How do Protestants interpret 1 Cor 11:29?

[steve_b]

I think we need to speak carefully of what is symbolic.The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ. However, that does not mean that Holy Communion is an empty ritual. They are symbolic of a spiritual reality–the Atonement of Christ–and it is nothing to play around with. If we fail do discern the reality behind the symbols, then we fail to grasp the cleansing, keeping, and healing power that the Atonement provides.

1. 
   *] what happens to the remaining elements that aren’t consumed in your service? What is done with those unconsumed elements ?
   *]do you have bread and wine, or crackers / croutons,etc and grape juice?

 

[Wannano]

In the 25 years I was an evangelical, and those years I was in leadership, the congregation was reminded that “this is just bread” that we use to remember Christ. It seems incongruous to say on the one hand “it’s just bread”, and on the other hand, eating it “unworthily” can lead to damnation. That’s quite a “piece of bread”.

I have never heard anyone ever say in a Communion service that “this is just bread.” I am sure there are all kinds of misinformed people in the various churches even those in leadership roles who are not well grounded.

 

[rfournier103]

I realize you may form your faith from Tradition and not so much from the Bible but Tradition is not supposed to negate the Bible is it?

I take serious offense at this, sir. I respect your opinions and YOUR traditions, but to assert that Catholicism is “not taken so much from the Bible” is incorrect.

As is plainly obvious in this thread, as well as many others here, almost all of our differences stem from interpretation of the Bible. There is also the issue of who has authority to interpret said Bible, but that’s neither here nor there.

I do find this discussion of Protestant INTERPRETATION of 1 Corinthians 11:29 rather interesting, though. I didn’t mean to get in the middle of a side bar, but I did feel the need to speak up.

 

[a_priori]

I have never heard anyone ever say in a Communion service that “this is just bread.” I am sure there are all kinds of misinformed people in the various churches even those in leadership roles who are not well grounded.

I’m here to tell you that, in the Baptist church I attended for years, the point was made at every Communion service (once a month) that the bread about to be partaken is just bread, and remains bread. The whole “groundedness” discussion is a larger issue of which this is certainly a part.

 

[rfournier103]

1. 
   *] what happens to the remaining elements that aren’t consumed in your service? What is done with those unconsumed elements ?
   *]do you have bread and wine, or crackers / croutons,etc and grape juice?

1. 
   Excellent question. I suppose the degree of reverence would depend on the particular denomination, pastor/minister, and congregation.
   

   I have never heard anyone ever say in a Communion service that “this is just bread.” I am sure there are all kinds of misinformed people in the various churches even those in leadership roles who are not well grounded.

   My “real time” exposure to Protestantism is quite limited. The vast majority of my knowledge stems from reading and research. However, my wife (before she became Catholic) was attending a UCC congregation when I first met her, and they never mentioned that it was “just bread and just wine” during their services. However, having witnessed several of these services in person, I am certain that to them this is 1000% symbolic and no thought is ever given to judgement when it comes to a communion service (part of me thinks they never give any thought to judgement at all).
   
   I know full well that the UCC does NOT represent Protestantism as a whole, let alone Evangelical Christians. However, I have been led to believe that the vast majority of Christians have ALWAYS believed that the bread and wine (or whatever they use) is merely symbolic and nothing more. If it wasn’t, why have it so infrequently? The answer I have been given by a Protestant that I asked about this was that if it were every week, it would lessen the “specialness” of it.
   
   How long has the Pentecostal/Evangelical interpretation been around? Is it doctrine? As I said before, I’ve never seen such an interpretation before.
   
   This is from one of the very few Protestant (and rather anti-Catholic) books I own:
   
   HALLEY’S BIBLE HANDBOOK
   
   Chapter 11:17-34
   
   It seems that after the Pentecostal Community of Goods (Acts 2:44-45) ceased, the wealthier members of the Church would bring food to certain services for a Love-Feast (Jude 12), to be held after the Communion, in which the rich and poor joined.
   This, in Corinth, it seems, had overshadowed the Lord’s Supper. Those that brought the food ate it in their own clique without awaiting the whole congregation to assemble.
   Imitating the drunken revels of heathen peoples in their Idol Temples, Christians were thus making their Love-Feasts occasions for gluttony, losing sight entirely of the true significance of the Lord’s Supper.
   
