Does Belief About Communion Effect Communion?

[CMatt25]

Look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29-30:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I would think most Christians discern that Christ sacrificed His body on the cross regardless of what church they are partaking in. Also a Lutheran for instance can discern this even if they were attending Mass in a Catholic church.

 

[CMatt25]

I really don’t understand what you are trying to get at here?

Also, Transubstantiation doesn’t happen because the Church says it is. It happens because that is what Jesus says is happening. We are just following the teachings of Jesus.

I think I might understand the points the OP is making. Catholics are following the Catholic Church’s interpretation of what Jesus said and taught. Other Christians are following their church’s interpretations. A lot of it comes down to faith and belief. And without a good dose of faith and believing we know, humans have finite minds to perhaps understand and truly know with complete certainty all things of such an infinite God.

 

[LowerCasec]

That Corinthians passage doesn’t hold up very well imo. I’ll show why using the NASB.

*“27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” *- these verses are pointing to the person consuming the bread and wine.

"29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep- these verses are the ones being pointed to as Jesus’ body. to “not judge the body (Jesus’) rightly.”

“31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.”- here the term rightly is used again pointing to the consumer. I don’t see why Paul would jump from one subject to another and then back again and use the same sentence structures without indicating the change in subject.

I saw a couple other translations that entered in the word Lord to 29 and 30, and then the arguement moves away from understanding the text, to textual transmission and translation.

The John 6 proofs look a lot more solid than this one. I’ll examin it later.

Blessings

 

[CMatt25]

That Corinthians passage doesn’t hold up very well imo. I’ll show why using the NASB.

*“27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” *- these verses are pointing to the person consuming the bread and wine.

"29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep- these verses are the ones being pointed to as Jesus’ body. to “not judge the body (Jesus’) rightly.”

“31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.”- here the term rightly is used again pointing to the consumer. I don’t see why Paul would jump from one subject to another and then back again and use the same sentence structures without indicating the change in subject.

I saw a couple other translations that entered in the word Lord to 29 and 30, and then the arguement moves away from understanding the text, to textual transmission and translation.

The John 6 proofs look a lot more solid than this one. I’ll examin it later.

Blessings

I sometimes even wonder if a Christian discerns and believes that Christ sacrificed His body and blood, how are they unworthy? But my favorite Jn 6 passage is Jesus saying He will turn away no one who comes to Him.

Quoting from the NASB version you are using, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”

Blessings to you too and to all along our journeys. Peace.

 

[englishredrose]

Greetings Brothers and Sisters,

My question has to do with communion. I do not have an issue receiving communion in different Christian churches because in my view, my belief whether it be transubstantiation or mere remembrance does not change what God is doing in communion. I acknowledge that Jesus commanded me to participate in communion but as far as that goes the rest is speculation.

how refreshing…

 

[tee_eff_em]

At this point in my life the Catholic case isn’t convincing (or I’d be Catholic DUH!)

And that is why you should not, at this point in your life, receive communion in the Catholic Church. Because it is an expression of a unity which sadly does not exist, as you admit.

The USCCB’s Guidelines for the Reception of Communion in part (and with

emphasis

added):

For our fellow Christians
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion

. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 §4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 §3).

tee

 

[constantconvert]

I’m not affirming or denying transubstantiation here. If transubstantiation is a fact, my non-belief in it does not change it. If consubstantiation is a fact, my belief does not change it. My belief or disbelief in an external happening does not affect reality.
For example. I do not believe God exists.
Does this mean God doesn’t exist? No.
Does this mean God does exist? No.
God exists apart from my belief. I don’t see why communion would be any different. Therefore, if Catholics are wrong, what happens to communion? Nothing. If protestants are wrong, what happens to communion? Nothing.

You are correct in your assertion that the elements do not change because of our belief, they are what they are. Nothing “happens to communion”

However, this is not the crux of the matter. Rather, it’s what happens to the believer if their belief is wrong. If Catholics are wrong we are committing grave idolatry by worshipping a cracker. If Protestants are wrong, they are missing a huge chunk of Christianity-- they have the bow, but not the violin, so to speak. So even though what we believe doesn’t effect the sacrament, it deeply effects us, and either way it matters very much to God.

 

[constantconvert]

And that is why you should not, at this point in your life, receive communion in the Catholic Church. Because it is an expression of a unity which sadly does not exist, as you admit.

