• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Immaculate Conception

Status
Not open for further replies.

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There are arguments for both positions. My church, the ELCA, practices open communion: no one is barred from coming to the Table, though it's generally expected that if you are present and worshiping that you are a baptized Christian. On the other hand, the LCMS practices closed communion; and their reasons for doing so aren't without merit: when we come to receive the Holy Eucharist we are receiving the very flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, this isn't just a churchly ritual, it is a Holy Sacrament in which Christ Himself is tangibly present. There should be a deep reverence for receiving God Himself. Further, when we partake we are confessing our common faith; that's what "confess" means, to "together-admitting", "together-speaking". If we are not, in fact, confessing and are not together sharing in common faith (in particular here, the true body and blood of our God and Savior) then partaking of the Sacrament together becomes a kind of act of theater and hypocrisy--we are in some sense lying to one another and to God.

I think arguments can be made for both practices; it depends on the angle one wants to look.

But at no point can we imagine that this isn't a serious topic, because it is. It may not seem that way if someone doesn't believe that the bread and wine are Jesus Christ Himself truly and actually; but for those of us who believe that this is Christ Himself--not a sign, a symbol, or a token, but actual Jesus--it can't be anything other than a serious topic.

-CryptoLutheran
I understand your position. However, your comment of...........
". It may not seem that way if someone doesn't believe that the bread and wine are Jesus Christ Himself truly and actually; but for those of us who believe that this is Christ Himself--not a sign, a symbol, or a token, but actual Jesus--it can't be anything other than a serious topic."

That is exactly why the Protestant can not partake of the Catholic transubstantiation communion.

Luke 22:19 and 1 Corth. 11:24-25.............
"This do in remembrance of Me".

Of course you are free to do as you choose and what I do here is simply show what the BIBLE teaches us and not what the church dogma says.

The Bible teaches that Lord's Supper is not a sacrament, but rather an ordinance given to the Christians who assembled in their churches. No where does the Bible state or imply that there are any sacraments or that any act or ritual that conveys God's grace. There are no sacraments whereby God, through a rite or ceremony, bestows grace to the individual.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: amariselle
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,802
14,252
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,451,904.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
That is exactly why the Protestant can not partake of the Catholic transubstantiation communion
Lutherans believe in the real presence, do they not? So do Anglicans from what I remember.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,802
14,252
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,451,904.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Of course you are free to do as you choose and what I do here is simply show what the BIBLE teaches us and not what the church dogma says.
You never do that. You quote the bible and then give your interpretation of what it means.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You never do that. You quote the bible and then give your interpretation of what it means.

I am sorry that you feel that way. I would encourage you to confer with Christian apologetic web sites that are available and compare what I say to them.

I do not think that you will find what I say to be any different than the great majority of what Protestant teachings of the Bible say.

So, you are actually in conflict with all of them more than you are with my comments.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Lutherans believe in the real presence, do they not? So do Anglicans from what I remember.

No sir they do not.

In the latest issue of the Christian Research Journal (Vol. 35, No. 02), Rev. Dr. Michael Ross, a Presbyterian pastor, had this to say about the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper in his article titled “The Sacrament of the Supper”:

Consubstantiation
(Lutheran view): The bread and wine remain just that, but through the liturgy (Word) and the Spirit they become vehicles to communicate to believers the body and blood of Christ. Christ is received “in, with and around” the Communion elements. Hence, con (with) substantiation (substance).
“It is taught among us that the true body and blood of Christ are really present in the Supper of our Lord under the form of bread and wine and are there distributed and received. The contrary doctrine is therefore rejected.”
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,802
14,252
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,451,904.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It is taught among us that the true body and blood of Christ are really present in the Supper of our Lord under the form of bread and wine and are there distributed and received.
AKA Real Presence. Thank you for confirming what I said.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,802
14,252
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,451,904.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
do not think that you will find what I say to be any different than the great majority of what Protestant teachings of the Bible say.
Thank you for confirming that they are interpretations.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So the issue isn't whether someone should or should not be able to partake of the Lord's Supper; the reason for closed communion is due to the understanding of what communion means. It isn't just saying that we are partaking of the Lord's Supper because we are Christians, but also says that we affirm and believe the same faith - hence being in communion with each other.

