Why I adopt anybody's communion belief? Why does it matter?

[AmateurPianist]

For the record…

I don’t know what if anything happens during communion. I believe that it is altogether possible, and perhaps probable, that something with respect to a Real Presence does occur. Thus I am not a memorialist. Yet I can not totally convince myself that absolutely is the case.

So I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. Because those are Jesus’s words. Jesus did not say represents, so I do not feel I have the license to do so. At the same time I do realize that in many common English and Scriptural uses is does not mean is. So with apologies to Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of is is.

So what I hold is an approach to communion, not a theology of communion. I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. And I leave whatever happens (if anything) to the Lord. And to be honest, I am satisfied with this.

So my question is why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter?

 

[WatchingMedia]

Since you are AOG, you are not required to believe what is not taught in your own Religion. You may want to read the Bible regarding Jesus’s teaching on this matter.

Non-Catholics, or Catholics in mortal sin, are not permitted to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. Catholics do not receive Communion in Protestant Churches.

A close friend of mine is AOG, and she said they used grape juice rather than wine when they have Communion which is not that often. I have no idea if this is common in all AOG Churches.

 

[JRKH]

For the record…

I don’t know what if anything happens during communion. I believe that it is altogether possible, and perhaps probable, that something with respect to a Real Presence does occur. Thus I am not a memorialist. Yet I can not totally convince myself that absolutely is the case.

So I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. Because those are Jesus’s words. Jesus did not say represents, so I do not feel I have the license to do so. At the same time I do realize that in many common English and Scriptural uses is does not mean is. So with apologies to Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of is is.

So what I hold is an approach to communion, not a theology of communion. I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. And I leave whatever happens (if anything) to the Lord. And to be honest, I am satisfied with this.

So my question is why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter?

Actually I think that, overall, your approach (bolded above) is a good one for, even though there have been various theological explanations offered for what happens, it still remains a mystery of faith.

To answer your question about why you should accept a certain communion belief, I’d say it has to do with trying to get the closest to the truth. For me, that meant looking at the various ekklesia(s) around and determining who, by teaching and by history, could lay legitimate claim to having and holding the authentic teaching(s) of Christ.
In this I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox) had the best claim. Therefore I accept the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation, even though I don’t understand it, just as I accept the Trinity, even though I don’t understand it.
See what I mean?
Then I approach communion in the same way as you say above. I accept it, and leave the details to God.

Peace
James

 

[AmateurPianist]

Since you are AOG, you are not required to believe what is not taught in your own Religion. You may want to read the Bible regarding Jesus’s teaching on this matter.

Non-Catholics, or Catholics in mortal sin, are not permitted to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. Catholics do not receive Communion in Protestant Churches.

A close friend of mine is AOG, and she said they used grape juice rather than wine when they have Communion which is not that often. I have no idea if this is common in all AOG Churches.

Hi:
I have been in Catholic churches and respect their wish for their communion be reserved for Catholics.

Yes AOG typically uses grape juice. This is not an important issue for me.

I sometimes sort of wish that communion was more often than once per month. But again, not a biggie.

Just a point of distinction. I attend an AOG church but do not consider myself AOG. What that means is that should we move, I would not guarantee that we attend an AOG church in our new locale.

I have read the Bible on this matter. The closest I find that can be a theological statement om communion would be 1 Cor 10:16 (in context 14-21) and 1 Cor 11:17-34.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Actually I think that, overall, your approach (bolded above) is a good one for, even though there have been various theological explanations offered for what happens, it still remains a mystery of faith.

To answer your question about why you should accept a certain communion belief, I’d say it has to do with trying to get the closest to the truth. For me, that meant looking at the various ekklesia(s) around and determining who, by teaching and by history, could lay legitimate claim to having and holding the authentic teaching(s) of Christ.
In this I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox) had the best claim. Therefore I accept the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation, even though I don’t understand it, just as I accept the Trinity, even though I don’t understand it.
See what I mean?
Then I approach communion in the same way as you say above. I accept it, and leave the details to God.

Peace
James

Thanks James. From my time here you have become one of my favorite Catholics.

 

[mark_a]

So my question is why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter?

Without adopting all of the teachings of a particular belief system, I don’t see why adopting a particular belief about communion would matter.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks James. From my time here you have become one of my favorite Catholics.

You humble me with such a statement. Anything worthy that I might offer is of the Holy Spirit and not me.

Peace
James

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

For the record…

I don’t know what if anything happens during communion. I believe that it is altogether possible, and perhaps probable, that something with respect to a Real Presence does occur. Thus I am not a memorialist. Yet I can not totally convince myself that absolutely is the case.

So I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. Because those are Jesus’s words. Jesus did not say represents, so I do not feel I have the license to do so. At the same time I do realize that in many common English and Scriptural uses is does not mean is. So with apologies to Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of is is.

So what I hold is an approach to communion, not a theology of communion. I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. And I leave whatever happens (if anything) to the Lord. And to be honest, I am satisfied with this.

So my question is why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter?

