Lutheran vs. Catholic: Itemized differences?

[Lotar]

Confessional Lutherans are different type of ecumenalists. Pietists seek union through brushing over differences and liturgical uniformity. While the orthodox way is to seek union through doctrinal agreement.

 

[ChiRho]

Anti-Ecumenism

Confessional Lutherans are not ecumenical. They will never join the National Association of Evangelicals, nor the World Council of Churches. Lutheran institutions are so big-with their network of schools, colleges, publishing houses, and denominational services-that they can be rather insulated and self-contained. Though the ELCA has pioneered ecumenical dialogue with the Reformed, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics-to the point of claiming to have found agreement with Rome on justification by faith-the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods will have none of that. Their wariness of ecumenical union and, even more profoundly, of American-style Christianity has kept them out of the mainstream, but it has kept them relatively true to their theology.

Any genuine ecumenism must avoid simply emptying Christianity of its distinctive content and must somehow affirm what is most salient, what is most "Christian," in the whole spectrum of Christian belief, from traditional Catholicism to Protestant fundamentalism. Lutheranism, while eschewing ecumenism as such, provides a framework-or, rather, a set of polarities-by which this might be done.




-James

Nevermind. I stand in support of my post. Come on James! Your selection was obviously taken out of context! Veith means "ecumenical" in the sense of "unity without real agreement" which isnt real ecumenicity. We are not ecumenical in the sense that most others insist. Read on to discover what ecumenical truly means.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Lotar]

I didn't say ELCA at all, just because that is my Church doesn't mean that I was talking about it. I think the original Lutheran Church wanted very much to rejoin Rome, but Rome was more anti-Ecumenical than we were and are.

-James

No, we did and still do wish Rome to rejoin us, as they are the ones who broke off from the Church and followed their own human traditions and wisdom. Such union will only take place when they recant of the heretical positions of Trent and the two Vatican councils. Talks are one thing, signing documents that make false declarations and brushing over differences of the most important position of the Reformation, is something completely different.


But at least you don't claim that ELCA is confessional, there is some hope for you yet.

 

[Lotar]

What is SSPX?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Society of Saint Pius X. They broke off from Rome after the liberal declarations of Vatican II.

 

[ChiRho]

No, we did and still do wish Rome to rejoin us, as they are the ones who broke off from the Church and followed their own human traditions and wisdom. Such union will only take place when they recant of the heretical positions of Trent and the two Vatican councils. Talks are one thing, signing documents that make false declarations and brushing over differences of the most important position of the Reformation, is something completely different.


But at least you don't claim that ELCA is confessional, there is some hope for you yet.

Speechless! Completely speechless!

Does it get any better?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[ChiRho]

Society of Saint Pius X. They broke off from Rome after the liberal declarations of Vatican II.

AHH! thanks for the clarification. I agree.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[JVAC]

But at least you don't claim that ELCA is confessional, there is some hope for you yet.

I didn't say that either, I merely was remaining silent on the matter, because I know your thoughts about my Church and what your Synod thinks about us.

-James

 

[Lotar]

All you have to do is look at the communion with the sacramentarians, when the Confessions say this:

33] Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and who constantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it, shortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article with great zeal in his last Confession, where he writes thus: I rate as one concoction, namely, as Sacramentarians and fanatics, which they also are, all who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is His true natural body, which the godless or Judas received with the mouth, as well as did St. Peter and all [other] saints; he who will not believe this (I say) should let me alone, and hope for no fellowship with me; this is not going to be altered [thus my opinion stands, which I am not going to change]. Tom. 2, Wittenb., German, fol. 252.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/supper.html

 

[JVAC]

All you have to do is look at the communion with the sacramentarians, when the Confessions say this:

Quote:

33] Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and who constantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it, shortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article with great zeal in his last Confession, where he writes thus: I rate as one concoction, namely, as Sacramentarians and fanatics, which they also are, all who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is His true natural body, which the godless or Judas received with the mouth, as well as did St. Peter and all [other] saints; he who will not believe this (I say) should let me alone, and hope for no fellowship with me; this is not going to be altered [thus my opinion stands, which I am not going to change]. Tom. 2, Wittenb., German, fol. 252.