The USCCB’s Guidelines for the Reception of Communion in part (and with

emphasis

added):

tee

i don’t think the OP is considering receiving Eucharist in the CC. From what I gather, it’s an exploration of the ideas about a person’s beliefs about communion

 

[curlycool89]

I’ll define belief first: A belief is an idea that corresponds to reality.

Actually, belief is just something you believe is happening. Truth is what corresponds to reality. It is possible to believe in something that is false.

What you’re getting confused with is knowledge. Most philosophers will argue that it is impossible to know something that is false.

I’m not affirming or denying transubstantiation here. If transubstantiation is a fact, my non-belief in it does not change it. If consubstantiation is a fact, my belief does not change it. My belief or disbelief in an external happening does not affect reality.
For example. I do not believe God exists.
Does this mean God doesn’t exist? No.
Does this mean God does exist? No.
God exists apart from my belief. I don’t see why communion would be any different. Therefore, if Catholics are wrong, what happens to communion? Nothing. If protestants are wrong, what happens to communion? Nothing.

I think you’ve got the right idea.

You see, we’re talking about things here. In the Catholic sense, the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, the substance is the Body of Christ. It is an objective truth because it does not rely on one’s faith believing it’s true or not. If one does not believe in it that it’s still the Body of Christ.

Now we’ll get to the bolded part, “external happening”. In the Catholic view, nothing happens externally, it still looks like bread (and if it doesn’t then you’re probably really tired or on some illicit substance). We use the Aristotelian understanding that everything has a substance and accidents. The substance is what the object is. The accidents are essentially the properties. Normally, substance and properties go hand in hand, so an apple has the accidents of an apple (taste, shape, seeds in the middle, packed with Vitamin C, ect).

In the case of the Eucharist, this is not true. We say it is the Body and Blood of Christ under the accidents of bread and wine. The substance is the Body of Christ, but it has all the properties of bread (tastes like bread, has gluten so celiacs can’t receive it) or wine (has alcohol, you can get drunk off of it and that doesn’t change a thing). If we took a consecrated piece of bread (a host we call it) and put it under a microscope, I guarantee that you’ll see bread. That’s because it has all the physical properties of bread without being bread; it’s the true Body of Christ.

That Corinthians passage doesn’t hold up very well imo. I’ll show why using the NASB.

*“27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” *- these verses are pointing to the person consuming the bread and wine.

"29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep- these verses are the ones being pointed to as Jesus’ body. to “not judge the body (Jesus’) rightly.”

“31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.”- here the term rightly is used again pointing to the consumer. I don’t see why Paul would jump from one subject to another and then back again and use the same sentence structures without indicating the change in subject.

And, as is typical for Protestant understandings, you have to ignore the context to get an interpretation like this.

27-30 only make sense if you include the context of 23-26, where Paul describes the institution of the Eucharist (this is the RSV-CE)

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which 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.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

This is all a single narrative.

As you can see from the first half that you ignored, this passage is complete Christ-centric. The second half speaks of us in our relationship with Christ, not apart from it in our own little world.

The person who eats and drinks unworthily profanes the body and blood of the Lord, which was described in v. 24-25. These passages must be taken together, not apart.

 

[DJK100]

I agree we can’t know all the mind of God but this is precisely why he would institute a teaching authority in my opinion. Jesus obviously had something to say and why should those important points be lost after his death because he left no mechanism in place to keep those teaching known. The bible can’t be it because everyone under the sun can interpret it anyway they want — so then what is the truth? Either it was preserved through the teaching Authority Jesus left or we can never know what he meant until Jesus returns and says “What H*ll are you guys doing!? I sent you the (Edited) Holy Spirit and this is what you came up with!?”

That is why I don’t get the point of this thread. The OP has already made up his mind, and like he said is not being offensive, which he is not, but then this discussions server no purpose because the whole point he is trying to make is that it doesn’t matter as long as your interpretation makes sense to you. But it does matter because someone has to be wrong and this is one of the topics that Jesus spoke directly about and is quoted in the Gospels so it most certainly must be very important.

Maybe I am wrong but to me is seems the OP is not looking for a discussion when starting this thread but a confirmation of his views. Nothing against him or anything but that just how it seems to me so I don’t see the point of the thread. So I am just going to excuse myself from it for the time being.

 

[LowerCasec]

A lot to digest here.

DJK is correct that I was looking for a confirmation that the logic is sound. Not valid.