Partaking of communion within a church body has - until modern times- been an assent that you have come to a place of agreement with their teachings. The Orthodox Church affirms that belief today.

ETA: We also take the "not unto our condemnation" part very seriously. This also helps ensure that only those who are properly prepared receive communion. We fast before the Eucharist, must be at peace with each other, etc. If someone doesn't have that same understanding, they shouldn't receive communion from that church, but rather should receive the Eucharist in a place that they can fully affirm the beliefs promoted by that church. Likewise, if someone isn't in a right state with God or is not properly prepared, they should not receive the Eucharist, even if they are a part of the Church community.

To us, Communion requires full affirmation of beliefs. To many Protestants today, it requires affirmation of belief in Christ and a salvation experience - and at times, baptism. Other "non-core" beliefs can vary. It requires some beliefs to be held, whereas we consider communion to be an affirmation of the entirety of the Church's theological beliefs.

I agree. The Communion experience requires one to be a born again believer in Jesus Christ.

Actually Paul gave a warning to those who partook of the Lords Supper unworthily because when they did that, they died.

1 Corth. 11:27.....& 30....
"Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord".

" For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many have died".
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,802
14,252
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,451,904.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You have made over 10,000 posts. Most of them are theological. now what do YOU call what YOU post?
Hopefully, Orthodox teaching and interpretation of the Scriptures, though I am sure that it is often tainted by my own fallible opinion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No sir they do not.
Sorry, but they do. There is no question about it.

“It is taught among us that the true body and blood of Christ are really present in the Supper of our Lord under the form of bread and wine and are there distributed and received. The contrary doctrine is therefore rejected.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,191
304
69
U.S.A.
✟81,573.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I am sorry that you feel that way. I would encourage you to confer with Christian apologetic web sites that are available and compare what I say to them.

I do not think that you will find what I say to be any different than the great majority of what Protestant teachings of the Bible say.

So, you are actually in conflict with all of them more than you are with my comments.


Which leads one to ask...... are they absolute and without error? Or, shall I say....Infallible?
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Which leads one to ask...... are they absolute and without error? Or, shall I say....Infallible?

Has anyone said that those sites are without error or infallible?

The only one I have seen called infallible is the Pope of the Catholic church.

No one including the Pope is infallible. Only the written Word of God is infallible.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hopefully, Orthodox teaching and interpretation of the Scriptures, though I am sure that it is often tainted by my own fallible opinion.

You have made it a point to say that it is my "interpretations" you have a problem with and that said in a derogatory manner. Honestly you are free to say whatever you want to say and it really does not bother me one way or the other. I just want to make sure that we are on the same playing ground.

You said in comment #303..........
"You never do that. You quote the bible and then give your interpretation of what it means."

I am saying that my comments are perfectly in line with Protestant apologetics. and you or anyone else can freely investigate and see if I am in any way saying things that are not 100% Biblical.

And so you have just said in essence that is what you are doing as well. So then why would you say that I am giving my interpretations when in fact I am doing the exact same thing as you.

I am failing to see the difference here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,802
14,252
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,451,904.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You have made it a point to say that it is my "interpretations" you have a problem with and that said in a derogatory manner. Honestly you are free to say whatever you want to say and it really does not bother me one way or the other. I just want to make sure that we are on the same playing ground.

You said in comment #303..........
"You never do that. You quote the bible and then give your interpretation of what it means."

I am saying that my comments are perfectly in line with Protestant apologetics. and you or anyone else can freely investigate and see if I am in any way saying things that are not 100% Biblical.

And so you have just said in essence that is what you are doing as well. So then why would you say that I am giving my interpretations when in fact I am doing the exact same thing as you.

I am failing to see the difference here.
In the past, you have always posted "This is what the BIBLE teaches", and not "This is what the majority of Protestant apologists believe the BIBLE teaches". The latter is quite possibly a true statement, the former, not necessarily so.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In the past, you have always posted "This is what the BIBLE teaches", and not "This is what the majority of Protestant apologists believe the BIBLE teaches". The latter is quite possibly a true statement, the former, not necessarily so.

My dear friend, please try to understand that I am a Bible believer and not a "majority of Protestant believers think" or any church or even you.