[url="http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/supper.html"]http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/supper.html [/url]

And this is where I differ, you might choose to emphasize this part of the confessions, and I choose to emphasize the AC:

(30) therefore the Mass was instituted that the faith of those who use the Sacrament should remember what benefits it recieves through Christ, and cheer and comfort the anxious conscience.

and yet again a couple sentences later:

(33) Wherefore the Mass is to be used to this end, that there the Sacrament [Communion] may be administered to them that have need of consolation; as Ambrose says: Because I always sin, I am always bound to take the medicine.

I don't see the Sacrament as a 'fellowship with thoughs you agree with'; I contrarily see it as Christ crucified for His Church. I see it as "signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them" (AC XIII). To deny the blessed sacrament is to deny the precious body and blood of our Lord and Saviour and not a rejection of mere "fellowship". If you don't wish fellowship, there are other ways to remove that, but to deny someone the comfort and solace of the Divine Mercy is just Unchristian if you ask me.

-James

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I don't see the Sacrament as a 'fellowship with thoughs you agree with'; I contrarily see it as Christ crucified for His Church. I see it as "signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them" (AC XIII). To deny the blessed sacrament is to deny the precious body and blood of our Lord and Saviour and not a rejection of mere "fellowship". If you don't wish fellowship, there are other ways to remove that, but to deny someone the comfort and solace of the Divine Mercy is just Unchristian if you ask me.

Against the policy of my synod...I am so with you on this one. It seems there are two requirements from scripture for someone to receive the Lord's Supper.

1) Must be a believer
2) Must take "worthily" which includes believing in the Real Presence

For me the fellowship argument holds little weight. We do not have a magic glass in which we can look into the soul of man to see if he is a believer or not and membership surely does not constitute belief.

It is difficult to balance the use of Christ's precious sacrament. Withholding from the true believer is an error. Adminstering to the non-believer is an error. Limiting the Sacrament to LCMS membership resolves neither error.

I think it is important to provide proper instruction to the visitor regarding what is necessary to take communion and the turn the decision over to the visitor and his/her conscience. Christ is Christ in the Sacrament--He is in a better position to do the work He wants to do in the heart of the visitor.

Then too, I also believe there is valid communion outside the LCMS. So I am pretty much a synod renegade on the subject....

Peace

Rose

 

[ChiRho]

And this is where I differ, you might choose to emphasize this part of the confessions, and I choose to emphasize the AC:



and yet again a couple sentences later:


I don't see the Sacrament as a 'fellowship with thoughs you agree with'; I contrarily see it as Christ crucified for His Church. I see it as "signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them" (AC XIII). To deny the blessed sacrament is to deny the precious body and blood of our Lord and Saviour and not a rejection of mere "fellowship". If you don't wish fellowship, there are other ways to remove that, but to deny someone the comfort and solace of the Divine Mercy is just Unchristian if you ask me.

-James

James,

"It is sometimes assumed that the real motivation behind the practice of closed communion is a desire to exclude people; an expression of religious arrogance. Of all the Pastors I know who implement this preactice in the confregations they serve, not one of them is motivated by any such attitude of unchristian pride. In fact, the opposite is true; it is a singularly humbling experience. As stewards of the mysteries (1 Cor. 4:1), love of God and His Word, and love of neighbor, is the proper motivation for closed communion. Loving our neighbor, we seek to keep him or her from incurring God's judgement by unworthy reception of the sacrament. Loving God and His Word we ask that our neighbor receive proper instruction and give account of their faith so that we may kneel in unity of faith and confession at the Lord's altar, and no seek to express a unity that is not really there. There are some who cannot see closed communion as a loving practice, to whom the question must be asked whether we are operating with a definition and conception of love that flows from God's Word or one that flows from popular culture. Luther: "Faith must be the master of love...Love ceases when it spoils the Word of God."

"It has been said by some, that closed communion is a violation of the proper distinction beween law and gospel in that is makes a law out of the gospel, i.e., the administration of the Lord's Supper. I disagree. The Gospel and Baptism were given to create faith (and also to stregthen already present faith). Holy Communion, however, was given to strengthen a faith that is already there. Proper preaching of the Gospel does not presuppose faith, but proper administration of Holy Communion, and proper reception of Holy Communion, do presuppose faith. The Eucharist is not used to create faith, or to create unity; it strengthens an already present faith, and expresses an already present unity among those communing together. Furthermore, unworthy use of the sacrament is warned against in rather strong language (1 Cor. 11:27-30). Therefore when we decline to commune one who does not believe the real presence, we properly apply the law to that person, who comes without proper faith, and for reasons other than those for which the sacrament is given. Secondly, when we decline to commune one who is not united with us in faith and doctrine, we are recognizing what Scripture is very clear about: doctrinal error is sin, and like all sin, is to be repented of and forsaken by the grace of God. Until that happens, there can be no expression of a unity that really doesnt exist."

