Sin: Not a Reason to Refuse Communion

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think Paul's notion of unworthy reception is really about sins against fellowship and good order, not the notion that one should be overly scrupulous about the sacrament, given the overall context surrounding it.

Being sinful people is the exact reason why we should participate in communion. The problem arises when people disrespect it and make light of the body and blood of the Lord. In the case of the Corinthians, turning a holy meal into a glutton fest and a boozeup.

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON

Thread has undergone a cleanup of flaming and off topic posts. It is not permissible to imply that another Christian group is not Christian.
ADMIN HAT OFF​

 

[The Liturgist]

It is for some communions. If the pastor invokes a curse before the communion, even if it is open communion, steer clear.

There are no traditional liturgical churches which feature such a maledictory practice.

 

[The Liturgist]

To withhold Communion from someone perceived to have sinned is to block them from the body and blood of the Lord and to say that their particular sin is unforgiveable, which is inconsistent with the Scripture: "All sin and iniquity shall be forgiven of men", and "There is forgiveness with Thee that Thou mayest be feared." Receiving Communion with a sincere heart toward God is a significant form of repentance.

That’s not true. For certain grave offenses, the Orthodox will exclude someone from the Eucharist temporarily during a period of repentance, which will also be combined with fasting and prayer, but if the person should become ill and at risk of death, they will be given the Eucharist.

The reason for this practice is to reduce the risk of someone who has separated themselves from Christ harming themselves through the Eucharist, by partaking unworthily and failing to discern the Body and Blood of Christ our True God.

The rationale for doing this is the same as the Lutheran rationale for Closed Communion, which perhaps Presbyterians, insofar as most, with the exception of a few who might identify as Reformed Catholic or Scoto-Catholic, reject the doctrine of the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist that unites the Lutherans, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Roman Catholics, Moravians, Old Catholics and high church Anglicans, in addition to several other smaller groups as well as groups within denominations, for example, high church Methodists.

 

[RileyG]

Being sinful people is the exact reason why we should participate in communion. The problem arises when people disrespect it and make light of the body and blood of the Lord. In the case of the Corinthians, turning a holy meal into a glutton fest and a boozeup.

Do Presbyterians believe all sins are forgiven when one receives the Lord’s Supper?

 

[RileyG]

That’s not true. For certain grave offenses, the Orthodox will exclude someone from the Eucharist temporarily during a period of repentance, which will also be combined with fasting and prayer, but if the person should become ill and at risk of death, they will be given the Eucharist.

The reason for this practice is to reduce the risk of someone who has separated themselves from Christ harming themselves through the Eucharist, by partaking unworthily and failing to discern the Body and Blood of Christ our True God.

The rationale for doing this is the same as the Lutheran rationale for Closed Communion, which perhaps Presbyterians, insofar as most, with the exception of a few who might identify as Reformed Catholic or Scoto-Catholic, reject the doctrine of the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist that unites the Lutherans, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Roman Catholics, Moravians, Old Catholics and high church Anglicans, in addition to several other smaller groups as well as groups within denominations, for example, high church Methodists.

Yup. It’s the same why divorced and remarried Catholics without receiving an annulment can’t receive the Eucharist either.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Do Presbyterians believe all sins are forgiven when one receives the Lord’s Supper?

Certainly not.

 

[RileyG]

Certainly not.

So, Holy Communion is just remembering Christ’s sacrifice? It’s not literal or a means of grace in Presbyterian/Reformed theology?

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, Holy Communion is just remembering Christ’s sacrifice? It’s not literal or a means of grace in Presbyterian/Reformed theology?

It is considered to be a means of grace. The term "means of grace" is open to a wide variety of interpretations, of course. In Reformed theology it is not some sort of mechanical means by which God is compelled to automatically forgive all of a person's sins simply because they participate in the rite. Even in Catholicism, this is not true in regard to the eucharist. A murderer cannot simply pop into Sunday mass and take the Eucharist and have his murder completely forgiven. There is what is now called the rite of reconciliation (i.e. confession) which must precede partaking of the Eucharist.

 

[RileyG]

It is considered to be a means of grace. The term "means of grace" is open to a wide variety of interpretations, of course. In Reformed theology it is not some sort of mechanical means by which God is compelled to automatically forgive all of a person's sins simply because they participate in the rite. Even in Catholicism, this is not true in regard to the eucharist. A murderer cannot simply pop into Sunday mass and take the Eucharist and have his murder completely forgiven. There is what is now called the rite of reconciliation (i.e. confession) which must precede partaking of the Eucharist.

Correct.

Thank you

 

[bbbbbbb]

Correct.

