How do Protestants interpret 1 Cor 11:29?

[Lenten_ashes]

Haven’t read through all the responses, but checking in to say that WELS and LCMS Lutheran churches have closed communion(as does the RCC and the Orthodox)
in the case of the WELS closed communion is practiced as we believe in the Real presence and communion is for baptized believers who have been instructed and are
knowledgeable about what they are receiving in the sacrament, and to make sure they have been instructed how to examine themselves properly and confess any sins.
It is for the protection of souls, as our denomination takes 1 Corinthian 11:29 seriously.
As a matter of fact I’ve recited this verse for my evangelical (and ELCA) friends who have wondered why we have closed communion.

I attended a LCMS Church for about a 6 month period prior to becoming Catholic.

And the pastor required a sit down meeting. This was to ensure that - A.) I was a baptized believer and B.) I understood Lutheran belief of Real presence.

Same thing with the Anglicans - closed Communion until they know where you are at. They both stick to the Didache on requirement of Baptism to receive this “spiritual food”.

I find it interesting that the early reformers were pretty much on board with real presence right along with the other ancient Churches of RCC,EO and Coptics, etc…it’s the later reformers that came with ideas of symbolism. To come with a conclusion of symbolism requires either a total neglect of 2000 years of Church history, or cherry picking a misleading ECF quote here or there, mangling it until it lines up with their own theological presuppositions. Because when you examine the body of patristic evidence we have, it is overwhelming in regards to Eucharist being more than common bread and wine. Luther understood this…he also understood that THIS IS my body means what it means. Kudos to him on this point.

Now, I don’t blame the typical protestant for not investigating the work of the Church Fathers or totally disregarding them all together. I did the same as a Fundamentalist as Church Fathers to me were just a bunch of corrupted Catholics lol. What does bother me is highly educated folks like James White who do know their stuff, yet continue to propagate these falsehoods against not only the Catholic Church, but historical Christianity’s practices in general.

 

[Peter_J]

What are the other interpretations of this passage? What is the Catholic interpretation?

We’ll let me start by saying that what Vanny said sounds very much like what we Catholics believe …

Haven’t read through all the responses, but checking in to say that WELS and LCMS Lutheran churches have closed communion(as does the RCC and the Orthodox)
in the case of the WELS closed communion is practiced as we believe in the Real presence and communion is for baptized believers who have been instructed and are
knowledgeable about what they are receiving in the sacrament, and to make sure they have been instructed how to examine themselves properly and confess any sins.
It is for the protection of souls, as our denomination takes 1 Corinthian 11:29 seriously.
As a matter of fact I’ve recited this verse for my evangelical (and ELCA) friends who have wondered why we have closed communion.

But to your question more specifically I would emphasize “discerning the body” when you receive the Eucharist meaning that it is Christ’s body and not just a symbol.

 

[MartinJordan]

We’ll let me start by saying that what Vanny said sounds very much like what we Catholics believe …

But to your question more specifically I would emphasize “discerning the body” when you receive the Eucharist meaning that it is Christ’s body and not just a symbol.

Definitely. As Jesus initiated the Supper since it was for the Pasch. The Paschal Lamb was eaten. It’s impossible to be symbolism. Jesus is the Lamb of God. (Paschal Lamb).

This thread title is kind of misleading being more like looking for a proof text. The question is why is it Corinth did St. Paul write to and what was the reason he brought up this matter. Even 1 Cor 10 he mentions about the Blessed Cup we Bless…

There is so much more richness to Scripture when looking in context to the whole.

That said I’m not an expert nor Theologian.

MJ

 

[susanlo]

We’ll let me start by saying that what Vanny said sounds very much like what we Catholics believe …

I think open communion is more of a product of 20th and 21st century “toleration” and modern attitudes and not directly associated with belief in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or spiritual or symbolic Eucharist. As far as I am aware, all of the early Protestant churches that had a symbolic communion had a strictly closed communion. Many churches that believe in some form of “Real Presence” have open communion today.