The Biblical Practice of Closed Communion in the Light of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

The Rev. William P. Teerjesen, Pastor

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Lotar]

And this is where I differ, you might choose to emphasize this part of the confessions, and I choose to emphasize the AC:



and yet again a couple sentences later:


I don't see the Sacrament as a 'fellowship with thoughs you agree with'; I contrarily see it as Christ crucified for His Church. I see it as "signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them" (AC XIII). To deny the blessed sacrament is to deny the precious body and blood of our Lord and Saviour and not a rejection of mere "fellowship". If you don't wish fellowship, there are other ways to remove that, but to deny someone the comfort and solace of the Divine Mercy is just Unchristian if you ask me.

-James

I accept all of the Confessions, I don't "emphasize" one part or the other. Communion is indeed a means of grace that confirms and strengthens faith, but it is also a declaration of unity, of common belief. Sacramanterians are heretics, and the confessions clearly state so. It is wrong for us to ingore their belief, let alone confirm it and declare unity with it, for it puts their souls in danger of damnation.

In their churches we would sin by declaring union with those who do not believe His Word and promise, and we would recieve nothing but bread and wine, for their sect declares the He is not present at all, or is only present spiritually. You say that it does not depend on our belief, this is true, yet what the Church or sect teaches does matter. It is not a magic incantation that depends on the words of the pastor, it is the Word joined with a physical element, it is Christ work and His promise. If a Mormon was to recite the words of Christ before their commion service, they would still have nothing but bread and water, because of what their sect teaches.

In our churches we would lead them into sin, for they would partake unworthily, by denying His word and promises.And by declare our beliefs, while at the same time rejecting them in their hearts.

 

[JVAC]

I accept all of the Confessions, I don't "emphasize" one part or the other. Communion is indeed a means of grace that confirms and strengthens faith, but it is also a declaration of unity, of common belief.

I disagree, only in as much as it cannot be proven in Scripture that one must believe the same thing to share in this meal, I site two examples, first of Judas' presence at the Last Supper and also that when St. Paul opposed St. Peter to his face, I can expect that they still shared the common cup and worshiped the same Lord.

Sacramanterians are heretics, and the confessions clearly state so. It is wrong for us to ingore their belief, let alone confirm it and declare unity with it, for it puts their souls in danger of damnation.

It is true they are in heresy, and they should be taught of that, but if one comes to our Church to recieve the Blessed Body and Blood of Jesus, the Christ of God, I will not hold him back. Jesus' passion was far to great for me to judge who can share in that blood of forgiveness.

In their churches we would sin by declaring union with those who do not believe His Word and promise, and we would recieve nothing but bread and wine, for their sect declares the He is not present at all, or is only present spiritually. You say that it does not depend on our belief, this is true, yet what the Church or sect teaches does matter. It is not a magic incantation that depends on the words of the pastor, it is the Word joined with a physical element, it is Christ work and His promise. If a Mormon was to recite the words of Christ before their commion service, they would still have nothing but bread and water, because of what their sect teaches.

I disagree greatly. These words (the Verba) are divine words and have the power of God to attest to them. No matter what Godless heathen might say them, God KEEPS His promise to His Church, if that same godless heathen defames the Blessed Sacrament be it on him and him alone. If a synagogue of Satan wishes to share the body and blood of Christ, they may, but with absence of faith the Sacrament is of no use to them, and there is no forgiveness to an unrepentant heart. Yet the blessed body and blood of the Lamb will be there. I am not a calvinist and I reject the idea that Christ died only for some, likewise I reject the notion that Christ offers his body and blood to only those who are in the Church. In Christ there is infanate love and infanite charity, and Christ chooses to give himself to all, so that they might be saved!

In our churches we would lead them into sin, for they would partake unworthily, by denying His word and promises.And by declare our beliefs, while at the same time rejecting them in their hearts.

