Closed communion

Templar81 · Mar 29, 2011

Never in scripture does it say we need to take the eucharist to receive God's blessings or the Holy Spirit. Upon our faith the Holy Spirt is deposited into our bodies (temples). That deposit is given to us from Jesus Christ not some man in robes. No man can give us God's blessings either, we can pray on that behalf, but that is it. So many have been sleeping from the practices of the church, we are finally realizing from reading the bible what it is to be Christian.

Really, havn't you ever read John 6:53?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Butch5 · Mar 29, 2011

Templar81 said:
Noq Justaname!

You asked howc an communion be harmful?

I've already cited the referance in 1 Corinthians 11:17-33
You see when we go up to recieve, the eucharist, regardless of what we believe about it, we are entering a very special, close communion with God. If we come forward in penitance and faith, with the udnerstanding that what we are doing is obeying Christ's command ten we will recieve God's blessing and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

But should we take it flippantly, not realising what we are doing or even when we get into aroutine, the we will not recieve the benefits. Paul tells us that in these circumstances we recieve it to our doom and that those who were believers, that did not aprtake properly were injured and died as a result.

"This is why so many of you are weak and why so many of you sleep."

To restrict people from this is an act of love, not a way of controlling people or a way of excluding people.

When I was a child you had to not only understand the Eucahrist to recieve it but you had to be confirmed. As a result you weren't taught about it until you were being prepard for confirmation and when asked, "why can't I take?" we were told"because you don't udnerstand it." back then I think we were wrong, we could have had a programme for preparing kids for their first communion like we do now. We have become more inlusive in that way but we should not give the communion to people who are clearly not used to receving it.

There is not blessing promised in the communion, and Paul's condemnation is a reference to a specific situation happening at Corinth at the time. Paul is not saying if you take the communion flippantly you will receive damnation (although it is not a good idea to take it flippantly). In Paul's day the communion was meal it was not walking up to a table and taking a piece of bread.So, you couldn't really just take it flippantly. Paul is referring to an issue taking place in the Church at Corinth. The member at this church were fostering division. In effect you had the rich eating T-bones and fillet Mignon and drinking champagne on one side of the room and on the other you had the poor eating peanut butter and jelly and drinking water. There was no unity among the members. Remember what the other Paul's told Paul? "Only remember the poor" and Paul said he already did that. Well, here is a church that is not remembering their own poor. The reason they were sick and dying is because they were cause division in God's church. That should be a warning to the protestants today who putting division in God's church with all of their denominations.

Templar81 · Mar 29, 2011

I understand that this was the situation in Corinth at the time but we have this in our scriptures to try and prevent others from making the same mistake. So if they are weak and dying because God is punnishing them for not taking the Lord's Supepr sriopusly then it is just as likely that someone else today can be punnished for doing it wrong.

Also, I'm not familiar with the idea of walking up to a table and picking up bread. We kneel at a rail and hold out our cupped hands and the priest puts the waifer in our hands. We can either put this waifer in our moth and let it discolve or dip it in the wine that is brought around, usually by a lay Eucharistic minister or curate. So Communion isn't jsut something you take, it is something you are given.

Butch5 · Mar 29, 2011

Templar81 said:
I understand that this was the situation in Corinth at the time but we have this in our scriptures to try and prevent others from making the same mistake. So if they are weak and dying because God is punishing them for not taking the Lord's Super seriously then it is just as likely that someone else today can be punnished for doing it wrong.

Also, I'm not familiar with the idea of walking up to a table and picking up bread. We kneel at a rail and hold out our cupped hands and the priest puts the wafer in our hands. We can either put this wafer in our moth and let it dissolve or dip it in the wine that is brought around, usually by a lay Eucharistic minister or curate. So Communion isn't just something you take, it is something you are given.

Different church have different methods. You speak of doing it wrong, but Jesus didn't give any instructions on how to do it. You said you take a wafer, my church also uses the wafers, however, Jesus didn't he use a loaf. You see I take the communion very seriously, I believe that it is tied to eternal life based on the passage you quote in John. I see it as a time when I am communing with Christ. Recently I did not partake of the communion one week because I had a particularly rough week battling sin.

Personally I would rather my church use the loaf as Jesus did because I think there is symbolism in the loaf that is lost with the waters. When we break the loaf we are symbolizing the breaking of the body of Christ and as a congregation we are all partaking of that one loaf or body. With the wafers we each take an individual wafer and the symbolism of the unity and one body are lost.