But to your question more specifically I would emphasize “discerning the body” when you receive the Eucharist meaning that it is Christ’s body and not just a symbol.

1 Corinthians 11:29 (NABRE) For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment[n] on himself.

I can see how if someone isolates this verse from the rest of the chapter, it could mean that we are to pay attention to whether there is a literal body in the elements or not. However, it seems like this passage is talking about a lot more than this.

In verses 17-22 Paul is criticizing the Corinthians for their behavior at their agape meals where they would celebrate the Eucharist. The wealthy were getting drunk, and the poor were going hungry. This was leading to divisions in their church (body). In verses 23-26 he is reinforcing what Jesus taught to the disciples and what Paul received by revelation about the Eucharist celebration. Verses 27-28 state that one must examine himself to determine if he is worthy of receiving the Eucharist. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment[n] on himself. He says in verse 30 that this is the cause of many getting sick and dying. Paul goes on to say that they would not be judged and disciplined if they “discerned” themselves. To avoid this judgment, the solution given by Paul is to eat at home if they are hungry. So it seems like to avoid this condemnation, the wealthy should “feast” at home and share in a common meal with the entire church.
If this whole section is about divisions and classes in the church body, is verse 29 a lone verse specifically talking about the “real presence?” Or does this verse tie in to the rest of what Paul is writing about the divisions in the church body?

The word for “discern” in verse 29 - “diakrinó.” The same root word is used in verse 31: If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; This word is translated in this section as “judge” in some translations and the word means “I separate, distinguish, discern one thing from another; I doubt, hesitate, waver.”
biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1252.htm
The work for “body” in verse 29 is - “sóma.” It can mean a human body or the church body.biblehub.com/greek/4983.htm Just a few verses later in Chapter 12:12-31 Paul uses this word over and over in a specific analogy comparing the parts of a body and the parts of a church body. It is the familiar passage that I am sure we have all heard.
…21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, 23and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, 24whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it,…

Personally, I have a hard time as understanding 1 Corinthians 11:29 to be specifically about the “real presence.” I think the passage is about unity in the church.

I know Augustine wrote about this passage. I am going to do some more research from the early writers and see what they wrote about this too.

 

[Vanny]

I attended a LCMS Church for about a 6 month period prior to becoming Catholic.

And the pastor required a sit down meeting. This was to ensure that - A.) I was a baptized believer and B.) I understood Lutheran belief of Real presence.

Same thing with the Anglicans - closed Communion until they know where you are at. They both stick to the Didache on requirement of Baptism to receive this “spiritual food”.

I find it interesting that the early reformers were pretty much on board with real presence right along with the other ancient Churches of RCC,EO and Coptics, etc…it’s the later reformers that came with ideas of symbolism. To come with a conclusion of symbolism requires either a total neglect of 2000 years of Church history, or cherry picking a misleading ECF quote here or there, mangling it until it lines up with their own theological presuppositions. Because when you examine the body of patristic evidence we have, it is overwhelming in regards to Eucharist being more than common bread and wine. Luther understood this…he also understood that THIS IS my body means what it means. Kudos to him on this point.

Now, I don’t blame the typical protestant for not investigating the work of the Church Fathers or totally disregarding them all together. I did the same as a Fundamentalist as Church Fathers to me were just a bunch of corrupted Catholics lol. What does bother me is highly educated folks like James White who do know their stuff, yet continue to propagate these falsehoods against not only the Catholic Church, but historical Christianity’s practices in general.

yes-this is why when I lived in Southern Calif I attended a non-denominationl church that I loved when I recommitted my life to Christ-but I had to leave due to the fact that I couldn’t handle their view of the Eucharist(or Baptism either). I was raised LCMS.

 

[Peter_J]

I think open communion is more of a product of 20th and 21st century “toleration” and modern attitudes and not directly associated with belief in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or spiritual or symbolic Eucharist. As far as I am aware, all of the early Protestant churches that had a symbolic communion had a strictly closed communion. Many churches that believe in some form of “Real Presence” have open communion today.

