The Lord's Supper-bear with me-what's the point

  • Thread starter Thread starter comebacktome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok when Jesus took the bread, he was sharing with His apostles saying Take this (bread) and eat it this is my body… now we believe that Jesus was talking symbolically here…not literally. So read the verse as if he might be saying it symbolically. We take the bread and break it, in remembrance of his body being broken for us (Him dying on the cross) and we drink the wine in remembrance of the blood of the new covenant (between man and God which is Jesus’ blood that washes away our sins). Now Jesus says every time you do this you proclaim my death until I come. So we remember what Jesus has done when we take communion.
Now 1 cor 11:27 is a final warning that we are not to take communion unworthily – such as the Corinthians were doing at that time. I don’t think it’s a detour of one thing to another… it’s more like a repetition of something previously said so that we get the seriousness of it.
What other activities to remember what Jesus did are you referring to? I can’t really think of anything else “ritual-ish” that we do to remember Jesus. We usually start the sermons and reading the Word pretty soon after communion…. I think all our “other activities” are more centered around obeying Christ rather than remembering Him. We do the Christmas story and concert with the kids at Christmas but we don’t have all the traditions like the Catholic church does to remember specific events. We don’t do Lent or anything like that.

PS MD… nope not sure what you are talking about.
 
I think where they’re coming from (and I am completely willing to be corrected on this) is the “Do this in remembrance of me”. That when they have their Communion services, they are doing just what our Lord asked them to- they are eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of him. Rather like raising a glass to the memory of a loved one at a wake. You’re not worshipping the wine you’re raising to dear dead Clementine, you’re offering that wine to her memory.
🤷

I know, I know, such a thing requires a willful ignorance of all that went before it, but I’m saying that’s where I think they’re coming from.
That may be one of the most insulting things I’ve ever heard a Catholic say about us.
 
We interpret the verse as that the Corinthians had been making the meal a time of overeating and getting drunk rather than a time of reflecting on the death and resurrection of the Lord. Read from verse 1 cor 11 17 and you will see what I mean.

Again, we do it to remember Jesus.
I have read this chapter and re-read it, in an attempt to understand what you’re saying.

I don’t get the sense of overeating or getting drunk so much, as it seems to have become a social event where they are eating and drinking together like a regular meal one would have at home.

In verse 20, St. Paul is telling them what they are doing is not celebrating the Eucharist. Verse 21, he is telling them they have turned the Eucharist into a meal. In verse 22, he asks if they have no houses that they can take meals in because they were currently doing so in a Church.
1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.
1Co 11:21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
St. Paul was definately preaching a correction needed in his letter. In his instructions to this particular Church, he repeats his instructions on the ramifications of receiving the body and blood unworthily, in verses 27 and 29.

Note in verse 23 that St. Paul reminds them, that he has received from the Lord, that which he has also delivered to them. Then in verses 24, 25 and 26 he explains in detail the process as he had received it from the Lord.

Now, before someone thinks I am missing an important point here, I’d like to address something not quite in line with the topic of this thread, but still a very important point to make.

I know St. Paul was not an actual eyewitness to the life of Christ and he did not receive his instructions directly from the Lord. I do, however, believe St. Paul’s statements to give validity and authority to the living Church Christ had established prior to His death and resurrection. The Church of Christ is where St. Paul received his instructions on the Eucharist, from those actual eyewitnesses, the Apostles, Christ had given the authority over His Church. To receive from the living Church is to receive from Jesus Himself.

Now I’ve seen verses 27 and 29 discussed in this thread. I’d like to address verse 28 which is specific intructions to the Church and I have trouble trying to apply this to individuals. Let a man prove himself. Once the man has proven himself, let him eat of that bread and drink of the cup. This appears to say, not everyone should receive and that is to be determined by the Church. Being stated between verses 27 and 29 makes me think a man who has not proved himself risks receiving the body and blood of Christ unworthily and it’s the Church’s responsibility to oversee the process.

Something I notice, specifically in reference to the above paragraph referencing verses 27 and 29, is the fact that St. Paul no longer speaks of the “bread” and “cup”, instead in these points he addresses specifically the body and blood of our Lord.
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
Now, as I’ve explained, I feel St. Paul was addressing the people had turned the Eucharist into a social event of eating and drinking together. Let’s look towards the end of this chapter.

Verse 33, St. Paul tells them that when they come together for the Eucharist, they are to wait for one another (Please note it says wait for one another and not wait on one another). This seems to me as an instruction to tell them this is not just a regular meal where everyone eats and drinks together. This seems to indicate something more ritualistic as being in a line and each receiving one at a time.