I'm not so much concerned with the methodology, my concern with the video is the division the video inserts among fellow brothers in Christ.. If you and I are believers we are brothers in Christ, if you can commune with Christ and I can commune with Christ, why should a man made theology keep us from communing together?

Templar81 · Mar 29, 2011

I ahve seen C\tholics and Protestants commune together, though they used separate lines and were given bread by their respective ministors. However it wa the Catholic priest that consecrated the waifers and the wine that all recieved.

I think Selene made a good point earlier when she reminded us that not all Catholics can recieve Communion in their own chruch, so with that in mind it strikes me as very unfair to then give it to outsiders.

Anyway it isn't a man made theology it comes from 1st Corinthians.

Butch5 · Mar 29, 2011

Templar81 said:
I ahve seen C\tholics and Protestants commune together, though they used separate lines and were given bread by their respective ministors. However it wa the Catholic priest that consecrated the waifers and the wine that all recieved.

I think Selene made a good point earlier when she reminded us that not all Catholics can recieve Communion in their own chruch, so with that in mind it strikes me as very unfair to then give it to outsiders.

Anyway it isn't a man made theology it comes from 1st Corinthians.

What isn't a man made theology that comes from 1st Corinthians, I'm not following you?

aspen · Mar 30, 2011

Here is the problem I see

1. Many Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

2. Many Protestants do not like that Catholics are exclusive about who takes the Eucharist.

3. Many Protestants think this is a Catholic problem

The only way for Protestants to receive the Eucharist without committing idolatry is to become Catholic - believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist OR for the Catholic church to become Protestant by denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist in order to protect Protestants from the sin of idolatry.

Any other suggestions?

The foundation of Christian doctrine is the Trinity. The foundation of Catholicism is the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

I am pretty sure that your church would not allow a professing LDS member to take communion with your congregation - not because your church is mean, but because the LDS member is remembering his brother's life and death on the cross so that all good Mormons can one day be gods. The meaning of the sacrament divides you even though the Mormon may believe you are brothers in Christ.

jiggyfly · Mar 30, 2011

Templar81 said:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=BgmIcm-o2oY

I'm interested to see what people think about closed communion. Is it right or wrong or is it neither? Should it be challenged?

My opinion is that I can udnerstand both sides of the argument as to wether communion should be open or closed and I'm not sure, but I do think they should know what they are doing.

So what do you guys think of this video?

After reading through the posts and seeing all the arguing and accusations I was reminded of a scripture where Paul speaks about the Lords supper, a meal shared with others in honor of Jesus and what He has done for us.

But now when I mention this next issue, I cannot praise you. For it sounds as if more harm than good is done when you meet together. First of all, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it. But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that those of you who are right will be recognized! It's not the Lord's Supper you are concerned about when you come together. 1Cor. 11:17-20

Religion is such an ugly tyrant.

Butch5 · Mar 30, 2011

aspen said:
Here is the problem I see

1. Many Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

2. Many Protestants do not like that Catholics are exclusive about who takes the Eucharist.

3. Many Protestants think this is a Catholic problem

The only way for Protestants to receive the Eucharist without committing idolatry is to become Catholic - believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist OR for the Catholic church to become Protestant by denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist in order to protect Protestants from the sin of idolatry.

Any other suggestions?

The Scriptures make no mention of the "Real Presence", so the issue is of man. Jesus nor the apostles make mention of this so I don't see how the Catholic church and can it is idolatry to not believe it. Now, I realize that the Catholic church believes in continuing revelation which the Scriptures do not support. I suspect that is where they get the authority for this claim.

The foundation of Christian doctrine is the Trinity. The foundation of Catholicism is the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

No, the foundation of the Christian church is not the Trinity. It is "Jesus is the Christ" the Son of the living God. The promised Messiah of the Old Testament.

I am pretty sure that your church would not allow a professing LDS member to take communion with your congregation - not because your church is mean, but because the LDS member is remembering his brother's life and death on the cross so that all good Mormons can one day be gods. The meaning of the sacrament divides you even though the Mormon may believe you are brothers in Christ.

I don;t know that you could classify Mormons as Christians, I'm not that familiar with their beliefs.

Templar81 · Mar 30, 2011

The real presence is in scripture and I can give you three examples:

1. Jesus said that only those who eat and rink the body and blood of the son of man will have life in them. Life is the breath of God that is the Holy spirit, which we can see in Genesis when Adam is created.