1 Corinthians 11:29 (NABRE) For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment[n] on himself.

I can see how if someone isolates this verse from the rest of the chapter, it could mean that we are to pay attention to whether there is a literal body in the elements or not. However, it seems like this passage is talking about a lot more than this.

Yes, I can certainly agree that the passage talks about more than that … But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t talk about that.

(Btw pardon my brief responses.)

 

[steve_b]

Personally, I have a hard time as understanding 1 Corinthians 11:29 to be specifically about the “real presence.” I think the passage is about unity in the church.

The Corinthians by their actions at the celebration of the Eucharist, weren’t honoring the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist by their behavior at the celebration. They were being a huge offense to God by their actions.

BTW, the Eucharist happens only if a valid ordained priest does the consecration. Otherwise the Eucharist doesn’t happen.

So the reason Paul rebukes the Corinthians, and says they were eating and drinking condemnation on themselves is because there was a valid consecration of bread and wine, that took place and they were dishonoring the sacred by their actions.

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes, I can certainly agree that the passage talks about more than that … But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t talk about that.

(Btw pardon my brief responses.)

St Paul is talking about what is it presented at table. What is it that is set upon it? This isn’t so complicated imo. One must examine himself to approach the Lord’s table where His Body and Blood are placed and one about to receive Him.

Even verse 31 (St. Paul) states : But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.

MJ

 

[susanlo]

Although your words don’t come as a surprise, I’ve always wondered if y’all can demonstrate your interpretation if “discerning the body” being maintained by anyone in the first millennium?

I have found this passage used a few times in the early centuries. It is usually in reference to not receiving communion unworthily. Teaching people to not receive communion while in a state of sin and/or when not in unity with the church. Taking it unworthily fails to show recognition of the significance of the Eucharist.
A few highlights:

Clement of Alexandria (???-215AD)
The Stromata Book 1 Chapter 1
“But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (1 Corinthians 11:27-28) It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives.”
newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm

Augustine (386AD-430AD)
Sermon 227
“So they are great sacraments and signs, really serious and important sacraments. Do you want to know how their seriousness is impressed on us? The apostle says, Whoever eats the body of Christ or drinks the blood of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27). What is receiving unworthily? Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision. Don’t let yourselves think that what you can see is of no account. What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.”
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

Sermon 228B
4. So then, having life in him, you will be in one flesh with him. This sacrament, after all, doesn’t present you with the body of Christ in such a way as to divide you from it. This, as the apostle reminds us, was foretold in holy scripture: They shall be two in one flesh (Gn 2:24). This, he says, is a great sacrament; but I mean in Christ and in the Church (Eph 5:31-32). And in another place he says about this eucharist itself, We, though many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). So you are beginning to receive what you have also begun to be, provided you do not receive unworthily; else you would be eating and drinking judgment upon yourselves. That, you see, is what he says: Any who eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But people should examine themselves, and in this way eat of the bread and drink of the cup; for those who eat and drink unworthily are eating and drinking judgment upon themselves (1 Cor 11:27-29).
5. You receive worthily, however, if you avoid the yeast of bad doctrine, in order to be unleavened loaves of sincerity and truth (1 Cor 5:8); or if you keep hold of that yeast of charity, which the woman hid in three measures of flour until the whole of it was leavened. This woman, you see, is the Wisdom of God, who came through the virgin in mortal flesh, and who, having repaired the wide world after the flood through the three sons of Noah, disseminated her gospel throughout it, as in three measures until the whole should be leavened. This “whole” is what is called holon in Greek where, if you keep the bond of peace, you will be “in accord with the whole,” which in Greek is catholon, from which the Church is called “Catholic.”
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

