 

[Free]

I'm not sure it will be fruitful to make this a discussion about the validity of one view of communion or the other. There have been centuries of differing, well studied arguments, and I rather doubt that anything will be agreed upon here now. For those do don't believe in a literal presence of the Body and Blood, I get that. If they're honest, most Christians who hold to the Lutheran understanding have to take it on faith, because it's a very weighty thing to consider. This isn't to say we are simply believing what we've been taught by men. There is sound scripture that has lead much of the Church to hold to this for a very long time.

What I really wanted to re-emphasize, along with Dora, is this. In this element of the liturgy, we believe there is a very real physical meeting with Christ when we receive communion. Insomuch as we believe we are encountering Christ, if someone believes they are receiving a symbol of His Body and Blood, this is something quite significant. I hope we can adequately express that it's not meant to be demeaning or insulting, but I think it would help to try to see it from our POV.

The Lutheran LCMS also differs with Catholics in that Catholics believe a complete transformation takes place, and when the Priest invokes the change, there ceases to be bread and wine present. We believe there is the Body and Blood "in and with" the bread and wine and as I said earlier, the pastor is merely an "announcer" of what the Lord has done; not the initiator.

No, it won't be fruitful but I wasn't going to go any further anyway. I just really see a massive disconnect between the stated purpose of communion and the shutting out of other professing followers of Christ from the communion table. If communion really does bring about the forgiveness of sins, then no believer should be shut out. This actually does seem to imply that others are not true believers.

And, I will add that the wine and bread being symbolic, as I have shown with Matthew, in no way means that Christ isn't somehow actually present or that we aren't encountering him.

Anyway, time for bed. Have a good night Mike.

 

[Jake]

What I really wanted to re-emphasize, along with Dora, is this. In this element of the liturgy, we believe there is a very real physical meeting with Christ when we receive communion. Insomuch as we believe we are encountering Christ, if someone believes they are receiving a symbol of His Body and Blood, this is something quite significant. I hope we can adequately express that it's not meant to be demeaning or insulting, but I think it would help to try to see it from our POV.

We (should be) encountering Christ all the time, we are His Body and as I read what you have written, it appears this is a "wow" encounter not experienced at any other time,when in fact that is not what the Bible says. It simply says to remember me, and when we take communion we first must have a clean heart. It seems the way communion is performed in your church, man-made doctrine has been added to it.

The Lutheran LCMS also differs with Catholics in that Catholics believe a complete transformation takes place, and when the Priest invokes the change, there ceases to be bread and wine present. We believe there is the Body and Blood "in and with" the bread and wine and as I said earlier, the pastor is merely an "announcer" of what the Lord has done; not the initiator.

I'm not sure I see a difference here with the way you believe and what Catholics do.

The entire premise of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, goes way beyond communion, it is absolutely living out the Word in our lives, dying to ourselves, it's a way of life, not just the act of taking communion.

 

[Mike]

Free, here's a reply to greet you tomorrow.

If you read my first post here, you'll see we don't stop anyone from receiving. If they knowingly receive it while believing it's a symbol, but they personally feel they are drawing closer to Christ, then that's between them and God.

I was going to say this earlier, but I was afraid how it would be taken. I'll try to carefully choose my words. Just as it applies to communion, if a person doesn't believe in the physical presence, I'm hesitant to do so, but I'll liken it to not believing in the resurrection while coming to the cross. Please don't explode! I'm not commenting on anyone's overall faith; just as it applies to communion. We believe a person needs to be a willing participant in communion in order to receive its benefits. No doubt many Christians will receive the ultimate prize in accepting His sacrifice while not embracing His presence in communion.

Any argument using scripture to refute the presence has been refuted, and that refute has been refuted, and that refute has been refuted, etc. Both arguments have been stated and heard with no consensus. I for one will agree to disagree.

 

[Jake]

Free, here's a reply to greet you tomorrow.

If you read my first post here, you'll see we don't stop anyone from receiving. If they knowingly receive it while believing it's a symbol, but they personally feel they are drawing closer to Christ, then that's between them and God.

I was going to say this earlier, but I was afraid how it would be taken. I'll try to carefully choose my words. Just as it applies to communion, if a person doesn't believe in the physical presence, I'm hesitant to do so, but I'll liken it to not believing in the resurrection while coming to the cross. Please don't explode! I'm not commenting on anyone's overall faith; just as it applies to communion. We believe a person needs to be a willing participant in communion in order to receive its benefits. No doubt many Christians will receive the ultimate prize in accepting His sacrifice while not embracing His presence in communion.

2

 

[Nick]

Mike/Dora, I find myself parting ways on this.

By no means is communion to be taken lightly, but if it is as serious for our relationship with God as you say it is, then why shut other believers out from taking part in it? Doesn't that cause further disunity in an already scattered church?

The Anglican church that I attend opens it up for all believers. We take it as being a symbolic remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, and use it as a time of reflection upon our sins, and how we live accordingly. I do believe that it is certainly more than a symbolic remembrance, but that comes down to the individual what they wish to make of it. For me I generally use it as a time of confession to God.

I love that every time we do communion (every couple of months or so) it does bring the congregation together. I'm not sure why some churches insist on preventing this.

Our church "encourages believers" to participate, so although it doesn't enforce that non Christians don't partake, that is generally assumed so.