These thoughts seem to be supported by verse 34 which tells them, if a man is hungry he should take his meal at home because what is being offered in the Eucharist can bring judgement. This distinguishes the difference of food for the body, which is more a social event, and the spiritual food being offered at the Mass, which is more ritualistic and done with reverence.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
1Co 11:34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
 
myredemerlives, what denomination are you?

Would other Protestants care to answer? It may be different in your church. Seeing as how myredemerlives does not speak on behalf of all Protestants, it is unfair to attribute this as merely a Protestant understanding rather than that Poster’s Protestant understanding.

You know, when I was Protestant (Congregationalist), taking confirmation classes, I was taught Congregationalists take communion 7 times a year. I don’t think there was any rhyme or reason, but, I know we did it (the church I went to had communion) on Maundy Thursday. Not Easter, not Christmas, and I don’t know when else significant.
 
Thanks for bearing with me, MyRedeemer. Since I promised I wasn’t trying to be argumentative, I am going to bow out of this conversation now. Thanks again for answering.

You’ll be in my prayers.
FMS
 
myredemerlives, what denomination are you?

Would other Protestants care to answer? It may be different in your church. Seeing as how myredemerlives does not speak on behalf of all Protestants, it is unfair to attribute this as merely a Protestant understanding rather than that Poster’s Protestant understanding.

You know, when I was Protestant (Congregationalist), taking confirmation classes, I was taught Congregationalists take communion 7 times a year. I don’t think there was any rhyme or reason, but, I know we did it (the church I went to had communion) on Maundy Thursday. Not Easter, not Christmas, and I don’t know when else significant.
You know, before my re-version to the Catholic faith, I was a member of a Protestant church (full gospel, I believe?) whose pastor always taught the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine, along with the danger of eating and drinking unworthily.

How he managed to see this truth and miss significant others is beyond me, but it just goes to show that not all Protestants deny the real presence. And looking honestly at Scripture makes it very difficult to do this.

I’m reminded of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Is Paul not trying to drive home the literal substance of the body of Christ in the Eucharist? And then show how our very Christian unity is derived from this mystery? The Church would not be “one body” without the participation in the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.
 
As a protestant I thought I’d share on how we do communion…

We usually have the bread and wine (usually juice but can be real wine) and someone who gets up and does a little sermon on what Jesus has done for us on the cross while communion is being handed out. We don’t go up and take it one by one like at Mass, we take it altogether at the same time while remembering what Jesus did. It’s quite a beautiful thing and we thank Jesus afterwards.

So it’s not really like just eating a snack in church, it’s a very important thing to us.

Also, if Jesus isn’t in the bread and wine as Catholics believe the Eucharistic worship is indeed idolatry. (just commenting from the person aboves comments that it wouldn’t really be) If Jesus isn’t present in the Eucharist, then you are indeed worshipping mere bread.
And if He truly is present, then what is it that you are doing?
 
If He is truly present then we are in big trouble 😃 and if He isn’t present then you are the one in trouble.
 
If He is truly present then we are in big trouble 😃 and if He isn’t present then you are the one in trouble.
Just wondering - have you read this from Catholic Answers? There is a lot of writings from the Early Church Fathers that point to their belief in a Real Presence. Let us know your take on this.
 
Yes I’ve read a lot on the early church fathers… I’m not ignorant to what the Catholic church teaches and I still haven’t changed my mind about my faith.
 
Protestants say that the Lord’s Supper is just a symbol. .
Actually, not true for all protestants. Lutheran theology teaches that the communicant receives the body and blood of Christ through communion, but rejects the notion of transsubstantiation.
 
If He is truly present then we are in big trouble 😃 and if He isn’t present then you are the one in trouble.
No. i dont think we are in big trouble. Jesus said: " for my body is food indeed and my blood drink indeed."

you see. we could never be in trouble with this one. we will remind our Lord of what He said.

as for you i think you will have to explain to Him why you did not believe.

:knight2: :knight2:
 
I have my reasons for not believing in the presence in the Eucharist also. Jesus said His words were spirit and life, he also said He is the vine and the door and the shepherd… Jesus spoke in spiritual terms all the time. The bible also says we are justified by faith in Him, not by the sacraments or being a member of a particular church.
 
Actually, not true for all protestants. Lutheran theology teaches that the communicant receives the body and blood of Christ through communion, but rejects the notion of transsubstantiation.
and how is different from others belief?
if the bread and wine does not change into the body and blood of Jesus, then what you are eating is nothing but jus wafer and juice. is it not?