Letter 54 - Chapter 3
“4. Some one may say, The Eucharist ought not to be taken every day. You ask, On what grounds? He answers, Because, in order that a man may approach worthily to so great a sacrament, he ought to choose those days upon which he** lives in more special purity and self-restraint**; for ‘whosoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself.’ (1Corinthians11:29) Another answers, Certainly; if the wound inflicted by sin and the violence of the soul’s distemper be such that the use of these remedies must be put off for a time, every man in this case should be, by the authority of the bishop, forbidden to approach the altar, and appointed to do penance, and should be afterwards restored to privileges by the same authority; for this would be partaking unworthily, if one should partake of it at a time when he ought to be doing penance, and it is not a matter to be left to one’s own judgment to withdraw himself from the communion of the Church, or restore himself, as he pleases.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1102054.htm

 

[susanlo]

Although your words don’t come as a surprise, I’ve always wondered if y’all can demonstrate your interpretation if “discerning the body” being maintained by anyone in the first millennium?

But to your question more specifically I would emphasize “discerning the body” when you receive the Eucharist meaning that it is Christ’s body and not just a symbol.

There are also some mentions in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew Book X and XI, Cyprian’s letters 9 and 62 and Treatise 3, and John Chrysostom has a commentary on 1 Corinthians. It would be too long to put all of the quotes in. I am sure there are many other references as well. Do you have any early citations that display that “discerning the body” in verse 29 means you are receiving a literal body and not a symbol?

 

[Peter_J]

I have found this passage used a few times in the early centuries. It is usually in reference to not receiving communion unworthily. Teaching people to not receive communion while in a state of sin and/or when not in unity with the church. Taking it unworthily fails to show recognition of the significance of the Eucharist.
A few highlights:

Clement of Alexandria (???-215AD)
The Stromata Book 1 Chapter 1
“But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (1 Corinthians 11:27-28) It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives.”
newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm

Augustine (386AD-430AD)
Sermon 227
“So they are great sacraments and signs, really serious and important sacraments. Do you want to know how their seriousness is impressed on us? The apostle says, Whoever eats the body of Christ or drinks the blood of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27). What is receiving unworthily? Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision. Don’t let yourselves think that what you can see is of no account. What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.”
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

Sermon 228B
4. So then, having life in him, you will be in one flesh with him. This sacrament, after all, doesn’t present you with the body of Christ in such a way as to divide you from it. This, as the apostle reminds us, was foretold in holy scripture: They shall be two in one flesh (Gn 2:24). This, he says, is a great sacrament; but I mean in Christ and in the Church (Eph 5:31-32). And in another place he says about this eucharist itself, We, though many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). So you are beginning to receive what you have also begun to be, provided you do not receive unworthily; else you would be eating and drinking judgment upon yourselves. That, you see, is what he says: Any who eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But people should examine themselves, and in this way eat of the bread and drink of the cup; for those who eat and drink unworthily are eating and drinking judgment upon themselves (1 Cor 11:27-29).
5. You receive worthily, however, if you avoid the yeast of bad doctrine, in order to be unleavened loaves of sincerity and truth (1 Cor 5:8); or if you keep hold of that yeast of charity, which the woman hid in three measures of flour until the whole of it was leavened. This woman, you see, is the Wisdom of God, who came through the virgin in mortal flesh, and who, having repaired the wide world after the flood through the three sons of Noah, disseminated her gospel throughout it, as in three measures until the whole should be leavened. This “whole” is what is called holon in Greek where, if you keep the bond of peace, you will be “in accord with the whole,” which in Greek is catholon, from which the Church is called “Catholic.”
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

Letter 54 - Chapter 3
“4. Some one may say, The Eucharist ought not to be taken every day. You ask, On what grounds? He answers, Because, in order that a man may approach worthily to so great a sacrament, he ought to choose those days upon which he** lives in more special purity and self-restraint**; for ‘whosoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself.’ (1Corinthians11:29) Another answers, Certainly; if the wound inflicted by sin and the violence of the soul’s distemper be such that the use of these remedies must be put off for a time, every man in this case should be, by the authority of the bishop, forbidden to approach the altar, and appointed to do penance, and should be afterwards restored to privileges by the same authority; for this would be partaking unworthily, if one should partake of it at a time when he ought to be doing penance, and it is not a matter to be left to one’s own judgment to withdraw himself from the communion of the Church, or restore himself, as he pleases.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1102054.htm

Thanks for the quotes. I take you don’t share Itwin’s approach vis a vis “I’d assume that the Church Fathers would most likely affirm something similar to what Catholics believe.”?

