communion question

[Albion]

I guess the idea is supposed to be that some people view Communion as an act by which a person engages in some supremely intimate encounter with God. We do run into people who talk like that's what they think is happening, although I've not heard it put in sexual terms before.

 

[Athanasias]

I do not have marital intercourse when I take the body and blood. What in the...

ok obviously you guys do not get the analogical connection. Thats fine. The question on here has already been answered.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It would've been easier to say it parallels marriage, not marital intercourse.

 

[Athanasias]

It would've been easier to say it parallels marriage, not marital intercourse.

Perhaps your correct on this sister. As it does parallel marriage also. But we do see it as paralleling marital union I will say(if that sounds easier to the ears).

 

[seekingsolace]

Perhaps your correct on this sister. As it does parallel marriage also. But we do see it as paralleling marital union I will say(if that sounds easier to the ears).

Does sound a little less... sultry.

 

[Athanasias]

Does sound a little less... sultry.

LOL OK if that helps.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Marriage is more than the sex. By saying it parallels marital sex, you've just reduced marriage to sex.

 

[Athanasias]

Marriage is more than the sex. By saying it parallels marital sex, you've just reduced marriage to sex.

Ok see your point sister! I think you have a good point. Ok So the Eucharist certainly parallels Marriage and especially the marital union which in our Catholic theology understands as a reflection of both the nature of the Trinity and the sacrifice of the Cross. Because when we receive the Eucharist we become One with Christ in a intimate physical and spiritual way we see this as the closest thing to marital union. This is also one reason why we have closed communion. To quote a well known Catholic( John Martigioni, president of the Bible Christian Society.) "Catholics don't allow non-Catholics to receive communion (at mass)... because we don't believe in sex outside of marriage."

 

[KEPLER]

Not to derail the thread, but this is another point where Lutheran theology gets back on the biblical path. Marriage belongs to the rubric of creation, not redemption. (i.e., God put man and woman together prior to the fall). So in Lutheran circles, marriage is not a sacrament - it is not a means of grace. It is certainly an institution created and blessed by God, but it in no way adds to anyone's state of grace. And the marriage of two people outside of the Christian faith is no less valid than that of some couple within the faith. (We wouldn't require a bhuddist couple who converts to get remarried, would we?)

K

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Not to derail the thread, but this is another point where Lutheran theology gets back on the biblical path. Marriage belongs to the rubric of creation, not redemption. (i.e., God put man and woman together prior to the fall). So in Lutheran circles, marriage is not a sacrament - it is not a means of grace. It is certainly an institution created and blessed by God, but it in no way adds to anyone's state of grace. And the marriage of two people outside of the Christian faith is no less valid than that of some couple within the faith. (We wouldn't require a bhuddist couple who converts to get remarried, would we?)

K

No, but... they and those married in a civil ceremony may have their unions blessed in Chruch; not uncommon in my parish actually.

 

[Athanasias]

Not to derail the thread, but this is another point where Lutheran theology gets back on the biblical path. Marriage belongs to the rubric of creation, not redemption. (i.e., God put man and woman together prior to the fall). So in Lutheran circles, marriage is not a sacrament - it is not a means of grace. It is certainly an institution created and blessed by God, but it in no way adds to anyone's state of grace. And the marriage of two people outside of the Christian faith is no less valid than that of some couple within the faith. (We wouldn't require a bhuddist couple who converts to get remarried, would we?)

K

Thats true. It is differently understood by us. For us catholics(and for Orthodox also) Marriage is a sacrament/mystery that gives grace and is meant for the couple to help them grow in charity and learn the love of Christ toward his church and to bear a reflection of the Blessed Trinity to the world and to prepare us for heaven and help each other get to heaven.

 

[tulipbee]

I use my trusty liquid hand sanitizer when everyones gone

I like the monks that are into praying and meditation who doesn't shake. That's proper lifestyle.

 

[Albion]

Thats true. It is differently understood by us. For us catholics(and for Orthodox also) Marriage is a sacrament/mystery that gives grace and is meant for the couple to help them grow in charity and learn the love of Christ toward his church and to bear a reflection of the Blessed Trinity to the world and to prepare us for heaven and help each other get to heaven.

It might be OK to mention that it is possible for all of that (above) to be the case...and the ceremony still not be a sacrament.

The main reason that the "lesser five" are not considered to be sacraments is that they were not ordained by Christ (a necessary ingredient in the definition of a sacrament).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sacraments; Sacramentals; we do them regardless of what we call them. This should not be that big a point of contention. Arguing over designations and nomenclature is legalism; we need to move beyond arguing over minor points IMO.