An Exegetical Refutation of the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (2): 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:27-29

  • Thread starter Thread starter TriuneUnity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DV56 said:
You’re just a plain old heretic! 😃

Hmmm…what is the only baseball team to come from 0-3 and win 4 straight…then win 4 more straight to win the World Series? 😃

At least you had the decency to put that in teeny tiny letters!
Click to expand...
The same team who has lost 5 straight to the Yankees in the regular series the very next year. The same team who had to go through about 8 presidents to win? LOL!

Actually, I’ve never hated the Red Sox much (other than a few of their players). I hate too many National League teams to focus on them LOL
 
DV56 said:
Wait just a minute! How does a good Christian from SD become a Yankee fan? (Don’t tell my father about this. He’s 77 and one of those misguided people.) 🙂
Click to expand...
haha! I am not from SD originally. I am here in the Army. I was born and raised in Yonkers NY, then moved to CA when I was a teen.
 
TriuneUnity said:
The same team who has lost 5 straight to the Yankees in the regular series the very next year. The same team who had to go through about 8 presidents to win? LOL!

Actually, I’ve never hated the Red Sox much (other than a few of their players). I hate too many National League teams to focus on them LOL
Click to expand...
Actually, I take after my father. He’s a Yankee fan who likes the Red Sox. I’m a Red Sox fan that likes the Yankees. (Especially when they’re in the cellar) 😉
 
OK, so I thought I would check in on this thread to see where it was at…Baseball? Really?
 
Non_Serviam said:
Correct-when speaking of the Yankees it is only the accidents of baseball-for the substance of baseball the Red Sox have to be involved. 😃
Click to expand...
Thankfully…the Lord is more present in the Eucharist than the Sox are on the playing field. 🍿
 
DV56 said:
Thankfully…the Lord is more present in the Eucharist than the Sox are on the playing field. 🍿
Click to expand...
I prefer to say that being a Red Sox fan requires more faith than reason at times. 🙂
 
Non_Serviam said:
Correct-when speaking of the Yankees it is only the accidents of baseball-for the substance of baseball the Red Sox have to be involved. 😃
Click to expand...
Unfortunately 27 World Church Fathers demonstrate that the presence lies with the Yankees :-p
 
TriuneUnity said:
Unfortunately 27 World Church Fathers demonstrate that the presence lies with the Yankees :-p
Click to expand...
That is only because we the Red Sox are still living under the effects of the Curse. We’ve seen the firstfruits of our redemption and look forward to to its fulfillment. 😛
 
Since we seem unable to separate even over the cause of baseball, let’s return to theology and see if we can shatter the unity we possess (against all odds apparently).

Coming back to I Cor 11:17-22
17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
Click to expand...
Let us note that in writing to the church at Corinth, Paul says in verse 20 that their Eucharist is invalid. The reasons he gives for this are the actions and/or beliefs of the congregation. Does the congregation becomes an element that impacts the validity of the sacrament? Or should Paul’s comments be interpreted in another manner?

Q. Does this passage demonstrate that Paul held a different Sacramental theology (especially in regard to the elements affecting validity) than that currently held by the Catholic church?
 
Non_Serviam said:
Since we seem unable to separate even over the cause of baseball, let’s return to theology and see if we can shatter the unity we possess (against all odds apparently).

Coming back to I Cor 11:17-22

Let us note that in writing to the church at Corinth, Paul says in verse 20 that their Eucharist is invalid. The reasons he gives for this are the actions and/or beliefs of the congregation. Does the congregation becomes an element that impacts the validity of the sacrament? Or should Paul’s comments be interpreted in another manner?

Q. Does this passage demonstrate that Paul held a different Sacramental theology (especially in regard to the elements affecting validity) than that currently held by the Catholic church?
Click to expand...
Is he possibly saying that they had no valid Eucharist because they had no valid person consecrating the bread and wine? I’m not sure. Even if only one person is there in true faith, should that person be withheld the true Eucharist because of the behavior of many? It’s complicated. But I do believe he was scolding the entire process they were using.
 
DV56 said:
Is he possibly saying that they had no valid Eucharist because they had no valid person consecrating the bread and wine? I’m not sure. Even if only one person is there in true faith, should that person be withheld the true Eucharist because of the behavior of many? It’s complicated. But I do believe he was scolding the entire process they were using.
Click to expand...
That could be a possibility, but wouldn’t you think his solution to it would be to have them ask someone to visit from another church or send over some bread that had been properly consecrated into the body of Christ? Or tell them he was sending someone to them? His comments that follow don’t seem to “follow” if the problem was lacking a celebrant.