 

[Peter_J]

Do you have any early citations that display that “discerning the body” in verse 29 means you are receiving a literal body and not a symbol?

I personally don’t have the time to find such quotes, but perhaps someone else here can do so (or knows of a website with a list of such quotes). But I’ll very surprised, perhaps shocked, if there aren’t any.

 

[MartinJordan]

There are also some mentions in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew Book X and XI, Cyprian’s letters 9 and 62 and Treatise 3, and John Chrysostom has a commentary on 1 Corinthians. It would be too long to put all of the quotes in. I am sure there are many other references as well. Do you have any early citations that display that “discerning the body” in verse 29 means you are receiving a literal body and not a symbol?

1 Cor 10. 6-10, 14-22

6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7** Do not be idolaters, as some of them were**; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”[a] 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test Christ,** as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.

1. Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God****, and I** do not want you to be participants **with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

MJ**

 

[susanlo]

Thanks for the quotes. I take you don’t share Itwin’s approach vis a vis “I’d assume that the Church Fathers would most likely affirm something similar to what Catholics believe.”?

No, I wouldn’t want to assume without looking at it myself. I think this particular passage is so very specific to misusing the communion meal because of sinful behavior causing a division in the church. If I were to assume anything I think this lack of reverence for communion would be clearly seen by many in the early centuries as well.

My general experience with looking at the writings from the early centuries is that most of the different beliefs that various denominations disagree about today are represented in the early centuries at various locations and times. Anyone who would want to present that “EVERYONE in the early church believed ONE specific idea” is usually exaggerating and distorting various writings or altogether ignoring certain evidence.

I personally don’t have the time to find such quotes, but perhaps someone else here can do so (or knows of a website with a list of such quotes). But I’ll very surprised, perhaps shocked, if there aren’t any.

John Chrysostom’s Homily on 1st Corinthians may be the closest to your understanding that I have seen so far:

“1 Corinthians 11:29
2. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself.
What do you say, tell me? Is this Table which is the cause of so many blessings and teeming with life, become judgment? Not from its own nature, says he, but from the will of him that approaches. For as His presence, which conveyed to us those great and unutterable blessings, condemned the more them that received it not: so also the Mysteries become provisions of greater punishment to such as partake unworthily.
But why does he eat judgment to himself? Not discerning the Lord’s body: i.e., not searching, not bearing in mind, as he ought, the greatness of the things set before him; not estimating the weight of the gift. For if you should come to know accurately Who it is that lies before you, and Who He is that gives Himself, and to whom, you will need no other argument, but this is enough for you to use all vigilance; unless you should be altogether fallen.”
newadvent.org/fathers/220128.htm

He is showing that not discerning is not being mindfully aware of the significance of communion. He isn’t showing condemnation specifically because of a symbolic or conversion understanding in itself, yet it does show Chrysostom’s understanding which is more of a “conversion” of the elements as opposed to a “symbolic representation” of the elements.

 

[Sy_Noe]

In my humble Anglican(Protestant) opinion,it means that any who take consecrated elements without the knowledge that they are the true body and blood of Christ (Baptists, restorationists, some extreme evangelical Anglicans, and agnostics who go to church out of mere tradition, for example) bring damnation upon themselves.

Yet once after explaining to me that Episcopalians believe the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood, an Episcopal priest then explained to me that no one is interrogating anyone when they come forward and to quote him, “if anyone feels so called to come forward and receive, so be it!” So would you paint him in your words as “some extreme evangelical Anglican” who encourages those who feel called to receive to bring damnation upon themselves?"

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think open communion is more of a product of 20th and 21st century “toleration” and modern attitudes and not directly associated with belief in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or spiritual or symbolic Eucharist. As far as I am aware, all of the early Protestant churches that had a symbolic communion had a strictly closed communion. Many churches that believe in some form of “Real Presence” have open communion today.