"Truth has always bothered people and is never comfortable."
Cardinal Ratzinger, October 9, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I have my reasons for not believing in the presence in the Eucharist also. Jesus said His words were spirit and life, he also said He is the vine and the door and the shepherd… Jesus spoke in spiritual terms all the time. The bible also says we are justified by faith in Him, not by the sacraments or being a member of a particular church.
Faith and believing in Him. believing meaning we must discern the Truth about all He says. how do you discern? how do you know what Jesus really meant when He said what said? since many Jews who were familiar with God instructions, failed to understand Jesus.
how do we know what Jesus really meant? if Jesus had not left someone in charge of His teachings to pass on to others?****

i think correct if i am wrong, but it seems to me that protestants assume that because they got the SS they can understand all Jesus meant.

**“If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”**1Timothy 6:3-6
 
and how is different from others belief?
if the bread and wine does not change into the body and blood of Jesus, then what you are eating is nothing but jus wafer and juice. is it not?
Well, if it’s bread and wine, it doesn’t change into wafer and “juice”. 😉

This is from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod website:

"At the risk of oversimplication, let me say briefly the following. Roman Catholics share with Lutherans a belief in the real presence of Christ’s true body and blood in the elements of the Sacrament. However, disagreements have existed historically on whether or how the mystery of Christ’s presence can be explained. Catholics explain the Real Presence through their doctrine of transubstantiation (see entry in the online Christian Cyclopedia).

Lutherans reject such an attempt to explain the Real Presence and insist that we must adhere to the simple words of Christ and be content to believe them as a divine mystery beyond human comprehension or explanation. "

So, the belief is what is received is the same, the explanation of how it happens is defined in Catholocism as transubstantiation, while Lutherans leave it as a mystery.

Most if not all other Protestant denominations see it as symbolic, rather than the reception (in one manner or another) as the body and blood of the Lord.
 
Yes I’ve read a lot on the early church fathers… I’m not ignorant to what the Catholic church teaches and I still haven’t changed my mind about my faith.
Just so I am clear with your belief - you think the cited body of Early Church Fathers were wrong on this topic? Do you believe they (and the only Church in existence) went off the rails just a few decades after Pentecost, and not until 15 centuries later was this corrected? How do you reconcile this? I would really like to know where you are coming from. Thanks!
 
Jesus said His words were spirit and life, he also said He is the vine and the door and the shepherd… Jesus spoke in spiritual terms all the time. .
Yes but his deciples did not leave him when he did.

These very same deciples that heard of these spiritual teachings about Jesus walked miles to see Jesus all just to hear him say someting spiritual and then not even accept it.

they had a hard time not because they took him spiritualy but they took him at his word

They questioned him a second time Jesus did not explain it as I’m speaking simbolic

He increased the literalness by saying you must chew my flesh

Why would he do that?
Was he trying to confuse them?

Every other time in scripture when they questioned him he explained to there understanding but not here. And he alows them to walk away with a improper understanding ask yourself if that makes sence

Also really how hard of a teaching is it for it to be a symbol the door and vine wasn’t all that hard? Why was it so hard for these men who journeyed so far?

How many have left your church because they could not acept this symbolic teaching?
 
Just so I am clear with your belief - you think the cited body of Early Church Fathers were wrong on this topic? Do you believe they (and the only Church in existence) went off the rails just a few decades after Pentecost, and not until 15 centuries later was this corrected? How do you reconcile this? I would really like to know where you are coming from. Thanks!
Likewise!

This is the point at which, as in all other areas of our faith, we come back to Church Authority. As a priest once told me, *“The Bible did not drop out of Jesus’s pocket as He ascended into Heaven.” * If we cannot trust the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to teach authoritatively the meaning of Scripture – which she herself canonized – then we cannot trust anyone, and least of all ourselves!
 
I don’t follow the early church fathers… it’s the Catholic church who exalts them as proof they are correct, I take my teachings from the writings of the apostles who were moved by the holy spirit as they wrote.

Peter warned that false teachers would arise and soon… it was already happening as they were writing the letters to the churches. How do you know that the Catholic church wasn’t a by-product of that rebellion?

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and* from among your own selves men will arise,* speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. nd now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build [you] up and to give [you] the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” Acts 20:28-32

First Timothy 4:1 says, “The Spirit speaketh expressly that, in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits.” Most of us don’t talk to seducing spirits, but you’ve heard their propaganda coming out of false prophets, their mouthpieces. The doctrines they teach are not those of distorted men; they are the doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1).

We must test the spirits and the Churches and hold up their doctrines to God’s word. For me, the Catholic churches teaches fall way short of scripture and I don’t believe that tradition is a good enough excuse for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top