Curly,

You’re right, I miss defined belief – which would be an idea that the holder thinks corresponds to reality but it doesn’t make it so. Thanks for catching me on this.
I left out the words of institution because they don’t help with understanding what Paul is talking about in the later verses. I did read the whole thing and those extra parts don’t make the Catholic case any stronger.
verses 23-26 Paul makes a statement “This is communion.” In a response to the Church in Corinth who are indulging in food and drunk on wine at services instead of in their own homes. v17-22 (did you leave this out because you’re a typical Catholic attempting to strong-arm your position? Of course not! I’d like to think we can be more charitable with each other, third bead style.)

Once he describes communion, we say, yeah so what? v27 “Therefore…” and goes on to describe an examination of oneself before participating in the act, in contrast to the first example in v17-22.

Do I believe its Christ-centric? Is the pope Catholic? (I’d like to think he’s a Christian first, but that’s another argument)

As for transubstantiation I think it’s one of the possibilities. I don’t see Luther’s view to be that much different than the Catholic view. I do not believe my efforts of understanding exactly what is happening down to the molecule have endangered my salvation. I’m sure Holy Mother Church can point out plenty of other things to accomplish my damnation.

Tee, with reference to the Catholic position and its request to not participate in communion, that’s their view. And that’s their decision to withhold communion from a fellow brother. Their view is not my own.
I believe that Catholics are a Christian church, together plowing the fields and because of that we are in communion, even though Holy Mother Church says we’re not. We may differ on what the problem is, but I’m confident we share what the solution is. Because of my view I do not see communion to be different anywhere I go. Some go to the alter, some use saltines and apple juice, others from the common cup, some churches have a fresh loaf made every Sunday. In this case, I am not the one standing in division, it’s Holy Mother Church.

I’m going to add one more example and then I’ll let the crowd have the last word. I have a friend who is a non-denominational protestant; he’s a young earth creationist. I’m an old earth creationist. Does this divide us? Nope. Do we discuss it, sure, and we have fun with it! (Seriously, it’s only 6000 years old, pshhh) We have fellowship together, we worship together, and we are united. Similarly, I with Calvinists (put your TULIP away I’m not buying it!) Eschatology? Yeah, don’t get me started! These things do not divide us. I see communion no different, because God is in charge of it and He’s the only one who’s proven faithful. Soli Deo Gloria

 

[benjohnson]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Lutherans believe that Jesus is JOINED to the bread but does not REPLACE the bread?

We lutherans have made it simple for ourselves: we believe that they are the true body and true blood of Jesus.

That’s it.

How that happens is a “mystery of faith.”

…

I respect the Catholic teaching as it satisfies my logical mind. But my heart loves the simple admonishment to accept the true body and true blood of my savior on faith and trust.

 

[curlycool89]

Once he describes communion, we say, yeah so what? v27 “Therefore…” and goes on to describe an examination of oneself before participating in the act, in contrast to the first example in v17-22.

Actually, a “therefore” points to making concluding statements based on premises that came before the “therefore”. The statements before “therefore” are then required for understanding what comes after a “therefore”.

A “therefore” is not a contrasting word. Here’s a simple logic example:

P1. All A’s are B’s
P2. All B’s are C’s
C. Therefore, all A’s are C’s.

The premises P1 and P2 are required for understanding what comes after in C, and C is not in contrast to what is in P1 and P2. You cannot understand C without understanding P1 and P2.

v. 17-22 is speaking about the need for unity and not become a self-centered Church. Especially verse 20:

20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.

This leads into Paul speaking about the need to examine one’s self before approaching Communion. Apparently the Corinthians were not treating the celebration with a proper reverence. That is why Paul admonishes them in v. 23-32.

 

[Church_Militant]

LC,

There is no such thing as subjective truth. Truth is forever objective. To believe otherwise eliminates the concept of truth altogether. “Subjective truth” is an illogical fallacy.

With regard to the Eucharist and belief about same affecting communion, I say indeed it does.

This article from my blog should show why. The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[JonNC]

Veronica,

Thank you for you thoughtful reply. It’s the one I anticipated from a Catholic forum. I know the Catholic Church says transubstantiation is happening because they say it is, now let’s imagine they’re wrong, but they go on believing that it’s right. What happens to communion?

My answer would be nothing.

No more would be different than if our construct of Sacramental Union was “wrong”. Christ’s presence is the result of His words, and the power of the Holy Spirit, not the description or explanantion we attach to bread and wine** is** body and blood.