We do not, though. If the Verba be not clear enough for a soul to know what to expect, there is still the communion cards, the warning of the Pastor, and the Sermon. Don't say they don't know what they do, for it is quite clear, that the Church celebrates the Sacrament with the intent of consuming their Lord and Saviour, for the forgiveness of Sin. Also, "That he might abide in us and we in him" (John 6).

Not only that, but we confess the Nicene Faith together before the Sacrament be administered! The Faith of the Church catholic, which if it not be a valid faith, then there is no valid faith.

I especially key upon the word "unworthily". It is my opinion that the only reason one should partake is that they are unworthy. This great Love, that is, the Divine Mercy, Jesus, is unearned and unmerited. The Church catholic is unworthy of it, yet that is Grace. If the great God of Heaven and Earth can see it permissable to allow this unworthy soul, who has fought against the Lord and despised him, to participate in the Divine, then who am I, to not allow my neighbor. I am not worthy of anything and yet I am welcome, how much more, my brothers, will be welcomed? Let only the perfect Lamb of God decide, he who declares "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28

-James

 

[Lotar]

I disagree, only in as much as it cannot be proven in Scripture that one must believe the same thing to share in this meal, I site two examples, first of Judas' presence at the Last Supper and also that when St. Paul opposed St. Peter to his face, I can expect that they still shared the common cup and worshiped the same Lord.

You are wrong my friend, Judas was not present:
Matthew 26:21-28
As they were eating, He said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."
[size=-1]Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, "Surely not I, Lord?"
[size=-1]And He answered, "He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me.
[size=-1]"The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
[size=-1]And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, "Surely it is not I, Rabbi?" Jesus *said to him, "You have said it yourself."
[size=-1]While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
[size=-1]And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
[size=-1]for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]

Now let St. John fill in a couple details:

[size=-1]John 13:26-30
Jesus then *answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He *took and *gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.[/size]
[size=-1][size=-1]After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus *said to him, "What you do, do quickly."[/size][/size]
[size=-1][size=-1][size=-1]Now no one of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose He had said this to him.
[size=-1]For some were supposing, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus was saying to him, "Buy the things we have need of for the feast"; or else, that he should give something to the poor.
[size=-1]So after receiving the morsel he went out immediately; and it was night.
[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1]When St. Paul admonished St. Peter, Peter corrected his ways, he did not continue in his error.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1]
[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]

It is true they are in heresy, and they should be taught of that, but if one comes to our Church to recieve the Blessed Body and Blood of Jesus, the Christ of God, I will not hold him back. Jesus' passion was far to great for me to judge who can share in that blood of forgiveness.

When scripture says, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29), would it not be wrong to not discern where possible?

Oh, and some Biblical proof:
1 Corinthians 10:20
But I [say], that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
[size=-1]Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
[/size]

I disagree greatly. These words (the Verba) are divine words and have the power of God to attest to them. No matter what Godless heathen might say them, God KEEPS His promise to His Church, if that same godless heathen defames the Blessed Sacrament be it on him and him alone. If a synagogue of Satan wishes to share the body and blood of Christ, they may, but with absence of faith the Sacrament is of no use to them, and there is no forgiveness to an unrepentant heart. Yet the blessed body and blood of the Lamb will be there.

I bolded and underlined the key phrase here. Though some individual sacramentarians may belong to the invisible Church, the body of all believers, their sect is indeed not part of the Church. They have no true sacrament, because they are no true Church. The Christian faith is not merely a personal one, which is perhaps one of the greatest pietist errors, because it is also, and perhaps even more importantly, a corporate faith.

I am not a calvinist and I reject the idea that Christ died only for some, likewise I reject the notion that Christ offers his body and blood to only those who are in the Church. In Christ there is infanate love and infanite charity, and Christ chooses to give himself to all, so that they might be saved!

Yet you communion with these Manichean heretics!!!

We do not, though. If the Verba be not clear enough for a soul to know what to expect, there is still the communion cards, the warning of the Pastor, and the Sermon. Don't say they don't know what they do, for it is quite clear, that the Church celebrates the Sacrament with the intent of consuming their Lord and Saviour, for the forgiveness of Sin. Also, "That he might abide in us and we in him" (John 6).

Do you warn them of damnation if they do not believe the Body and Blood are truly and physically present? I find this hard to believe, as you have officially entered full communion with sects who deny this. Furthermore, read again that they are also responsible for what their sect believes.