It’s just occurred to me that there seems to be a parallel with Jesus’ story of the man at the altar with “ought” against his brother, who has to leave his gift and get reconciled before offering it. Paul has been talking about public sin in the church-divisions, sexual sin, etc. The church has been letting it slide and not dealing with it. Paul almost seems to be saying that since the Corinthian church has let “ought” build up, and not gone through the reconciliation/repentance process that its sacrifice at the altar is also invalid.

Just imagine the repercussions if this is true and Paul is saying that unaddressed public sin invalidates the Eucharist in a local church. :eek:

Thoughts?
 
Non_Serviam said:
That could be a possibility, but wouldn’t you think his solution to it would be to have them ask someone to visit from another church or send over some bread that had been properly consecrated into the body of Christ? Or tell them he was sending someone to them? His comments that follow don’t seem to “follow” if the problem was lacking a celebrant.

It’s just occurred to me that there seems to be a parallel with Jesus’ story of the man at the altar with “ought” against his brother, who has to leave his gift and get reconciled before offering it. Paul has been talking about public sin in the church-divisions, sexual sin, etc. The church has been letting it slide and not dealing with it. Paul almost seems to be saying that since the Corinthian church has let “ought” build up, and not gone through the reconciliation/repentance process that its sacrifice at the altar is also invalid.

Just imagine the repercussions if this is true and Paul is saying that unaddressed public sin invalidates the Eucharist in a local church. :eek:

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying…but would Christ deny the Bread of Life to the true believers in the group because of the sins of the few or many? That’s where my main objection would come from. Remember Sodom and Gamorah. It would only have taken one good person to save the entire community from destruction.

Even in a state of sin a priest is able to consecrate the bread and wine. He is calling on the Father to send the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine holy. The Lord takes care of his sheep in making sure that they are not held accountable for the sins of the priest. Of course…priest commits a grave sin by not being in a state of grace and celebrating the Mass.

I’m far from a theologian so those comments are based on what I understand. 🙂
 
DV56 said:
I understand what you are saying…but would Christ deny the Bread of Life to the true believers in the group because of the sins of the few or many? That’s where my main objection would come from. Remember Sodom and Gamorah. It would only have taken one good person to save the entire community from destruction.

Even in a state of sin a priest is able to consecrate the bread and wine. He is calling on the Father to send the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine holy. The Lord takes care of his sheep in making sure that they are not held accountable for the sins of the priest. Of course…priest commits a grave sin by not being in a state of grace and celebrating the Mass.

I’m far from a theologian so those comments are based on what I understand. 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t think Christ wants to deny Himself to anyone, but would it not seem to be consistent with Paul’s teaching in Chapter 12, that if one member of the body suffers, then all suffer. It actually helps me understand the public confessions that apparently took place in the early church and the stern penances that accompanied them.

If the church believed that uncorrected public sin kept them from the Eucharist, then the presence of a public sinner would have to be dealt with before the Body and Blood were
offered. Likewise the stern penances would help those tempted to realize that they wouldn’t be hurting only themselves, but also the entire assembly they fellowshipped with.

I agree that it would be inappropriate for this to apply to private sins as we would never know if the Eucharist was valid or not. But manifest public sin, with full knowledge by the congregation, seems to be an impediment to validity, at least per this passage.

Triune, any thoughts?
 
Non_Serviam said:
Since we seem unable to separate even over the cause of baseball, let’s return to theology and see if we can shatter the unity we possess (against all odds apparently).

Coming back to I Cor 11:17-22

Let us note that in writing to the church at Corinth, Paul says in verse 20 that their Eucharist is invalid. The reasons he gives for this are the actions and/or beliefs of the congregation. Does the congregation becomes an element that impacts the validity of the sacrament? Or should Paul’s comments be interpreted in another manner?

Q. Does this passage demonstrate that Paul held a different Sacramental theology (especially in regard to the elements affecting validity) than that currently held by the Catholic church?
Click to expand...
I would say that he held a different sacramental theology in that he doesn’t bind the validity of the sacrament to the ordination of the person reciting the words of institution. I think what Paul is getting at here is that by the actions of the congregation, they were denying that Christ is present in the sacrament, as well as their sinful behavior toward it. In Lutheran theology, the piety of the congregation doesn’t affect the validity of the sacrament; but, what does happen is that if the sacrament is not celebrated according to Christ’s institution, it is not the Lord’s Supper that is being celebrated. This is why, for example, we do not believe the Reformed celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top