Communion at Protestant churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg_Dent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
state church the politics of a GOD???
god of meaning
god of Christ???
lol
no secular is the devil who hates us
 
Yes there is a line drawn between families!!!
I know christ spoke of palestinian families
If and it seems to be half or ambiguous!!!
Christ m8!!!
Come
! come 2 and I am not catholic???
The God?
All alpha omega?
got to go
lol
b good I like you but i know ?
death is nothing

i will be sad when IM dead
christos?
spirit?
power?
come
give me
hope
catholic
again
begin again
christ
mundane—and
god god god
evangeligal?
christ
god
go
go
hear it
a a a qa a go
theres power in it
aaaaa gogogogogo no
me no
jesus
god is good
 
ozm8 said:
Yes there is a line drawn between families!!!
I know christ spoke of palestinian families
If and it seems to be half or ambiguous!!!
Christ m8!!!
Come
! come 2 and I am not catholic???
The God?
All alpha omega?
got to go
lol
b good I like you but i know ?
death is nothing

i will be sad when IM dead
christos?
spirit?
power?
come
give me
hope
catholic
again
begin again
christ
mundane—and
god god god
evangeligal?
christ
god
go
go
hear it
a a a qa a go
theres power in it
aaaaa gogogogogo no
me no
jesus
god is good
Click to expand...
Maybe you just don’t know what you’re trying to say…
 
Theodore said:
Being Catholic i speak as a Catholic, the Church has always taught that it is through the sacraments we are assured of making our union with Christ. As for the poor old thief, (the good thief) Christ himself spoke to him. “truely i say to you, from this moment on you will be in paradise with me” What more could he want !
God Bless,
Theo… 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t know that one could want anything more. You seemed to imply that one could in your previous comment:
Theodore said:
Sacramental Communion is more effective than Spiritual Communion, it is when we truely receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord JESUS CHRIST. 🙂
Click to expand...
I propose that St. Dimas never received Sacramental Communion, but that he did partake of Spiritual Communion with Christ. And I believe that it was every bit as effective as if he had received sacramental communion in the normative way.
 
Grace_Seeker said:
I don’t know that one could want anything more. You seemed to imply that one could in your previous comment:

I propose that St. Dimas never received Sacramental Communion, but that he did partake of Spiritual Communion with Christ. And I believe that it was every bit as effective as if he had received sacramental communion in the normative way.
Click to expand...
He was present physically with Christ. He was neither experiencing a Sacrament, nor having an interior locution, nor any other kind of a spiritual experience.
 
jmcrae said:
He was present physically with Christ. He was neither experiencing a Sacrament, nor having an interior locution, nor any other kind of a spiritual experience.
Click to expand...
Why are you so intent on denying that he had a spiritual connection? He recognized who Jesus was. That takes sprititual discernment.

And you are the one who has been intent in talking about his baptism of blood. and desire. Where did that desire come from if not a spiritual connection with Jesus? But I agree with you it wasn’t a Sacramental experience. Hence, my statement to Theodore who proposed that Sacaramental graces were superior to spiritual graces.

Though you continue to argue with me (maybe just because I’m a protestant and you can’t admit a protestant might have a point), you seem to be agreeing with my position that the effect of receiving Jesus’ love (sans sacraments) was just as effective in St. Dimas’ spiritual life as if he had received the sacraments. Please don’t telll me that receiving Jesus’ love like St. Dimas did is NOT a spiritual experience, but only a physical one.
 
Grace_Seeker said:
Why are you so intent on denying that he had a spiritual connection? He recognized who Jesus was. That takes sprititual discernment.

And you are the one who has been intent in talking about his baptism of blood. and desire. Where did that desire come from if not a spiritual connection with Jesus? But I agree with you it wasn’t a Sacramental experience. Hence, my statement to Theodore who proposed that Sacaramental graces were superior to spiritual graces.

Though you continue to argue with me (maybe just because I’m a protestant and you can’t admit a protestant might have a point), you seem to be agreeing with my position that the effect of receiving Jesus’ love (sans sacraments) was just as effective in St. Dimas’ spiritual life as if he had received the sacraments. Please don’t telll me that receiving Jesus’ love like St. Dimas did is NOT a spiritual experience, but only a physical one.
Click to expand...
No, no.