Not only that, but we confess the Nicene Faith together before the Sacrament be administered! The Faith of the Church catholic, which if it not be a valid faith, then there is no valid faith.

The Creed is indeed a good thing to be recited and remembered, but it is just the bare bones of the Christian faith, of which many heresies find no fault with.

I especially key upon the word "unworthily". It is my opinion that the only reason one should partake is that they are unworthy. This great Love, that is, the Divine Mercy, Jesus, is unearned and unmerited. The Church catholic is unworthy of it, yet that is Grace. If the great God of Heaven and Earth can see it permissable to allow this unworthy soul, who has fought against the Lord and despised him, to participate in the Divine, then who am I, to not allow my neighbor. I am not worthy of anything and yet I am welcome, how much more, my brothers, will be welcomed? Let only the perfect Lamb of God decide, he who declares "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28

You teach to partake unworthily when scriptures teach that it is the greatest of dangers? No my friend, we must be made worthy through Christ, through repentance. One who hears the truth, yet does not repent of their error partake unworthily. You make to light of this heresy.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

A Christian may listen to the sermon of a preacher of another denomination (perhaps for the purpose of finding out his doctrinal position or when out of respect to a relative or a friend or a distinguished citizen he attends a funeral) and thereby not become guilty of entering into fellowship with that particular church and of confessing its faith. But when a person communes at the altar of any church, he thereby, by a public act, confesses the faith of that church and at once enters into fellowship with whom he communes. If a Christian in an exceptional case attends the services of any church, no one will from such act conclude that he is a member of that church or that he agrees with its doctrines—it is even likely that he will at once be spotted as a stranger—but if he communes at the altar of any church and thus by such a public outstanding act, presupposing a deliberate determination on his part, lines himself up with the worshippers of that particular church at their own altar, he thereby at once gives to all present sufficient reason to believe that he is not protesting any of the wrong doctrines of that church, but is rather confessing them and has entered into fellowship with the members of that church. All this is apparent from the facts in the case. How could therefore a Lutheran justify his action if he would commune at the altar of such as deny the Real Presence? He himself would thereby be denying together with others. And how could we justify our action if we would permit those who deny the Real Presence or who otherwise do not agree with our doctrines of who are unbelievers to commune at our altar, where we confess the Real Presence and our Christian faith in accordance with the Scrip Lures? By so doing we would become partakers of other men’s sins. There is no closer fellowship than that of the Communion table. Such texts as the following apply: 1 Tim. 5:22; Ezek. 3:17,18; 2 Tim. 2:15,25,26; Heb. 13:17; Is. 56:10; 1 Cor. 4:1; Matt.7:6;1 Cor. 5:11,13; 2 Thess. 3:6,14; 2 John 10,11; Rom.16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Titus 3:10,11; 2 Cor. 6:14-13. Says Luther: "Not only do those dishonor the Sacrament who receive it unworthily, but also those who give it to such as are unworthy." "Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran ministers only; Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants only" (Galesburg Rule, 1875). (pp. 110-111)

​

"There is no closer fellowship than that of the Communion table." I totally agree with Lotar and ChiRho.​

 

[JVAC]

You are wrong my friend, Judas was not present:
Matthew 26:21-28
As they were eating, He said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."
[size=-1]Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, "Surely not I, Lord?"
[size=-1]And He answered, "He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me.
[size=-1]"The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
[size=-1]And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, "Surely it is not I, Rabbi?" Jesus *said to him, "You have said it yourself."
[size=-1]While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
[size=-1]And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
[size=-1]for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]

Now let St. John fill in a couple details:

[size=-1]John 13:26-30
Jesus then *answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He *took and *gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.[/size]
[size=-1][size=-1]After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus *said to him, "What you do, do quickly."[/size][/size]
[size=-1][size=-1][size=-1]Now no one of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose He had said this to him.
[size=-1]For some were supposing, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus was saying to him, "Buy the things we have need of for the feast"; or else, that he should give something to the poor.
[size=-1]So after receiving the morsel he went out immediately; and it was night.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]

I have always been more of a visual learner, and every painting I have seen iof the last supper has had thirteen people, and the most famous with Judas clutching the purse. St. Matthew and St. John have never harmonized perfectly. The jury is still out on this one.

When St. Paul admonished St. Peter, Peter corrected his ways, he did not continue in his error.

touché

When scripture says, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29), would it not be wrong to not discern where possible?