2. Jesus said take this eat all of you for this is my body and take this all of you and drink for this is the blood of the new covenant. He told us to recieve his body and blood, not just bread and wine. He said this is my body, not imagien this is my body.

3. Paul tells us that thsoe who recieve Communion improperly don't recieve the body and blood of Christ and they sin against the body and blood of Christ. You can't sin against mere bread and wine. It si clear that Paul believed in teh real presence in 1 corinthians 11.

Butch5 · Mar 30, 2011

Templar81 said:
The real presence is in scripture and I can give you three examples:

1. Jesus said that only those who eat and rink the body and blood of the son of man will have life in them. Life is the breath of God that is the Holy spirit, which we can see in Genesis when Adam is created.

2. Jesus said take this eat all of you for this is my body and take this all of you and drink for this is the blood of the new covenant. He told us to recieve his body and blood, not just bread and wine. He said this is my body, not imagien this is my body.

3. Paul tells us that thsoe who recieve Communion improperly don't recieve the body and blood of Christ and they sin against the body and blood of Christ. You can't sin against mere bread and wine. It si clear that Paul believed in teh real presence in 1 corinthians 11.

Are you talking about the real presence or transubstantiation?

I think these passage prove the real presence, I see where you can infer it but it is not stated. Remember Jesus said, take eat this is my body. We don't have that bread. He didn't say all bread is my body, He said this bread. So how do we reconcile that, if we want to say that actual bread is His body?

Templar81 · Mar 30, 2011

Ah, well we can't all consecrate it can we, nto jsut anyone can do it. You ahve to be in holy order be you catholic or protestant. If all bread was Christ's body then you would have athiests and Muslims eating it and that wouldn't do. It has to be properly consecrated, whereby the celebrant and the congregation pray that the bread and wine will become the body and blood of Christ.

No1, moving on to Transubstanciation
I believe in it but i don't feel the need to explain it away like Aquinas does. I believe that the bread and wine become physically and spiritually the body and blood of Christ but how this happens is a mysterya nda miracle. It still believe in transubstantiation but I try to see it as a mystery.

Alos, with the real presence one can refer to Transustantiation or Consubstiation. In consubstniation the bread and wine take on the body and blood of Christ but they do not physically become the body and blood of Chrsit, so one who believes in thsi believes that they recieve it in spirit, but I believe scripture supports the physical presence better. Before I came to this realisation I believed in Consusbstanciation because most of the people in the Prish did.

Here's a little rhyme I heard, it is suppsoed to be a quotation from a response by Elizabeth I to her sister, Mary I (Bloody Mary) when asked about the real presence:

His the word that make
His the hand that brake it
and what that word doth shape it
I will gladly believe and take it

This illustrates my point about what actually happens in the consecration of the Eucharist is a mystery.

aspen · Mar 30, 2011

Butch5 said:
The Scriptures make no mention of the "Real Presence", so the issue is of man.

Well, I am not sure how you interpret "this is my Body broken for you; this is my blood poured out for you" as anything other than the Real Presence. The fact is, to claim otherwise is to deny scripture, the beliefs of the Early Church, the Church Fathers, early theologians like Augustine, 1500 years of united Christian belief, and even Reformers like Luther and King Henry VIII (modified belief). My point is, that what you see so clearly in scripture is a new idea in Christianity.

But, if you want to persist in this new belief, it is your choice. So here is my question; why would anyone who doesn't share in the beliefs of a practice, want to share in the practice?

Jesus nor the apostles make mention of this so I don't see how the Catholic church and can it is idolatry to not believe it.

You must be forgetting Paul's warning about taking the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. It is indeed idolatry to participate in worship, which includes anything, but God as its object of worship - taking the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is worship. In fact, many Catholics participate in the Holy practice of adoration of the Eucharist - it is also an act of worship.

Now, I realize that the Catholic church believes in continuing revelation which the Scriptures do not support. I suspect that is where they get the authority for this claim.

Hmm...actually I think you do believe in continuing revelation; the teaching of sola scriptura is an example of continuing revelation - it is only 500 years old. The strange thing about the Reformation is that it really didn't reform anything - instead it replaced Catholic tradition with 10,000 varieties of Protestant traditions.

No, the foundation of the Christian church is not the Trinity. It is "Jesus is the Christ" the Son of the living God. The promised Messiah of the Old Testament.