My comments are based solely on the Scriptures and what they tell us. No more and no less.

The Bible and what it says is always more acceptable than what any one else says whether it be the majority of believers or a Pope or you.

However, what you just stated really does not answer the question does it? I am doing exactly what YOU said you were doing but you condemned me as giving "interpretations" but that is exactly what you said you were doing.

I base my understandings and teachings on the Scriptures which is why I post those Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,802
14,252
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,451,904.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
My dear friend, please try to understand that I am a Bible believer and not a "majority of Protestant believers think" or any church or even you.

My comments are based solely on the Scriptures and what they tell us. No more and no less.

The Bible and what it says is always more acceptable than what any one else says whether it be the majority of believers or a Pope or you.
Now you've returned to claiming that your interpretation of the BIBLE is in actuality what the BIBLE teaches and not simply your interpretation. :doh:
However, what you just stated really does not answer the question does it? I am doing exactly what YOU said you were doing but you condemned me as giving "interpretations" but that is exactly what you said you were doing.

I base my understandings and teachings on the Scriptures which is why I post those Scriptures.
Interesting that you read my pointing out that you are presenting your interpretation, as condemning you. Where does that come from, I wonder?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,645
29,240
Pacific Northwest
✟817,314.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
No sir they do not.

Yes, in fact, we do.

In the latest issue of the Christian Research Journal (Vol. 35, No. 02), Rev. Dr. Michael Ross, a Presbyterian pastor, had this to say about the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper in his article titled “The Sacrament of the Supper”:

Consubstantiation
(Lutheran view): The bread and wine remain just that, but through the liturgy (Word) and the Spirit they become vehicles to communicate to believers the body and blood of Christ. Christ is received “in, with and around” the Communion elements. Hence, con (with) substantiation (substance).
“It is taught among us that the true body and blood of Christ are really present in the Supper of our Lord under the form of bread and wine and are there distributed and received. The contrary doctrine is therefore rejected.”

Firstly, nothing in what Dr. Ross says suggests Lutherans don't believe in the Real Presence. On the contrary.

Secondly, Dr. Ross is wrong, Consubstantiation is not "the Lutheran view". That is a common misunderstanding.

The Lutheran view, if one wants to give it a name, is the Sacramental Union.

Sacramental union - Wikipedia
Eucharist in Lutheranism - Wikipedia
Stand Firm: The Lutheran View on Consubstantiation and the Lord’s Supper

Most important is that Lutherans confess that we receive the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. How this Mystery happens is something Lutherans do not worry about or try and explain. That's why Lutherans reject Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, because they are attempts to explain the unexplainable Mystery of the Eucharist. The term "Sacramental Union" is used because of its historical usage in Lutheranism to offer analogy to the Hypostatic Union. It is not an attempt to explain how mere bread and wine could be Christ's flesh and blood; but rather it about confessing that this is so.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,191
304
69
U.S.A.
✟81,573.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Has anyone said that those sites are without error or infallible?



No, but it's nice of you to admit that these sites and your own interpretations of Scripture could be wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.

The only one I have seen called infallible is the Pope of the Catholic church.
Ahem....I am a bit surprised by this statement Major1. Being how you constantly profess how learned you are in Catholicism, you should know that infallibility belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity "with the pope", they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. (Which reminds me Major1, you never did say what you consider the Foundation and Pillar of truth to be.) Anyhoo..... I know, you're going to ask, "where is that in the bible?" you being a Sola Scripturist (which we both know is unbiblical) here are a couple of passages. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
Again, being you are far from being ignorant of Catholicism and actually quite learned knows how Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility in Lumen Gentium 25, correct?
No one including the Pope is infallible.
Where does it say this in scripture? What it does say is infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

You should also know Major1, is that the infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
(with help from Catholicanswers.com)

Only the written Word of God is infallible.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
72
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living".
73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures."74
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."
77

69 DV 11;


70 DV 11; cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pt 1:19-21; 3:15-16


71 DV 11.


72 DV 11.


73 St. Bernard, S. missus est hom. 4, 11: PL 183, 86.


74 Cf. Lk 24:45
75 Cf. DV 12 # 1.


76 DV 12 # 2.


77 DV 12 # 3.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.