Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
27 HOW CAN WE HAVE BRAED AND GRAPE JUICE "UNWORTHY"
29: How can we pass judgment on our self with bread and grape juice
You are aware that a great many Protestants believe in the Real Presence and practice close(d) communion, right?
YES,I do but I was hoping for answers from the ones that do not
He needs a big red disclaimer hey!
Big Red Disclaimers all around!
Name at least a few, please. And what do they mean by
The ‘help’ should perhaps start with the fact that this text is from 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, not from ‘John’.
In the same vein of placing passages in context, this excerpt is part of a sermon on proper behaviour with respect to ‘the Lord’s Supper’ (v.20), a sermon which starts verse 17 and runs to verse 34. That section is merely a part of an extended discourse, on proper behaviour in church, which runs from chapter 8 to chapter 14.
As such, the excerpt in question is a denunciation of improper behaviours as manifestations of self-centred attitudes when partaking of the ‘shared’ meal. Such attitudes may exist irrespective of the nature of the sustenance consumed.
I know a church which holds the ‘Lord’s Supper’ every Sunday with rice and red Fanta, while they sit on the concrete floor of the new, unwalled church, under the corrugated iron roof which is all that they can afford. Anyone who is prepared to condemn their rite as insufficient is far braver than I.
It’s amazing to me the lengths to which some people will go in order to avoid being Catholic.
Here is one Christian branch that believes very solidly in Real Presence: Lutheran.
The view of Real Presence is that the accidents (bread, wine) are not converted to Jesus’ flesh and blood in the way Catholics believe happens. However, the Lutheran view is quite sincere and reverential. Many but not all Lutheran churches have closed communion. You have to be Lutheran of that congregation’s specific denomination, such as Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Synod, or you need to talk with the Pastor ahead of time.
It’s no symbol – it’s understood to be a sacrament, and the order of consecration is clearly derived from the Catholic eucharistic prayers. Luther considered himself Catholic, so he kept an awful lot of the Catholic Church’s liturgy.
As a result, Protestant branches that don’t believe in any form of real presence sometimes are a little skeptical that Lutherans are really Protestant. Ironic, eh?
well, if Lutherans think that the bread and wine is not symbolic or really is the Body and Blood of Christ, what do they believe it to be?
Also, when Jesus told the Jews that unless they eat His body and drink His blood, they cannot be saved. The Jews understood what Jesus was saying, which is why they, and some disciples of Jesus, walked away. They couldn't handle the fact that Jesus was literal in his meaning. He could've said, "Hey wait, I was only speaking symbolically!". No. Instead, he turned to his disciples and asked them, "Do you wish to leave also?" They accepted this teaching. They knew Jesus was literal and they continued to follow Him. How can protestants deny this teaching. This is the center of the Catholic Church. Therefore, your claim that Martin Luther was very much Catholic is false. For if he was, he would've kept the central most important doctrine of the Catholic Church.
someone told me that taking communion must be impossible ie taking the blood and body of christ because he is RISEN. can anyone explain this to me so i can have an answer for him?
I was just wondering how did Luther or the Lutheran church come to believe in consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation. Why did Luther, or whoever throw the baby with the bath water.
I really hope that you are accusing me of something here. God help you if you are condemning the Uruk Lawoi in their poverty.
This seems to me to be putting Eartly constraints on God. Personally, I wouldn’t be so bold as to do something like that… I wonder if this same person has told you that the bread at the Last Supper couldn’t possibly be the literal body and blood of our Lord because He was standing there in the room?
The Real Presence is the common view among Anglicans. And by that is generally meant what Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1 means.
Only the smart ones, jemfinch, only the smart ones.
yes they have! its something i’ll never understand but maybe we’re not meant to? its maybe just too ‘big’ for us mere humans.
My dad and stepmom’s baptist church believe that they eat the body of Christ and drink his blood when they eat their crackers and drink their grapejuice.
The use of cracker and grapejuice is unbiblical, and only unleaven bread and wine can be used. In some tradition leaven bread in Eastern Rite traditions. Though since they are Protestants I don’t expect them to change it.
I have a question. What is the justification of using cracker and grape juice for communion? It’s not Biblical…
Wine was use and Unleaven bread for Holy Communion in the NT
They don’t believe in drinking any form of alcohol. I’m not really sure why, but I think it has something to do with Jesus saying that he wouldn’t drink until he was in his father’s kingdom or something… I’m sure somebody else here would know the answer.
As to their justification, I have no idea. They actually have quite a few Catholic beliefs there, which could be why it’s not a very popular baptist church… They only do their communion once a year during a presberty meeting. At that time they also do a foot washing ceremony.