Thank you

You are welcome.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is considered to be a means of grace. The term "means of grace" is open to a wide variety of interpretations, of course. In Reformed theology it is not some sort of mechanical means by which God is compelled to automatically forgive all of a person's sins simply because they participate in the rite. Even in Catholicism, this is not true in regard to the eucharist. A murderer cannot simply pop into Sunday mass and take the Eucharist and have his murder completely forgiven. There is what is now called the rite of reconciliation (i.e. confession) which must precede partaking of the Eucharist.

Indeed, and this principle is largely shared with other traditional churches, such as the Orthodox.

However, the Orthodox and most other ancient denominations do believe that baptism wipes away all pre-baptismal sin, which is part of its raison d’etre. It also includes in the Orthodox and Catholic churches an exorcism, albeit what the Roman Catholics call a “minor exorcism” and not the more intense prayers that one sees in Hollywood films et cetera.

The Orthodox Church has equivalent liturgies for exorcising a demon in a posessed person, but it is extremely rare in our case. One thing I dislike about some non-traditional chuches is their tendency to engage in large amounts of exorcism on the belief that any number of personal issues are due to demonaic posession.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed, and this principle is largely shared with other traditional churches, such as the Orthodox.

However, the Orthodox and most other ancient denominations do believe that baptism wipes away all pre-baptismal sin, which is part of its raison d’etre. It also includes in the Orthodox and Catholic churches an exorcism, albeit what the Roman Catholics call a “minor exorcism” and not the more intense prayers that one sees in Hollywood films et cetera.

The Orthodox Church has equivalent liturgies for exorcising a demon in a posessed person, but it is extremely rare in our case. One thing I dislike about some non-traditional chuches is their tendency to engage in large amounts of exorcism on the belief that any number of personal issues are due to demonaic posession.

I agree with your thoughts regarding exorcism. It requires great discernment to determine the fine line between mental illness and demon possession. I have met several men who are afflicted with schizophrenia and who have benefited to varying degrees from medical treatment of their illness. One was a pastor who managed to dismiss the audible voices in his brain as being merely the symptoms of his illness which he then was able to ignore.

The fact is, however, that demons are real beings and that they can, indeed, possess humans. Exorcism is effective in many such cases and genuine exorcists are meritorious servants of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree with your thoughts regarding exorcism. It requires great discernment to determine the fine line between mental illness and demon possession. I have met several men who are afflicted with schizophrenia and who have benefited to varying degrees from medical treatment of their illness. One was a pastor who managed to dismiss the audible voices in his brain as being merely the symptoms of his illness which he then was able to ignore.

The fact is, however, that demons are real beings and that they can, indeed, possess humans. Exorcism is effective in many such cases and genuine exorcists are meritorious servants of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Indeed. Actual demonic posession is greatly disturbing and is a reason why Christians should avoid dabbling in the occult. Even reading the horoscope or messing with Ouija boards is highly inadvisable. Such irrational decision making invites trouble and it also invites demons, because they prey upon us when we are having difficulties, by acting to confuse us and inflame our passions, thus tempting us to sin. And where possible, they will move in.

The reason for the minor exorcisms in baptism is because the demons are sufficiently cruel that they might posess a child given the chance, and so the Orthodox and Catholics act to preclude this possibility. And a child who is baptized is, contrary to what the Exorcist implies, unlikely to be inadvertantly posessed at such a young age. The film The Exorcist with Max von Sydow is problematic, because on the one hand it does depict some aspects of the liturgy, and the dangers of demons, accurately, but on the other hand the Wagnerian posession it demonstrates is ludicrous, and other aspects of the film are simply obscene or sensationalist.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed. Actual demonic posession is greatly disturbing and is a reason why Christians should avoid dabbling in the occult. Even reading the horoscope or messing with Ouija boards is highly inadvisable. Such irrational decision making invites trouble and it also invites demons, because they prey upon us when we are having difficulties, by acting to confuse us and inflame our passions, thus tempting us to sin. And where possible, they will move in.

The reason for the minor exorcisms in baptism is because the demons are sufficiently cruel that they might posess a child given the chance, and so the Orthodox and Catholics act to preclude this possibility. And a child who is baptized is, contrary to what the Exorcist implies, unlikely to be inadvertantly posessed at such a young age. The film The Exorcist with Max von Sydow is problematic, because on the one hand it does depict some aspects of the liturgy, and the dangers of demons, accurately, but on the other hand the Wagnerian posession it demonstrates is ludicrous, and other aspects of the film are simply obscene or sensationalist.