   This is the only real Protestant attempt at interpreting the passage under discussion here - that I have ever seen - before this thread. I found it somewhat odd. I’ll say the Pentecostal/Evangelical interpretation would feel a little more authentic to me.

 

[ltwin]

do you have bread and wine, or crackers / croutons,etc and grape juice?

Bread and grape juice. At my church, we typically have a little plastic cup with some grape juice and a thin wafer. However, I have been to some churches where they literally pass around like loaves of bread and you tear a piece off.

I have never been to a church that uses crackers.

what happens to the remaining elements that aren’t consumed in your service? What is done with those unconsumed elements?

At my church in recent years we’ve used pre-packaged wafers/grape juice. Anything not opened I assume is kept until we have Communion again or until it expires I suppose.

 

[ltwin]

How long has the Pentecostal/Evangelical interpretation been around? Is it doctrine? As I said before, I’ve never seen such an interpretation before.

There is no single evangelical doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Some evangelical Protestants hold the Reformed position that there is a spiritual or “pnuematic” presence of Christ in the Eucharist that we receive by faith. This is also called “Receptionism” by Anglicans and tends to be the belief among evangelical Anglicans and Presbyterians.

The Zwinglian or memorialist position is that there is no “spiritual presence” in the Eucharist. It is simply a memorial of Christ’s death.

Pentecostals tend to waver between these teachings. We do believe the bread and wine are physically symbolic, but we also strongly believe that the Holy Spirit is using the Lord’s Supper as a vehicle for healing and spiritual nourishment.

 

[ltwin]

This is from one of the very few Protestant (and rather anti-Catholic) books I own:

HALLEY’S BIBLE HANDBOOK

Chapter 11:17-34

It seems that after the Pentecostal Community of Goods (Acts 2:44-45) ceased, the wealthier members of the Church would bring food to certain services for a Love-Feast (Jude 12), to be held after the Communion, in which the rich and poor joined.
This, in Corinth, it seems, had overshadowed the Lord’s Supper. Those that brought the food ate it in their own clique without awaiting the whole congregation to assemble.
Imitating the drunken revels of heathen peoples in their Idol Temples, Christians were thus making their Love-Feasts occasions for gluttony, losing sight entirely of the true significance of the Lord’s Supper.

Well, this is part of evangelical Protestant interpretation of this verse. The fact that the wealthier members were not considerate of the poorer members of the church during the Love Feast (of which Holy Communion was a part) demonstrated that they did not understand that rich and poor, slave and free, man and woman, Greek and Jew,etc. etc. were all part of the Body of Christ. They were not united. They were divided–they were dividing the Body of Christ. They failed to discern the body of Christ.

 

[Wannano]

I take serious offense at this, sir. I respect your opinions and YOUR traditions, but to assert that Catholicism is “not taken so much from the Bible” is incorrect.

As is plainly obvious in this thread, as well as many others here, almost all of our differences stem from interpretation of the Bible. There is also the issue of who has authority to interpret said Bible, but that’s neither here nor there.

I do find this discussion of Protestant INTERPRETATION of 1 Corinthians 11:29 rather interesting, though. I didn’t mean to get in the middle of a side bar, but I did feel the need to speak up.

Thank you for speaking up. I never wrote that to be offensive so I am sorry it seemed that way. I was replying to Martin Jordan who I felt was confirming he takes his faith more from Sacred Tradition than from the Bible, which is an arguement I have heard before. In fact, in other threads where Catholic posters were quite adamant that the Bible is not really needed at all since the Roman Catholic Church contains the Sacred Tradition. In those threads I defended the need for the Bible which would back up your contention here.

And so it goes. I came to CAF to get answers directly from Catholics but I have discovered that even in Catholicism there are opinions from all over the map. And as Father Ruggero once suggested to me, numerous posters here do not seem to be in touch with the current vision of the Church so what is the point of it all anyway?

 

[rfournier103]

Thank you for speaking up. I never wrote that to be offensive so I am sorry it seemed that way. I was replying to Martin Jordan who I felt was confirming he takes his faith more from Sacred Tradition than from the Bible, which is an arguement I have heard before. In fact, in other threads where Catholic posters were quite adamant that the Bible is not really needed at all since the Roman Catholic Church contains the Sacred Tradition. In those threads I defended the need for the Bible which would back up your contention here.