Obviously, there was a spiritual component to his experience. There is also a spiritual component to the Sacraments, as well. And there will be a spiritual component to our experience in Heaven, when we are face to face with God as He is, which will be a physical experience.

When we pray, we have a spiritual experience.

When we participate in the Sacraments, we are having both a spiritual experience (prayer) and a material experience. A Sacrament is when a spiritual thing takes on form -Jesus present in the Eucharist, the priest being in persona Christi in Confession, the Holy Spirit actually washing away sins in Baptism, and so on.

Face to face is an even more so experience - it encompasses everything that comes from the spiritual experience and everything that comes from the Sacramental experience (the material aspect), and also adds the face to face component to these.

The Sacraments also include prayer, don’t forget. The Mass is actually one great big long prayer, actually.

My point is that it’s not only spiritual.
 
Grace_Seeker said:
Why are you so intent on denying that he had a spiritual connection? He recognized who Jesus was. That takes sprititual discernment.

And you are the one who has been intent in talking about his baptism of blood. and desire. Where did that desire come from if not a spiritual connection with Jesus? But I agree with you it wasn’t a Sacramental experience. Hence, my statement to Theodore who proposed that Sacaramental graces were superior to spiritual graces.

Though you continue to argue with me (maybe just because I’m a protestant and you can’t admit a protestant might have a point), you seem to be agreeing with my position that the effect of receiving Jesus’ love (sans sacraments) was just as effective in St. Dimas’ spiritual life as if he had received the sacraments. Please don’t telll me that receiving Jesus’ love like St. Dimas did is NOT a spiritual experience, but only a physical one./QUOTS

If i came to you in person would you say to me that i have no Spirit within me ? Because if i didn’t i’d be dead, once you loose you’re physical component you are Spirit, hence when we receive Christ in Holy Communion (Sacramental Communion) he comes to us in PERSON (in Body as well as Spirit i thought you understood that). But if Christ only came to us Spiritual than the promise of the Eucharist was in vain.
Click to expand...
 
Theodore said:
hence when we receive Christ in Holy Communion (Sacramental Communion) he comes to us in PERSON (in Body as well as Spirit i thought you understood that). But if Christ only came to us Spiritual than the promise of the Eucharist was in vain.
Click to expand...
Is that all you meant by your prior comment? Yes, I understand the importance of the actual presence of the body of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist. Obviously, I still disagree with it theologically, but if that is all you were saying then I apologize; I have one again made a mountain out of a molehill.

I do think that the spiritual promises of Chrsit’s presence made in Communion are far greater and more significant than the issue of whether the wafer mysteriously becomes the physical body of Christ. I don’t think that is even what Christ meant by those words which are cited to prove the point. But that has already been discussed in this thread, and I need not debate them a second time.
 
Grace_Seeker said:
Is that all you meant by your prior comment? Yes, I understand the importance of the actual presence of the body of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist. Obviously, I still disagree with it theologically, but if that is all you were saying then I apologize; I have one again made a mountain out of a molehill.

I do think that the spiritual promises of Chrsit’s presence made in Communion are far greater and more significant than the issue of whether the wafer mysteriously becomes the physical body of Christ. I don’t think that is even what Christ meant by those words which are cited to prove the point. But that has already been discussed in this thread, and I need not debate them a second time.
Click to expand...
Peace… 🙂
 
Greg_Dent said:
I have often heard that Protestants should not receive holy Communion at Catholic Mass, and totaly agree that they should not…But is it permissable for us Catholics to participate in Protestant communion services???
Click to expand...
This is something we’ve wrestled with at our church. We used to have open communion, where anyone who professed to be born again could participate, but we’ve had so many people come who aren’t saved, who don’t have any fruit in their lives, that we had to close it.

Some churches will allow Roman Catholics to participate. We no longer do. I know that’s going to offend some here. Sorry.
 
brosam said:
Some churches will allow Roman Catholics to participate. We no longer do. I know that’s going to offend some here. Sorry.
Click to expand...
That shouldn’t offend any Catholics or Orthodox. Neither would be permitted to receive communion at a protestant service. Nor do they allow protestants to receive at theirs. I’m happy to see your community taking Eucharistic discipline very seriously.
 
brosam said:
This is something we’ve wrestled with at our church. We used to have open communion, where anyone who professed to be born again could participate, but we’ve had so many people come who aren’t saved, who don’t have any fruit in their lives, that we had to close it.

