What does your Church/Denomination teach about the Lord's Supper?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamhovey1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess we Lutherans fall into the “something else” category, as we teach the Real Presence, but neither Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation. It is a mystical, incomprehensible Sacramental Union.
 
steido01 said:
I guess we Lutherans fall into the “something else” category, as we teach the Real Presence, but neither Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation. It is a mystical, incomprehensible Sacramental Union.
Click to expand...
Alright thank you. My dad (God Rest His Soul) was Lutheran but much of his family has become Catholic, so thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I have, somewhere around here (unless my sister took it) his baptismal certificate. It is probably my most prized posession.
 
1neophyte said:
What a terribly sad misinterpretation. 😦

I can understand being a part of a non-Christian religion, but why impose such a false conclusion onto Jesus? Why even discuss him at all? To say that “he could not have remained with the disciples in body” if the bread became his body…gosh. That is just so arbitrary and disrespectful to the truth. Again, I understand not believing in Jesus, but I don’t understand proclaiming something like that as a truth when you don’t believe in him in the first place.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your post “neophyte” and may God richly bless you!

Actually we Baha’is do believe in Jesus as a Manifestation of God…

“His Holiness Jesus Christ – may my life be a sacrifice to Him! – promulgated this unity among mankind. ** Every soul who believed in Jesus Christ became revivified and resuscitated through this spirit, attained to the zenith of eternal glory, realized the life everlasting, experienced the second birth and rose to the acme of good fortune.”
Code: 
~  Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - , p. 258
🙂
 
The Reformed church I currently attend (but probably not for much longer) basically believes that when one eats the bread and drinks the wine, one is spiritually nourished with the body and blood of Christ.

According to the Heidelberg Catechism:

"75 Q. How does the Lord’s Supper remind you and assure you that you share in Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross and in all His gifts?

A. In this way: Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat this broken bread and to drink this cup. With this command he gave this promise:

First, as surely as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup given to me, so surely his body was offered and broken for me and his blood poured out for me on the cross.

Second, as surely as I receive from the hand of him who serves, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, given me as sure signs of Christ’s body and blood, so surely He nourishes and refreshes my soul for eternal life with His crucified body and poured-out blood.

**76 Q. What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink His poured-out blood? **

A. It means to accept with a believing heart the entire suffering and death of Christ and by believing to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

But it means more.
Through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us, we are united more and more to Christ’s blessed body. And so, although He is in heaven and we are on earth, we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone. And we forever live on and are governed by one Spirit, as members of our body are by one soul.

78 Q. Are the bread and wine changed into the real body and blood of Christ?

A. No.Just as the water of baptism is not changed into Christ’s blood and does not itself wash away sins but is simply God’s sign and assurance, so too the bread of the Lord’s supper is not changed into the actual body of Christ even though it is called the body of Christ in keeping with the nature and language of sacraments.

Question and answer 80 go on to explain how the Protestant Lord’s Supper differs from the Catholic Mass.
 
Michael85 said:
The Reformed church I currently attend (but probably not for much longer) basically believes that when one eats the bread and drinks the wine, one is spiritually nourished with the body and blood of Christ.

According to the Heidelberg Catechism:

"75 Q. How does the Lord’s Supper remind you and assure you that you share in Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross and in all His gifts?

A. In this way: Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat this broken bread and to drink this cup. With this command he gave this promise:

First, as surely as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup given to me, so surely his body was offered and broken for me and his blood poured out for me on the cross.

Second, as surely as I receive from the hand of him who serves, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, given me as sure signs of Christ’s body and blood, so surely He nourishes and refreshes my soul for eternal life with His crucified body and poured-out blood.

**76 Q. What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink His poured-out blood? **

A. It means to accept with a believing heart the entire suffering and death of Christ and by believing to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

But it means more.
Through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us, we are united more and more to Christ’s blessed body. And so, although He is in heaven and we are on earth, we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone. And we forever live on and are governed by one Spirit, as members of our body are by one soul.

78 Q. Are the bread and wine changed into the real body and blood of Christ?

A. No.Just as the water of baptism is not changed into Christ’s blood and does not itself wash away sins but is simply God’s sign and assurance, so too the bread of the Lord’s supper is not changed into the actual body of Christ even though it is called the body of Christ in keeping with the nature and language of sacraments.

Question and answer 80 go on to explain how the Protestant Lord’s Supper differs from the Catholic Mass.
Click to expand...
Alright, thank you for sharing.
 
I was raised Southern Baptist initially, and later Pentecostal. This probably won’t startle anyone, but it was always regarded as wholly symbolic–grape juice and bread, no more.
 
Le_Cracquere said:
I was raised Southern Baptist initially, and later Pentecostal. This probably won’t startle anyone, but it was always regarded as wholly symbolic–grape juice and bread, no more.
Click to expand...
So…you weren’t one of those growing number of Sacramental Bapticostals?😃
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I am curious what your denomination or church teaches on Holy Communion
Click to expand...
Pentecostals tend to believe the following, as summed up by Aimee Semple McPherson:

We believe in the commemoration and observing of the Lord’s supper by the sacred use of the broken bread, a precious type of the Bread of Life, even Jesus Christ, whose body was broken for us; and by the juice of the vine, a blessed type which should ever remind the participant of the shed blood of the Savior who is the true vine of which His children are the branches; that this ordinance is a glorious rainbow that spans the gulf of years between Calvary and the coming of the Lord, when in the Father’s kingdom, He will partake anew with His children; and that the serving and receiving of this blessed sacrament should be ever preceded by the most solemn heart-searching, self-examination, forgiveness and love toward all men, that none partake unworthily and drink condemnation to his own soul.