And so it goes. I came to CAF to get answers directly from Catholics but I have discovered that even in Catholicism there are opinions from all over the map. And as Father Ruggero once suggested to me, numerous posters here do not seem to be in touch with the current vision of the Church so what is the point of it all anyway?

No problem, Wannano.

Anyone who asserts that Sacred Scripture is “not needed” in the full practice of the Catholic Faith is simply incorrect. Yes, the Church IS older than the Bible, but that does not render the Bible unimportant or simply a mere handbook. Scripture and Tradition are deeply interwoven and we require them both. I would say (and this is MY opinion) that our biggest Tradition is our interpretation of Scripture.

Moving on…

All I can say about all the opinions that are “all over the map” here, is that all of our journeys have been different. Some of us are liberal, some of us are more orthodox. Some of us want a more modern and “updated” Church, some of us want a return to more traditional Catholicism. These are opposing views that you will find among Catholic clergy as well as the laity.

Most of the time this board is a little too liberal for my taste, but the alternative boards I’ve visited are a little stiff and not exactly what I’m looking for. There is one board that I am a member of where I can say that I have never once encountered a Protestant poster or member. Not that membership is closed to Protestants, but in all honesty, unless I were already convinced of the Truth of the Catholic Faith, as a Protestant,I wouldn’t dare venture in there. However, to be fair, many other Christian and Protestant websites are hostile to Catholicism and Catholics, so it goes both ways.

Getting back to the topic at hand…

I like this thread because to my knowledge this topic hasn’t really been covered before. At least not since I’ve been here. I have often wondered how a Protestant would explain 1 Corinthians 11:29, and I have some answers now.

Of course, I will never budge from the Catholic interpretation of that verse, or ever dismiss the TRUE nature of the Holy Eucharist; but to hear other opinions (even though I firmly believe them to be wrong) is one of the reasons I am here. To seek a Protestant interpretation of 1 Cor 11:29 on a Protestant board is impossible for me because the “best” Protestant boards will not allow membership to Catholics. Since to deny my Catholic faith would be a grave sin (I have been counseled that to deny Christ’s Church with the full knowledge that it is the True Church is a mortal sin), I refuse to lie about my faith to simply gain membership to a Protestant website.

In any event, if you wish to ever discuss anything “Catholic” with me, I would welcome it with great enthusiasm. Likewise, I would not hesitate to bring any questions regarding Protestantism to you. You’re a gentleman (I’m assuming you’re a man) and I respect your posts here.

+++Pax Christi+++

 

[MartinJordan]

Thank you for speaking up. I never wrote that to be offensive so I am sorry it seemed that way. I was replying to Martin Jordan who I felt was confirming he takes his faith more from Sacred Tradition than from the Bible, which is an arguement I have heard before.

Wannano, does Faith comes from hearing, yes or no?

In fact, in other threads where Catholic posters were quite adamant that the Bible is not really needed at all since the Roman Catholic Church contains the Sacred Tradition. In those threads I defended the need for the Bible which would back up your contention here.

Why do you call it Sacred Tradition ? Did you consider Sacred Tradition (as the Church calls it) important to you or not? Or the Bible existed in particular the NT without Sacred Tradition?

And so it goes. I came to CAF to get answers directly from Catholics but I have discovered that even in Catholicism there are opinions from all over the map. And as Father Ruggero once suggested to me, numerous posters here do not seem to be in touch with the current vision of the Church so what is the point of it all anyway?

What are you saying here? Current vision means what? Do you think Father Rugerro agrees with your views on this thread’s Bible verse?

MJ

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Thank you for speaking up. I never wrote that to be offensive so I am sorry it seemed that way. I was replying to Martin Jordan who I felt was confirming he takes his faith more from Sacred Tradition than from the Bible, which is an arguement I have heard before. In fact, in other threads where Catholic posters were quite adamant that the Bible is not really needed at all since the Roman Catholic Church contains the Sacred Tradition. In those threads I defended the need for the Bible which would back up your contention here.