Some churches will allow Roman Catholics to participate. We no longer do. I know that’s going to offend some here. Sorry.
Click to expand...
We also want only persons who are truly Christian, who fully and completely understand what communion is about, and who are truly living the Christian life to participate in Holy Communion. However, we also realized that if we actually restricted communion to just those people that there would be none who could participate, and in fact no one who could serve it.

Who of us can claim to fully understand all that there is to understand with regard to the meaning and significance of communion?

Who of us can claim to live a live that is worthy of receiving it?

Certainly, the disciples themselves neither fully understood nor showed themselves to be worthy of it at even the meal in which Jesus instituted it. So, we don’t make that the standard. We call people to the standard, but we don’t withhold it from people who while failing to fully understand or live up to the standards are seeking to grow in such grace, be they of our church, our denomination, some other congregation, or no church whatsoever.
 
Grace_Seeker said:
We also want only persons who are truly Christian, who fully and completely understand what communion is about, and who are truly living the Christian life to participate in Holy Communion. However, we also realized that if we actually restricted communion to just those people that there would be none who could participate, and in fact no one who could serve it.
Click to expand...
If you added the caveat that they had recently repented of any sins that they were aware of having committed, and had gone in sorrow to apologize to persons they had offended through their mistakes, and if you amended the part about “fully understanding Holy Communion” to “faithfully seeking understanding” then probably most of your congregation would be okay. (Those in the midst of a messy divorce, and those involved in gang activities would be required to refrain from receiving, of course, until such time as they had made amends and achieved some kind of peace with their foes.)
Certainly, the disciples themselves neither fully understood nor showed themselves to be worthy of it at even the meal in which Jesus instituted it. So, we don’t make that the standard. We call people to the standard, but we don’t withhold it from people who while failing to fully understand or live up to the standards are seeking to grow in such grace, be they of our church, our denomination, some other congregation, or no church whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Do you at least request that they be baptized persons who have been taught something about Jesus?
 
brosam said:
This is something we’ve wrestled with at our church. We used to have open communion, where anyone who professed to be born again could participate, but we’ve had so many people come who aren’t saved, who don’t have any fruit in their lives, that we had to close it.

Some churches will allow Roman Catholics to participate. We no longer do. I know that’s going to offend some here. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Not at all. We admire those who know where they stand and stick to their principles. Soldier on, brother. 🙂
 
jmcrae said:
Do you at least request that they be baptized persons who have been taught something about Jesus?
Click to expand...
No. The United Methodist Church practices “Open Communion”. That doesn’t mean we take it lightly. But we ask the individual, not the church, to be the one to make the determination as to whether or not they are prepared to receive it. Thus if a person personally known to me to be an adulterer and confessed murderer, a habitual blasphemer, and sometimes participant in Wiccan rituals were to come forward to receive communion, as long as they did so in apparhent sincerity, I would serve them. I would do so in the hope that there had been a change in the individual that I was unaware of and that they did indeed now express faith in Christ, desire to live their lives in communion with God through Christ Jesus, and to live a life demonstrating love to their neighbors and with all humanity.
 
Grace_Seeker said:
No. The United Methodist Church practices “Open Communion”. That doesn’t mean we take it lightly. But we ask the individual, not the church, to be the one to make the determination as to whether or not they are prepared to receive it. Thus if a person personally known to me to be an adulterer and confessed murderer, a habitual blasphemer, and sometimes participant in Wiccan rituals were to come forward to receive communion, as long as they did so in apparhent sincerity, I would serve them. I would do so in the hope that there had been a change in the individual that I was unaware of and that they did indeed now express faith in Christ, desire to live their lives in communion with God through Christ Jesus, and to live a life demonstrating love to their neighbors and with all humanity.
Click to expand...
In the Catholic Church, it is also the individual who makes his Examination of Conscience, and goes to Confession if necessary. But the Church provides him with plenty of guidance on what to look for, and how to know that he is receiving Holy Communion in good conscience.

Catholic priests, too, usually assume that everyone in the communion line-up has made a good Examination of Conscience, and prepared themselves properly.

If he notices that an unbaptized person or non-Catholic is receiving, he will sometimes take the person aside and give him instructions not to receive again until after he has been Initiated into the Church, together with information about what the Catholic Church believes, and what the person should do instead; however, even in those cases, there are priests who will just leave it in God’s hands and hope for the best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top