Or it’s more of a product of a renewed or growing understanding of Christ’s words in Jn 6 where he said he would turn no one away who is called.

 

[JonNC]

Yet once after explaining to me that Episcopalians believe the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood, an Episcopal priest then explained to me that no one is interrogating anyone when they come forward and to quote him, “if anyone feels so called to come forward and receive, so be it!” So would you paint him in your words as “some extreme evangelical Anglican” who encourages those who feel called to receive to bring damnation upon themselves?"

Not speaking for DeusExMachina, I don’t know about extreme evangelical, but certainly he is not doing those individuals any favors, and may be doing them serious harm.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

John Chrysostom’s Homily on 1st Corinthians may be the closest to your understanding that I have seen so far:

“1 Corinthians 11:29
2. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself.
What do you say, tell me? Is this Table which is the cause of so many blessings and teeming with life, become judgment? Not from its own nature, says he, but from the will of him that approaches. For as His presence, which conveyed to us those great and unutterable blessings, condemned the more them that received it not: so also the Mysteries become provisions of greater punishment to such as partake unworthily.
But why does he eat judgment to himself? Not discerning the Lord’s body: i.e., not searching, not bearing in mind, as he ought, the greatness of the things set before him; not estimating the weight of the gift. For if you should come to know accurately Who it is that lies before you, and Who He is that gives Himself, and to whom, you will need no other argument, but this is enough for you to use all vigilance; unless you should be altogether fallen.”
newadvent.org/fathers/220128.htm

He is showing that not discerning is not being mindfully aware of the significance of communion. He isn’t showing condemnation specifically because of a symbolic or conversion understanding in itself, yet it does show Chrysostom’s understanding which is more of a “conversion” of the elements as opposed to a “symbolic representation” of the elements.

No question, no doubt, the Father’s you quote in previous post s as well as this one, understand there is a change in the bread and wine after consecration.

I just want to say, you’re doing your homework. Nice job on the quotes

 

[Lenten_ashes]

No, I wouldn’t want to assume without looking at it myself. I think this particular passage is so very specific to misusing the communion meal because of sinful behavior causing a division in the church. If I were to assume anything I think this lack of reverence for communion would be clearly seen by many in the early centuries as well.

My general experience with looking at the writings from the early centuries is that most of the different beliefs that various denominations disagree about today are represented in the early centuries at various locations and times. Anyone who would want to present that “EVERYONE in the early church believed ONE specific idea” is usually exaggerating and distorting various writings or altogether ignoring certain evidence.

John Chrysostom’s Homily on 1st Corinthians may be the closest to your understanding that I have seen so far:

“1 Corinthians 11:29
2. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself.
What do you say, tell me? Is this Table which is the cause of so many blessings and teeming with life, become judgment? Not from its own nature, says he, but from the will of him that approaches. For as His presence, which conveyed to us those great and unutterable blessings, condemned the more them that received it not: so also the Mysteries become provisions of greater punishment to such as partake unworthily.
But why does he eat judgment to himself? Not discerning the Lord’s body: i.e., not searching, not bearing in mind, as he ought, the greatness of the things set before him; not estimating the weight of the gift. For if you should come to know accurately Who it is that lies before you, and Who He is that gives Himself, and to whom, you will need no other argument, but this is enough for you to use all vigilance; unless you should be altogether fallen.”
newadvent.org/fathers/220128.htm

He is showing that not discerning is not being mindfully aware of the significance of communion. He isn’t showing condemnation specifically because of a symbolic or conversion understanding in itself, yet it does show Chrysostom’s understanding which is more of a “conversion” of the elements as opposed to a “symbolic representation” of the elements.

Hi Susan.

I’d say a overwhelming majority of them who wrote a decent amount of material have quotes that indicate real presence in the Eucharist of some sort. And also the Mass as a sacrifice is another big indicator.

But as far as Transubstantiation goes, no, I can’t say they all believed it went that far. I don’t even know if half of them did.

But that’s fine, as at that time they were allowed to question it.