You have succinctly described the reasons why I never bothered to watch The Exorcist. I agree entirely with you regarding avoiding anything remotely associated with the occult. I find it troubling that otherwise confessed Christians engage in various Halloween activities. It is a sign of our culture that Americans now are devoting enormous outlays of money in the celebration of this truly pagan holiday.

 

[The Liturgist]

You have succinctly described the reasons why I never bothered to watch The Exorcist. I agree entirely with you regarding avoiding anything remotely associated with the occult. I find it troubling that otherwise confessed Christians engage in various Halloween activities. It is a sign of our culture that Americans now are devoting enormous outlays of money in the celebration of this truly pagan holiday.

Indeed, we are of one accord.

 

[RileyG]

You have succinctly described the reasons why I never bothered to watch The Exorcist. I agree entirely with you regarding avoiding anything remotely associated with the occult. I find it troubling that otherwise confessed Christians engage in various Halloween activities. It is a sign of our culture that Americans now are devoting enormous outlays of money in the celebration of this truly pagan holiday.

I've actually read the Exorcist and seen the movie multiple times. I just really HATE the crucifix scene, and it's more graphic in the book. ugh

 

[JSRG]

You have succinctly described the reasons why I never bothered to watch The Exorcist. I agree entirely with you regarding avoiding anything remotely associated with the occult. I find it troubling that otherwise confessed Christians engage in various Halloween activities.

While some specific activities might be problematic, I don't see anything wrong with the more common practices. The biggest trademark of Halloween, dressing up and getting candy, seems quite innocuous (a few questionable costumes aside).

It is a sign of our culture that Americans now are devoting enormous outlays of money in the celebration of this truly pagan holiday.

Halloween isn't a pagan holiday; it dates back to a Christian--or at least Catholic--holiday.

The term "Halloween" comes from All Hallows' Eve, as it was the eve (day before) All Hallows' Day (November 1), more commonly called All Saints' Day now. All Saints' Day is still a holy day in the Catholic Church (it's also a holiday in Eastern Orthodoxy, though they have it the Sunday after Pentecost instead).

Of course, much like Christmas, Easter, and St. Valentine's Day, in popular culture Halloween's religious origins have been strongly de-emphasized, mostly in favor of whatever from them can be used to make a lot of money, so Trick-or-Treating gets all the attention because it's the one that's the most profitable (for selling candy and costumes, as well as getting people to put up decorations or jack-o-lanterns which themselves are big businesses).

 

[bbbbbbb]

While some specific activities might be problematic, I don't see anything wrong with the more common practices. The biggest trademark of Halloween, dressing up and getting candy, seems quite innocuous (a few questionable costumes aside).


Halloween isn't a pagan holiday; it dates back to a Christian--or at least Catholic--holiday.

The term "Halloween" comes from All Hallows' Eve, as it was the eve (day before) All Hallows' Day (November 1), more commonly called All Saints' Day now. All Saints' Day is still a holy day in the Catholic Church (it's also a holiday in Eastern Orthodoxy, though they have it the Sunday after Pentecost instead).

Of course, much like Christmas, Easter, and St. Valentine's Day, in popular culture Halloween's religious origins have been strongly de-emphasized, mostly in favor of whatever from them can be used to make a lot of money, so Trick-or-Treating gets all the attention because it's the one that's the most profitable (for selling candy and costumes, as well as getting people to put up decorations or jack-o-lanterns which themselves are big businesses).

In my opinion, present-day Halloween bears as much resemblance to the historic All Hallows' Eve as the Mexican Day of the Dead does. Unfortunately, religious syncretism has gone to an extreme with the Day of the Dead.

 

[JSRG]

In my opinion, present-day Halloween bears as much resemblance to the historic All Hallows' Eve as the Mexican Day of the Dead does.

The problem is you made the claim it was a "truly pagan" holiday despite the fact it comes from a Christian holiday. I'll definitely say that the modern Halloween celebration (at least in the US) has diverged considerably from the original All Hallows' Eve and at this point is basically completely secular, but the same thing can be said for Valentine's Day, which has essentially nothing to do with the saint nowadays and is just a holiday emphasizing romance. But this introduction of romance (contrary to what some fundamentalists might claim) has nothing to do with paganism, given that the holiday only started to have that association in the 14th century.

Halloween might be a completely secular celebration at this point, but it's not pagan.

Unfortunately, religious syncretism has gone to an extreme with the Day of the Dead.

While it's a popular claim that the Mexican Day of the Dead was some kind of syncretism with an Aztec celebration, looking a bit into it, the accuracy of this claim is disputed in academia, with some asserting it's really just a relatively modern rebranding of previous customs derived from Spain in an effort to feel more uniquely Mexican. Unfortunately, it seems most of the relevant literature is in Spanish.