AP I am curious as to how you think this belief of yours (communion being the body and blood of Christ) would go over with other AOG’s at your church? From my experience, I would say that it wouldn’t go over very well at all but I am curious what you think. I would say that you bring your belief into the open, see what happens, and then see if it really matters. Again, based on my experience with AOG’s it is going to matter a great deal.

God bless you

 

[Rolltide]

AmateurPianist,
If you’d like, I can post a rather lengthy article I put together which details historically (with sources and quotations) what the earliest Christians believed regarding the Real Presence, if you’d like a better examination of the evidence. (I’m a professional historian if makes a difference.)

 

[JRKH]

AmateurPianist,
If you’d like, I can post a rather lengthy article I put together which details historically (with sources and quotations) what the earliest Christians believed regarding the Real Presence, if you’d like a better examination of the evidence. (I’m a professional historian if makes a difference.)

I think that what the OP is asking is, so long as he is approaching communion as, in fact, beingthe Body and Blood, why should he accept any particular groups theological explanation of it.

To me his approach is correct, but the larger issue is to determine which of the many faith traditions available has the best claim to “authentic and authoritative teachings” in general and not just in regards to communion. At least that is how I approached it on my faith journey.

Peace
James

 

[AmateurPianist]

AP I am curious as to how you think this belief of yours (communion being the body and blood of Christ) would go over with other AOG’s at your church? From my experience, I would say that it wouldn’t go over very well at all but I am curious what you think. I would say that you bring your belief into the open, see what happens, and then see if it really matters. Again, based on my experience with AOG’s it is going to matter a great deal.

God bless you

Well I dunno. Remember this is an approach not a theology.

How this came about was me learning (through here and other places) about the wide divergence of belief concerning communion, and that not only Catholics and Orthodox but many Protestant groups including many big name historical Protestants like John Wesley also believe in something called the Real Presence. Upon learning this, I did not believe that it would be honest to simply dismiss it as nonsense. So I read a little and prayed about it, and what God seemed to be showing me was not a belief system but an approach…something like “I want you to take communion as though it were my body and blood”. I noticed that He did not say a word to me about who is right and who is wrong in this matter or what exactly does happen (if anything) during communion.

I have shared this with some friends of mine and they were supportive. You might notice that us Pentecostal/Charismatic types are more open to just praying about things and hearing from God directly about these things in prayer than others who believe the only valid mode to hear from God is from studying Scripture.

Now the statement of faith in my church is very general

We believe that every born again Christian should follow the example of our Lord in baptism by immersion in water and by celebrating the Lord’s Supper (Communion).

No problem there.

And I have never heard my pastor teach on it one way or another.

So I don’t believe in creating controversy where none really exists. I would share my story if an appropriate venue came up for it…like a Bible study where we were talking about it. But none has passed my way.

And anyway, the only way I can imagine anybody having a problem with my story is if they are very insistent that absolutely nothing happens in communion and that Lutherans, Methodists, John Wesley, and Martin Luther are just dead wrong in this respect. And furthermore this all is very important.

Now from my experience in AOG there are two types…hard core and soft core. For the hard core AOG it is very important that you hew the line on the 16 or so fundamental truths that they publish etc. I could imagine that my story might be problematic to some hard-core AOG types.

But my current church is very much soft core. As my Assistant Pastor said when I was chatting with him on these things “We have a very expansive interpretation of these fundamental truths”.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I think that what the OP is asking is, so long as he is approaching communion as, in fact, being the Body and Blood, why should he accept any particular groups theological explanation of it.

You got it. See my story above.

 

[Saint_Dismas]

For the record…

I don’t know what if anything happens during communion. I believe that it is altogether possible, and perhaps probable, that something with respect to a Real Presence does occur. Thus I am not a memorialist. Yet I can not totally convince myself that absolutely is the case.

So I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. Because those are Jesus’s words. Jesus did not say represents, so I do not feel I have the license to do so. At the same time I do realize that in many common English and Scriptural uses is does not mean is. So with apologies to Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of is is.

So what I hold is an approach to communion, not a theology of communion. I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. And I leave whatever happens (if anything) to the Lord. And to be honest, I am satisfied with this.

So my question is why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter?

Things are mysteries my friend but you show great faith and trust in Gods Word by approaching The Blessed Sacrament in such a way. I too had a hang up when it came to the Eucharist but after read John and Paul I could not in good conscience approach communion as a memorialist either. In John we see Christ say He is the Bread of eternal life, and when the crowed mocked Him but instead of correcting them like he did every time when people misunderstood His teaching he affirms what He said! My Body is food indeed and My Blood is drink indeed, and if you do not eat of My Body or Drink My Blood you will have no life in you! Then the those who couldn’t grasp how this is possible left Christ and He didn’t stop them! If they misunderstood Him he would have stopped them! I stopped and thought Chris you say this is hard saying too will you also leave Christ? Then I read Christ say to the Apostles will you also leave me? And blessed Peter in the same faith and trust in the Lords Word that you express my friend say “where shall we go? You have the words of eternal life?”

Scripture shows that This Sacrament will be hard to grasp but we must follow it with faith and trust because Christ said it is necessary. Why shouldn’t we trust Christ word? How could God who created everything in the universe not be able to be truly present in the Blessed Sacrament?

