Good Friday and Purim (Part 2)
Read the article this discussion is about
- H2O
- Pinky102
- biogardener
- Pinky102
- Dubh_Sidhe
- biogardener
- H2O
- Pinky102
- biogardener
- Pinky102
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
» H2O - Re: Re: Re: Not just adoption
In response to Re: Re: Not just adoption posted by Pinky102:No, I mean Real Presence, where the body and blood of Christ are "in, with, and under" the bread and wine. Read 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.
John
-- posted by H2O
» Pinky102 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Not just adoption
In response to Re: Re: Re: Not just adoption posted by H2O:I notice that Craig, in another thread, does not agree with that statement. He seems to think that it is purely symbolic. Most protestants agree would agree with Craig.
Catholics and Episcopaleans are the ones who believe that the Eucharist actuall includes the body and blood of Christ. So, is that also a Lutheran docrine as well?
-- posted by Pinky102
» biogardener - Body and blood at communion
Oh yes, I now remember that topic coming up in religion classes in school in Germany. Those classes were not compulsory, but everyone took them except the one girl in my class who was Catholic. The teaching adheres to Lutheran doctrine, and that was the first time in my life that I heard that communion is anything except a commemorative event. I am not going to argue about it one way or the other, because I don't think it matters. This it one of those items of faith which I believe we can compromise on. So if John will let me celebrate communion as a commemoration, I will let him celebrate his in his way, and I am sure that we can both celebrate at the same time.I even take communion in RC churches, even when the priest tells me that I can't unless I am RC. I believe that he has no right to say such a thing, so I don't pay any attention to it just like I do not pay attention to what I consider wrong doctrine which he may be preaching. I make those allowances for myself, keeping any arguments strictly between God and me. He knows my heart. As long as there is nothing between God and me, I feel free to take communion in any church.
-- posted by biogardener
» Pinky102 - Re: Body and blood at communion
In response to Body and blood at communion posted by biogardener:It seems you're pointing up the differences between the Eucharist and Communion.
The Eucharist being the actual body of Christ and Communion being a gathering of like minded persons in rememberence of Jesus in which all share a common experience. I wonder if--even for devout Catholics--celebrating the Mass isn't really a communion of the like minded. So, once again, isn't it about the spirit of what is taking place rather than the literal activity?
But, let me bring up a further point. What about the exclusionary practices of the sanctimonious in truncating relationships with those who are considered outside the faith? Thats the point the priest makes when non-catholics partake in the Eucharist. I've always heard a similar warning in protestant churches when the bread and wine is served at Communion.
-- posted by Pinky102
» Dubh_Sidhe - Re: Re: Body and blood at communion
In response to Re: Body and blood at communion posted by Pinky102:The Catholic Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist, and the most important part of any Mass. Christ's sacrifice on Calvary is perpetuated because the priest offers His sacrifice anew each time. In fact, a Catholic does not actually have to say he is going to Mass. He could say he is going to the Eucharist - in which he receives the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus which is present in both forms, (transubstantiation) so the Catholic could take only the wafer or the wine instead of both, especially if the priest offers the wine to all from a community chalice.
It is called "closed communion" when non-memabers are requested to leave before the communion service. Very few P. churches practice closed communion today. The Catholic Church does, of course.
When I married we had a Nuptial Mass. At the Eucharist, the priest announced it was closed except to Catholics. Although I am no longer a practicing Catholic, I would not hesitate to receive communion at a Mass, and if I go to Midnight Mass at Christmas I do receive regardless.
I enjoyed your two articles (with Purim) John.
-- posted by Dubh_Sidhe
» biogardener - Like I said . . .
Like I said, I don't accept those man-made borders between Christians, and I don't care what the priests say. And you know what? None of them have ever refused to serve me communion. And I don't split hairs between words like Eucharist and communion either, and neither do I engage in discussions about the subject. It serves no purpose. Like Paul, I am all things to all men, to the Catholics a Catholic, to the Lutherans a Lutheran, to the Baptists a Baptist, and to the Pentecostals a Pentecostals. And they all accept me, because I refuse to argue with them.Give me a person in need, though, who needs prayer for healing or counselling for problems, and I will be there for her, and she won't care what I am as long as I know how to pray and touch God on her behalf.
