Anyone can ‘draw on the Fathers, the Scriptures, [etc.]’, found a ‘church’ and claim it to be the visible manifestation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but that doesn’t make it so…Just because a few guys decided to draw up some documents and confess to believe in the Real Presence does not make their ‘church’ the one Christ founded.
Not necessarily. Since there really is no such thing as a Protestant Church, one instead must look at individual communions.
I, for example, would not receive communion in a Baptist church for the same reason I would not in a Catholic Church: differing beliefs.
Thanks for you opinion.
The question was how did the confessions reference the Fathers and the early Church.
I gave an example.
The OP said Protestant.
That term encompasses everything from High Church Anglicans and Lutherans, who have very strong Eucharistic theologies, to the First Evangeli-Baptist Church down the street which most likely thinks that their Communion is just bread and wine
Which is why the term serves no purpose when speaking of practice and doctrine.
Perhaps, but it suffices in this instance.
No, that was not the question. It was suggested that somehow the Lutheran Confessions has historical pedigree to the ‘ancient church’ and how that church would look today, as laid out in the BOC. I asked how, no answer was given.
I’m actually more of the opinion that to avoid communion at a protestant Church, or to ask them not to take it, is more respectful when you think about it. We have very different views on what communion is. To just take communion there just to seem to be polite is a bad reason, and not respectful of their views on communion.
Except that the Angolan-Catholic and Evangelical Catholic communions wouldn’t fit the grape juice and crackers category.
When used regarding doctrine and practice, the word is inaccurate.
And that suggestion is, in many ways, accurate.
Except, (from a Catholic perspective) it’s correct. No valid orders means no Eucharist.
And, regardless of what it is thought to be by the members of the respective ecclesial bodies, Protestant communion is still intercommunion, which is prohibited by Catholic canon law.
Then it seems respectful to say, “from a Catholic perspective, the real presence is not there”. We recognize the Catholic perspective, even if we don’t agree with it.
It is only intercommunion when various communions participate together.
That’s the premise of the OP, unless I’ve misread something here…
No need to be polite in this sense if this is not your relgion. Forgo the chirade.
I have wondered at times where this comes from. Maybe it is because I am not American but out of ALL the non-Catholic services I attended I actually have never seen the Grape juice and Cracker thing. Maybe grape juice together with wine for those who are underage or do not drink but never only grape juice. The cracker thing not at all.
Not to sound insulting but I was actually surprised the first time I attended a Catholic mass. I was wondering what is that little round thing that looks like a rice cake. I was used to bread. As in the one you buy from the local bakery and it is broken up.
Point is I think that phrase is old. It surely is not “out there” in any way.
Here is a link to the Lutheran theologians:
Even though Orthodox dont really allow us though we allow them; it wouldn’t be a sin since they have valid apostolic succession just in schism but if you are in a majority Orthodox country it would be fine to take the Eucharist in an emergency. It really comes down to what the church believes it is.
Specifically, what part of John 6 do you think Luther rejected?
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.