Then Paul says: “For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come. Therefore whoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be GUILTY of the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord. But let a man PROVE himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the BODY of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:26-29)

Paul clearly says there is the true presence of Christ in this Sacrament for how can I be guilty of Christ Body and Blood if it was just a symbolic memorial? If I took this sacrament as a memorial that would be like me saying if I took your picture and ripped it and stomped on it with my shoe that I would be guilty of literally ripping and literally stomping your physical body! No that could only be possible if you were literally in that picture just as Christ would have to be literally in the Blessed Sacrament. It just can’t be accepted as a memorial based on the scriptures and how the early Christians and Church fathers viewed it.

God Bless

 

[Saint_Dismas]

AmateurPianist,
If you’d like, I can post a rather lengthy article I put together which details historically (with sources and quotations) what the earliest Christians believed regarding the Real Presence, if you’d like a better examination of the evidence. (I’m a professional historian if makes a difference.)

Could you private message me those? I would appreciate it so I can have them.

PAX

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Well I dunno. Remember this is an approach not a theology.

How this came about was me learning (through here and other places) about the wide divergence of belief concerning communion, and that not only Catholics and Orthodox but many Protestant groups including many big name historical Protestants like John Wesley also believe in something called the Real Presence. Upon learning this, I did not believe that it would be honest to simply dismiss it as nonsense. So I read a little and prayed about it, and what God seemed to be showing me was not a belief system but an approach…something like “I want you to take communion as though it were my body and blood”. I noticed that He did not say a word to me about who is right and who is wrong in this matter or what exactly does happen (if anything) during communion.

I have shared this with some friends of mine and they were supportive. You might notice that us Pentecostal/Charismatic types are more open to just praying about things and hearing from God directly about these things in prayer than others who believe the only valid mode to hear from God is from studying Scripture.

Now the statement of faith in my church is very general

No problem there.

And I have never heard my pastor teach on it one way or another.

So I don’t believe in creating controversy where none really exists. I would share my story if an appropriate venue came up for it…like a Bible study where we were talking about it. But none has passed my way.

And anyway, the only way I can imagine anybody having a problem with my story is if they are very insistent that absolutely nothing happens in communion and that Lutherans, Methodists, John Wesley, and Martin Luther are just dead wrong in this respect. And furthermore this all is very important.

Now from my experience in AOG there are two types…hard core and soft core. For the hard core AOG it is very important that you hew the line on the 16 or so fundamental truths that they publish etc. I could imagine that my story might be problematic to some hard-core AOG types.

But my current church is very much soft core. As my Assistant Pastor said when I was chatting with him on these things “We have a very expansive interpretation of these fundamental truths”.

Perhaps I have only met hardcore AOGs?

My wife’s father was AOG when he said he no longer wanted her apart of his and or her two young sister’s lives after she converted to Catholicism. One of the biggest reasons was the “pagan” belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist. I agree, pretty hardcore.

God bless you

 

[AmateurPianist]

Paul clearly says there is the true presence of Christ in this Sacrament for how can I be guilty of Christ Body and Blood if it was just a symbolic memorial? If I took this sacrament as a memorial that would be like me saying if I took your picture and ripped it and stomped on it with my shoe that I would be guilty of literally ripping and literally stomping your physical body!

That has always struck me as a curious Scripture myself. Paul is equating partaking of communion in an unworthy manner as being guilty of the body and blood of Christ. What exactly does it mean to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ? It sounds kind of serious.

At the least this Scripture serves as confirmation that I have heard from God correctly in this matter.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

That has always struck me as a curious Scripture myself. Paul is equating partaking of communion in an unworthy manner as being guilty of the body and blood of Christ. What exactly does it mean to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ? It sounds kind of serious.

At the least this Scripture serves as confirmation that I have heard from God correctly in this matter.

I saw it much the same way you do now when I was converting. This verse of Paul’s was explained to me this way; a picture of me is not me, you could say that it is a symbol of me but you could not say that it was literally me. Therefore if someone tore up my picture (the symbol) you could not say that they were guilty of an offense against my body, unless it was my body.

God bless

 

[AmateurPianist]

Perhaps I have only met hardcore AOGs?

My wife’s father was AOG when he said he no longer wanted her apart of his and or her two young sister’s lives after she converted to Catholicism. One of the biggest reasons was the “pagan” belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist. I agree, pretty hardcore.

God bless you

Good Grief!

 

[TriuneUnity]

That has always struck me as a curious Scripture myself. Paul is equating partaking of communion in an unworthy manner as being guilty of the body and blood of Christ. What exactly does it mean to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ? It sounds kind of serious.

At the least this Scripture serves as confirmation that I have heard from God correctly in this matter.

If you care to, Amateur, I provided an exegesis of those passages in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=457570

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Good Grief!

That’s why I was curious how you thought it would go over. If an AOG is willing to foresake family over it I wondered what they would do to someone with no relation what so ever. Sounds like you are in an a-okay AOG assembly. Stay away from the hardcores

God bless