Question about communion

[Aibrean]

Any baptized Christian is still nothing like closed communion. It's still open. Besides the fact that not every Baptist church uses that confession you referenced.

Symbol is the right word. It represents, but that's it. They don't believe anything changes. The juice is a symbol of the blood and the wine is a symbol of the body...nothing more.

I am not a cradle Lutheran so I know what they do and each congregation might be different but that is the jist of it. I have Baptists in my family including pastors and missionaries.

You should find offense and want to elaborate and correct if someone thinks a Baptist communion and Lutheran communion are the same.

 

[DaRev]

Man, it really saddens me to see so many Lutherans with this belittling view of their brothers and sisters in Christ. It's really, really unfortunate.

What is even more unfortunate is the attitude some have that false teaching is OK. The truth is intolerant of error. We can never accept the errant teachings of others or pretend that they don't matter. They have eternal consequences.

 

[mightymouse1119]

I totally agree with Aibrean, I spent a great part in my life in Pentecostal, and Non-denomination churches, and they strongly believe and affirm its just juice and crackers as a symbol!, anything else is consider Idolatry?!!!, Thank's Be To God, that he has directed me to a faith that leads to the Lord's table and open my eyes to the rock band stage that those sacks rest upon.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think you'd find that many Baptists would feel that juice vs wine is a small matter. They 'remember' what the Lord has done for them, which is actually quite meaningful to our Baptist brethren, and the important aspect of their Supper.

And that's pretty much where any commonality is dropped. Baptists don't believe that it's Christ's body and blood. To cheapen the Lord's supper down to something symbolic is unfortunate.

Making fun of them is a touch uncharitable. Man, it really saddens me to see so many Lutherans with this belittling view of their brothers and sisters in Christ. It's really, really unfortunate.

I don't think it was making fun of them, I think it's a statement of fact. These are people who are taking the Lord's Supper to their own detriment.

It's really really unfortunate when so-called Lutherans can't even follow what Luther taught on communion.

 

[tz620q]

"It dawned on me a while back that since the Baptists believe it is just grape juice, that God graciously allows it to remain just grape juice for them."

I think you'd find that many Baptists would feel that juice vs wine is a small matter. They 'remember' what the Lord has done for them, which is actually quite meaningful to our Baptist brethren, and the important aspect of their Supper.

Amen. As we should all do during this most important of meetings between us and our God.

Making fun of them is a touch uncharitable. Man, it really saddens me to see so many Lutherans with this belittling view of their brothers and sisters in Christ. It's really, really unfortunate.

I am sorry. On rereading what I wrote, it could easily be seen as uncharitable. I must mention that I am Catholic, not Lutheran. In explanation for what I was thinking and didn't make clear enough, I offer the following:

1 Corinthians, 11

"23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

25 In the same way also 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.”

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

It is through the grace of God and the Words of Consecration that the bread and wine are made into the body and blood of Christ. It is also through the grace of God that for those who do not discern the body, the juice just remains juice, else they would be eating judgment onto themselves.

 

[Aibrean]

It is through the grace of God and the Words of Consecration that the bread and wine are made into the body and blood of Christ. It is also through the grace of God that for those who do not discern the body, the juice just remains juice, else they would be eating judgment onto themselves.

As Lutherans, we believe that Real Presence exists no matter who is present.

As with this verse: For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

If you don't recognize RP, then you are drinking judgment on yourself. It doesn't stay "juice/bread" for you and you just get out free.

 

[DaRev]

As Lutherans, we believe that Real Presence exists no matter who is present.

As with this verse: For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

If you don't recognize RP, then you are drinking judgment on yourself. It doesn't stay "juice/bread" for you and you just get out free.

Just to clarify, the Real Presence in the Sacrament relies solely on the word of God and not the individuals involved (minister or recipient). Except in situations where the meaning of the Lord's words and His ordinance are changed so that His word no longer exists. In such cases there is no Sacrament as per FC SD VII 32.

 

[Aibrean]

Except in situations where the meaning of the Lord's words and His ordinance are changed so that His word no longer exists.

Well that was implied (by me) as he did say after the words of consecration were made. I was presuming they were correct.

 

[Needing_Grace]

I am very far from talking about open communion. I said nothing whatsoever about that and nothing that could be interpreted that way either for that matter. I was talking about what the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church do; graciously giving out the eucharist to infants. And there is nothing wrong with it, in my opinion. On the contrary, I think it is right.

Out of curiosity I wanted to know if anyone here knows how old is the Lutheran practice of denying infants communion. If you do not know, you do not need to reply to my question. I might find out later, or not. As I said: I was just curious.

Catholic Infants are not given the Eucharist. First Holy Communion (and first Confession as Confession is usually celebrated before going to Mass with the intent to receive the Eucharist) is usually done at 7. Confirmation comes soon thereafter.

Sent from my iPhone using CF

 

[Kalevalatar]

How old is this custom of basically denying the non-confirmed communion? I have to wonder if it started as an influence from Baptist churches, in which a person must be old enough to understand the faith and say yes to be baptized. I see a similarity between the two practices, since baptism and (first) communion are closely connected things.

The early church practised children's communion. The Council of Tours of 813 first expressed reservations regarding children's communion and later the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 required that a child had reached a certain spiritual maturity, "years of discretion", putting the age somewhere between 7 and 10 y.o. The Council of Trent of 1545-1563 cemented the deal of excluding children who had yet to reach the "age of reason" from communion. It follows the general pattern of diminishing children's (and women's) right in the sphere of the back-then-almighty Catholic church. Luther followed the late 15th century practice re: child communion.

As to our local Lutheran church, the Swedish Church Ordinance of 1571 by Laurentius Petri put the age limit at 8 y.o. Later, the Church Ordinance of 1686 raised the age to 13-14, which in turn went hand in hand with the development of specific confirmation training.

I don't quite see the connection with Baptists, since Baptism (sp?) is a decidedly latecomer (i.e. 19th century) "foreign" transplant to Sweden. To me, it seems to have more to do with society's changing view on children's (and women's) mental capacity, worth and value, and place in the society.

 

[Cappadocious]

To me, it seems to have more to do with society's changing view on children's (and women's) mental capacity, worth and value, and place in the society.

It had to do, rather, with the notion that intellectual comprehension was necessary for faith.

 

[PreachingChristCrucified]

I attend the LCMS. I take communion. I was never confirmed.

 

[Erth]

The early church practised children's communion. The Council of Tours of 813 first expressed reservations regarding children's communion and later the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 required that a child had reached a certain spiritual maturity, "years of discretion", putting the age somewhere between 7 and 10 y.o. The Council of Trent of 1545-1563 cemented the deal of excluding children who had yet to reach the "age of reason" from communion. [...]

As to our local Lutheran church, the Swedish Church Ordinance of 1571 by Laurentius Petri put the age limit at 8 y.o. Later, the Church Ordinance of 1686 raised the age to 13-14, which in turn went hand in hand with the development of specific confirmation training.

I appreciate your post.

 

[DaRev]

It had to do, rather, with the notion that intellectual comprehension was necessary for faith.

Which of course is an error.

 

[Cappadocious]

Well, yes.

 

[coach rick]

It's not about those being confirmed but about those who agree with the Real Presence in, with and under the bread and wine. Communion isn't just about me. In Communion we receive the Lord's body and blood but not everyone believes this.

Those who are confirmed in a LCMS church have affirmed their belief publicly and agree with Lutheran teachings which is why the confirmed are admitted to the Lord's Table.

Shouldn't be a problem for me since I'm currently a confirmed Roman Catholic, discerning WELS.