Oh, and some Biblical proof:
1 Corinthians 10:20
But I [say], that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
[size=-1]Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.[/size]

Surely here they are talking about feasts with sacrificed meats, which were common place in that day. The warning here is to stay away from meals that were sacrificed to idols, because you cannot worship idols and God. Surely this doesn't apply to those Christians who believe in a historic episcopate or what not.

I bolded and underlined the key phrase here. Though some individual sacramentarians may belong to the invisible Church, the body of all believers, their sect is indeed not part of the Church. They have no true sacrament, because they are no true Church. The Christian faith is not merely a personal one, which is perhaps one of the greatest pietist errors, because it is also, and perhaps even more importantly, a corporate faith.

I never said it was a personal thing. I merely included Church because I am sure there are saints in other denominations, and I do think that even though there be a whole church of evil yet for that dear soul, there will be participation in the body and blood. Even for the rest, there be the Body and Blood for which they will have to account on that last day. Jesus has promised it to be his flesh and blood, and that promise will not be broken, for God is no liar.

Yet you communion with these Manichean heretics!!!

Personally I have never drank of the same chalice as one of these people, however, if one wanted the benefits of that chalice I would not opose, for Christ is far too important than my differences with this man.

Do you warn them of damnation if they do not believe the Body and Blood are truly and physically present? I find this hard to believe, as you have officially entered full communion with sects who deny this. Furthermore, read again that they are also responsible for what their sect believes.

Firstly I do not think that any Christian wishes to dishonor the Lord. Secondly I do think that they, when in a Lutheran Church, treat the Blessed Sacrament with as much dignity as any other Lutheran, at least externally. Thirdly, I believe what they do they do to the Lord and his glory, and I believe, as Romans 14 admonishes, that: (I do so encourage to read 1-12 but I am starting with 13 for brevity) "Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

The Creed is indeed a good thing to be recited and remembered, but it is just the bare bones of the Christian faith, of which many heresies find no fault with.

Yeah, I agree, especially that ELCA heresy!

You teach to partake unworthily when scriptures teach that it is the greatest of dangers? No my friend, we must be made worthy through Christ, through repentance. One who hears the truth, yet does not repent of their error partake unworthily. You make to light of this heresy.

We are unworthy, and we recieve Christ, who is worthy, in the Sacrament of the Altar. The Peace of the Lord might rest with us after confession, yet the Sacrament of the Altar, that desire of Christ, is what really forgives sins. The wish to abandon all but the Lamb and if someone longs for the Lamb, I think he should go to him.

I make light of no heresy, however, I do greatly disagree with what you might think as heresy on this matter. I do not think it necessary for my neighbor to be in agreement with me to enjoy the benefits of Christ.

-James

 

[JVAC]

"There is no closer fellowship than that of the Communion table." I totally agree with Lotar and ChiRho.​

While that was a nice quote, it seems to advance on the premise that a person must agree with a congregation to commune, which is not the case.

ex:

A person can eat at Hooters on the account one is hungry and that if one does not eat he is lost. This by no means that this man is infavor of skimpy clothing, fornication, ect. it just means that this man is in need of a comodity that is necessary for life.

So to we can think of the Christian Church, if there is the Body and Blood, offered one can partake for it is necessary to every body and soul. One doesn't have to confess any belief contrary to their own in order to recieve that manna.

Now on the other hand if it were required to confess certain things, ex: if I was required to confess belief in the infallability of the Roman Bishop, as is the case in the Roman Church, then I cannot and will not commune there. I will not state beliefs contrary to conscience. This is not the case elsewhere.





On a seperate note, if it be of interest. I choose to only commune in Real Pressence Churches who welcome this wayward soul. I commune there because I do not feel that Spiritual Pressence or Symbol churches treat the Sacrament with dignity. This is a personal conviction and I do not coerce others to believe it.

-James

 

[Lotar]

Well, at this time I will just say, believe as you wish. And I will only appeal to Tradition, which has always upheld closed communion, as I accept no new doctrine.

 

[clayrichard]

The real Differance:

sola fid​

meaning​

​

Faith alone​

​

No other differance even comes close in importance.​

​

Romans 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Philip]

The real Differance:

sola fid​

meaning​

​

Faith alone​

No other reformed doctrine is more important or even comes close​

I disagree.

Grace alone. This is how we are saved.