Pentecostals also tend to believe that the Lord’s Supper can be a means of communicating divine healing for those who are sick in their bodies.

I believe that the elements themselves are purely symbolic, but that the Holy Spirit is at work in a special way apart from the elements themselves. The grace is communicated by faith.
 
ltwin said:
Pentecostals tend to believe the following, as summed up by Aimee Semple McPherson:

We believe in the commemoration and observing of the Lord’s supper by the sacred use of the broken bread, a precious type of the Bread of Life, even Jesus Christ, whose body was broken for us; and by the juice of the vine, a blessed type which should ever remind the participant of the shed blood of the Savior who is the true vine of which His children are the branches; that this ordinance is a glorious rainbow that spans the gulf of years between Calvary and the coming of the Lord, when in the Father’s kingdom, He will partake anew with His children; and that the serving and receiving of this blessed sacrament should be ever preceded by the most solemn heart-searching, self-examination, forgiveness and love toward all men, that none partake unworthily and drink condemnation to his own soul.

Pentecostals also tend to believe that the Lord’s Supper can be a means of communicating divine healing for those who are sick in their bodies.

I believe that the elements themselves are purely symbolic, but that the Holy Spirit is at work in a special way apart from the elements themselves. The grace is communicated by faith.
Click to expand...
Alright, thank you. I don’t think I’ve heard it described in quite those words much.
 
Since I created the poll, I should probably put my own view, Transubstantiation. However, since I created it, I will not particpate in it.
 
I grew up in a Pentecostal church, the last and current pastor of which took an interesting approach. For most of my life, “Communion” was an annual ritual treated with reverence, if not executed as such. Everyone merely stood in a line and was given a little soup cracker, and a little thimble of grape juice. I don’t believe any passage from scripture was read. The last preacher I sat under there, though, took St. Paul’s admonition about care regarding consumption of the Eucharist very seriously. He would not proceed to communion until a lengthy period (at least a half-hour) had been devoted to soul-searching prayer and repentance. As much as he held to the theology that they were merely remembering an event, that the cracker and juice were merely symbols of something, he couldn’t ignore the seriousness with which St. Paul regarded the Eucharist.

In the Episcopal tradition, bets are hedged by belief in “the Real Presence”. – “The gifts of God for the people of God; feed on him*** in your hearts by faith*** with thanksgiving”. Some people believe it is merely symbolic, but others not.
 
Potter said:
I grew up in a Pentecostal church, the last and current pastor of which took an interesting approach. For most of my life, “Communion” was an annual ritual treated with reverence, if not executed as such. Everyone merely stood in a line and was given a little soup cracker, and a little thimble of grape juice. I don’t believe any passage from scripture was read. The last preacher I sat under there, though, took St. Paul’s admonition about care regarding consumption of the Eucharist very seriously. He would not proceed to communion until a lengthy period (at least a half-hour) had been devoted to soul-searching prayer and repentance. As much as he held to the theology that they were merely remembering an event, that the cracker and juice were merely symbols of something, he couldn’t ignore the seriousness with which St. Paul regarded the Eucharist.

In the Episcopal tradition, bets are hedged by belief in “the Real Presence”. – “The gifts of God for the people of God; feed on him*** in your hearts by faith*** with thanksgiving”. Some people believe it is merely symbolic, but others not.
Click to expand...
It’s the Elizabethan Compromise in action. The 1928 BCP shows it well. The words of administration there are a combination of those found in the 1549 and the 1552 Prayer Books. The 1549 represents the Henrician doctrine, and directly reflects the Real Presence. The 1552 is a step in a reformed direction that Cranmer et al brought about, and is ambiguous. The 1559 book, which is what is found in all since, through Rite One in the 1979, represents the most obvious example of that Compromise. The words of the 1549 Book are, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”. The following sentence, from the 1552 book, is ambiguous: “Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with Thanksgiving”. The 1559 Book combines those two and is what I hear at each Mass. And that’s the compromise that Anglicans have lived with ever since.

Your quote above seems to be from the Invitation, Rite One and Rite Two, rather than the words of Administration. Rite One parallels the 1928 Book, in the Words, Rite Two does not. Unless things have changed since the last time I looked.
 
GKC said:
It’s the Elizabethan Compromise in action. The 1928 BCP shows it well. The words of administration there are a combination of those found in the 1549 and the 1552 Prayer Books. The 1549 represents the Henrician doctrine, and directly reflects the Real Presence. The 1552 is a step in a reformed direction that Cranmer et al brought about, and is ambiguous. The 1559 book, which is what is found in all since, through Rite One in the 1979, represents the most obvious example of that Compromise. The words of the 1549 Book are, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”. The following sentence, from the 1552 book, is ambiguous: “Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with Thanksgiving”. The 1559 Book combines those two and is what I hear at each Mass. And that’s the compromise that Anglicans have lived with ever since.

Your quote above seems to be from the Invitation, Rite One and Rite Two, rather than the words of Administration. Rite One parallels the 1928 Book, in the Words, Rite Two does not. Unless things have changed since the last time I looked.
Click to expand...
I feel like I’m learning a lot today
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top