-- posted by biogardener
» H2O - Close Communion and the nature of communion
Lutherans believe, teach, and confess that together with the bread and wine the Christian receives the body and blood of Jesus Christ, hence we say the body and blood is "in, with, and under" the bread and wine. Read the 1 Corinthians passage I cited and notice how Paul refers to the elements as both bread and wine and body and blood--and goes back and forth. We cannot pinpoint at what point the bread and wine are also the body and the blood. We accept by faith what Jesus said as well as Paul, who it seems received special training from Christ (Galatians 1:12, 17).The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and other liberal church bodies practice "open communion." The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS--of which I'm a member), the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), and the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (LC-MS) practice what we now call "close communion." We believe that joining us in communion is an expression that you agree with our doctrine. Thus our pastors will announce our ploicy before the distribution and ask visitors to speak with pastor before communing. If someone does commune, obviously we commune them. One can only do so much. But we would like people to know about the sacrament and understand their faith, not try to exclude people.
When someone expresses an interest in communion fellowship, my pastor goes through the catechism section on the Lord's Supper (Eucharist, Communion--all means the same) first, since that's what has historically been the major difference among Christians. If after going through that section they agree with the scriptural position on communion, they are announced in the service publicly as in agreement and as ready for communion, which they can then partake even as they are still going through the Bible Information class before joining Salem. (By the way, we often even ask transfers to Salem to go through such a clas to refresh their knowledge of Biblical doctrines).
As a Christian, I see God working through Word and Sacrament and count as Christian anyone who is a member of a Christian denomination. As a theologian, I do have a duty to study the Scriptures and, if there is a difference, determine if the difference is a scriptural difference that should be resolved for fellowship or if it is a matter of tradition. An example is the WELS/LC-MS views on the ministry. The WELS position is that God gave the Word and Sacraments to the church and the church can dispense them for the edification of God's people. Missouri sees the Word and Sacraments (Sacraments especially) as being bestowed on the clergy, ergo only the clergy can announce the Absolution of sins, consecrate the elements, baptize, and give the Benediction. This has never been seen as a point of doctrinal difference between WELS and LC-MS. The split came over the views of fellowship, which is a whole long other story.
The beauty of this forum is the ability to share my faith and learn from others about their faith. We can also discuss and debate as adults on this forum. Will we have differences? You bet! There have been differences throughout the history of Christendom. But while we may disagree on the nature of Communion, and I may view it as serious, I also believe that someday I will meet many of you in heaven, if I don't get that priveledge here on earth.
John
-- posted by H2O
» Pinky102 - Re: Close Communion and the nature of communion
In response to Close Communion and the nature of communion posted by H2O:That's all good information to know, John.
We do live in a pluralistic society and, for any one who is willing to understand, that means that your life's experience is quite different than mine and mine than yours. I must appreciate your interests even though they are not mine which doesn't mean I have to accept them as my own--nor you mine. But, I see you as my equal for you have not attempted to put me down at any point in our relationship here. Have I put you down? I hope not.
We, each of us, have a right to commune with those who are in total agreement with us. The place where I have come to be, tells me that we need to do a great deal of introspection into our beliefs as a people not taking our differences into consideration. In other words, we need to be self critical and to be open to what it is the other person sees in their life. Who knows, we might be improved. Could that be?
I have to question my beliefs; otherwise, "Who do I think I am?".
-- posted by Pinky102
» biogardener - Did I hear correctly?
Did I hear you correctly, Phil, when you said, "We, each of us, have a right to commune with those who are in total agreement with us?"Where in the world are you going to find another person with whom you are in total agreement? I have never met one like that. Like Walter Lippmann says, "When all men think alike, no one thinks very much."
If I ever found a person who agreed with me on everything, we wouldn't have anything to talk about, and life would get pretty boring. I do, however, have never had a problem getting along with people who disagree with me. My motto is this, "Seeing we will all have to get along in heaven, we might as well learn to get along with each other here on earth."
-- posted by biogardener
» Pinky102 - Re: Did I hear correctly?
In response to Did I hear correctly? posted by biogardener:
I must admit, my generalization was a little brash.
You're correct. I should have said, "In close agreement", or something like that.
Thanks for calling me on that.
-- posted by Pinky102
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.