And so it goes. I came to CAF to get answers directly from Catholics but I have discovered that even in Catholicism there are opinions from all over the map. And as Father Ruggero once suggested to me, numerous posters here do not seem to be in touch with the current vision of the Church so what is the point of it all anyway?

Hi Wann

Seriously doubt he cares more for sacred Tradition than the bible. People forget that the the Gospels, themselves, were once sacred Tradition.

A correct way to state it is to say the Catholic Church contains the deposit of the faith…bible/tradition/councils, etc. And so we don’t rely on bible alone as protestants do.

Thanks

 

[JonNC]

Hi Wann

Seriously doubt he cares more for sacred Tradition than the bible. People forget that the the Gospels, themselves, were once sacred Tradition.

A correct way to state it is to say the Catholic Church contains the deposit of the faith…bible/tradition/councils, etc. And so we don’t rely on bible alone as protestants do.

Thanks

In the same way that Wannano’s statement about Catholics and scripture is being contested, your last sentence isn’t in entirely true either. How did Luther defend the doctrine of the real presence?

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

Jon

 

[Lenten_ashes]

In the same way that Wannano’s statement about Catholics and scripture is being contested, your last sentence isn’t in entirely true either. How did Luther defend the doctrine of the real presence?

Jon

Jon,

When i say protestants rely on bible alone…what I mean is, the bible is the only infallible rule of faith for protestants. Councils aren’t infallible to them and neither is sacred Tradition.

Luther was much more reasonable than modern day fundamentalists, imo. He saw the preponderance of evidence for Real presence and determined it to be undeniable. Kudos to him for this.

Pax

 

[MartinJordan]

Hi Wann

Seriously doubt he cares more for sacred Tradition than the bible. People forget that the the Gospels, themselves, were once sacred Tradition.

A correct way to state it is to say the Catholic Church contains the deposit of the faith…bible/tradition/councils, etc. And so we don’t rely on bible alone as protestants do.

Thanks

My other question to Wannano would be how (using the Bible as reference), did St. Paul know Jesus appeared to Cephas first?. Which Bible verse tells St Paul?

MJ

 

[Wannano]

My other question to Wannano would be how (using the Bible as reference), did St. Paul know Jesus appeared to Cephas first?. Which Bible verse tells St Paul?

MJ

I was going to try to find the time to respond to all your other questions today but since you now refer to me as though I don’t exist anymore I don’t think I will bother taking you too seriously.

 

[steve_b]

Bread and grape juice. At my church, we typically have a little plastic cup with some grape juice and a thin wafer. However, I have been to some churches where they literally pass around like loaves of bread and you tear a piece off.

I have never been to a church that uses crackers.

The reason I ask, croutons are used in a friends service
I:

At my church in recent years we’ve used pre-packaged wafers/grape juice. Anything not opened I assume is kept until we have Communion again or until it expires I suppose.

what happens to opened packages of wafers used/prepared at that service, for consumption, that were not consumed?

 

[MartinJordan]

I was going to try to find the time to respond to all your other questions today but since you now refer to me as though I don’t exist anymore I don’t think I will bother taking you too seriously.

Well I take the Bible very seriously. After all Faith comes from Abraham… But I didn’t know that till I actually listened to the Mass. Where it is mentioned Abraham is our father in Faith But I didn’t understand the meaning till I realized St. Paul mentioning it in Romans and the OT. I needed both to hear it from the Church and read it in Scripture.

Not sure whether or makes you feel better but the Catholic Church takes the Bible seriously.

I just saw your comment about feeling like being treated as a heretic. That never was considered in my wildest imagination. I’ll pray for you.

Peace be with you.

MJ

 

[ltwin]

what happens to opened packages of wafers used/prepared at that service, for consumption, that were not consumed?

They would be thrown away. We don’t receive Christ by physically eating the elements. We receive Him by faith as we partake. Christ is not thrown away in the trash.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

When i say protestants rely on bible alone…what I mean is, the bible is the only infallible rule of faith for protestants. Councils aren’t infallible to them and neither is sacred Tradition.

Luther was much more reasonable than modern day fundamentalists, imo. He saw the preponderance of evidence for Real presence and determined it to be undeniable. Kudos to him for this.

Pax

I know who you’re speaking of, and I know that you know, but there are others reading who might not.