Actually, your statement is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity describes the full and true nature of God. Any person or group that denies the doctrine of the Trinity, denies God's true nature and is therefore outside the definition of a Christian. All heresies start with a warped view of the nature of God.

I don;t know that you could classify Mormons as Christians, I'm not that familiar with their beliefs.

Mormons have a rich tradition of heresy, but the only really important thing to know for this conversation is that they deny the Trinity.

Butch5 · Mar 30, 2011

Templar81 said:
Ah, well we can't all consecrate it can we, nto jsut anyone can do it. You ahve to be in holy order be you catholic or protestant. If all bread was Christ's body then you would have athiests and Muslims eating it and that wouldn't do. It has to be properly consecrated, whereby the celebrant and the congregation pray that the bread and wine will become the body and blood of Christ.

OK, but where does Scripture teach this. You see that is the issue, I don't see anything in the Scriptures that speak of consecrating the bread and wine. Paul's letter to the Corinthians would have been a great place to mention this since they were already abusing the communion, but he says nothing.

No1, moving on to Transubstanciation
I believe in it but i don't feel the need to explain it away like Aquinas does. I believe that the bread and wine become physically and spiritually the body and blood of Christ but how this happens is a mysterya nda miracle. It still believe in transubstantiation but I try to see it as a mystery.

Alos, with the real presence one can refer to Transustantiation or Consubstiation. In consubstniation the bread and wine take on the body and blood of Christ but they do not physically become the body and blood of Chrsit, so one who believes in thsi believes that they recieve it in spirit, but I believe scripture supports the physical presence better. Before I came to this realisation I believed in Consusbstanciation because most of the people in the Prish did.

Here's a little rhyme I heard, it is suppsoed to be a quotation from a response by Elizabeth I to her sister, Mary I (Bloody Mary) when asked about the real presence:

His the word that make
His the hand that brake it
and what that word doth shape it
I will gladly believe and take it

This illustrates my point about what actually happens in the consecration of the Eucharist is a mystery.

But again, Scripture? You see I hold to the real presence but I don't see where Scripture requires it.

Butch5 · Mar 30, 2011

Well, I am not sure how you interpret "this is my Body broken for you; this is my blood poured out for you" as anything other than the Real Presence. The fact is, to claim otherwise is to deny scripture, the beliefs of the Early Church, the Church Fathers, early theologians like Augustine, 1500 years of united Christian belief, and even Reformers like Luther and King Henry VIII (modified belief). My point is, that what you see so clearly in scripture is a new idea in Christianity.

But, if you want to persist in this new belief, it is your choice. So here is my question; why would anyone who doesn't share in the beliefs of a practice, want to share in the practice?

Actually I do hold to the real presence. My point is that Scripture doesn't mandate it. Neither Jesus nor the apostles state this. Jesus could just as easily been using a metaphor as He does so many time. Let me ask you, Is Jesus literally a branch?

You must be forgetting Paul's warning about taking the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. It is indeed idolatry to participate in worship, which includes anything, but God as its object of worship - taking the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is worship. In fact, many Catholics participate in the Holy practice of adoration of the Eucharist - it is also an act of worship.

When Paul chastised the Corinthians for their abuse of the communion He had a particular event in mind. He was not randomly telling them make sure you don't abuse it. They were turning the Eucharist into a gluttonous meal and not sharing with the poor in the congration. that is the abuse they were guilty of.

Where does Scripture teach the adoration of the Eucharist??? I thought Scripture commended us to worship God.

Now, I realize that the Catholic church believes in continuing revelation which the Scriptures do not support. I suspect that is where they get the authority for this claim.

Hmm...actually I think you do believe in continuing revelation; the teaching of sola scriptura is an example of continuing revelation - it is only 500 years old. The strange thing about the Reformation is that it really didn't reform anything - instead it replaced Catholic tradition with 10,000 varieties of Protestant traditions.

You're correct, that is one of the reasons I rejected it, another is the plethora of false teachings, I also don't hold to Sola Scriptura. The ironic thing about those who hold to Sola Scriptura is that they reject every other authority yet the Scriptures that they claim are the final authority tell them to adhere to the oral traditions handed down by the apostles. So, in effect they don't really believe in Sola Scriptura.

Actually, your statement is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity describes the full and true nature of God. Any person or group that denies the doctrine of the Trinity, denies God's true nature and is therefore outside the definition of a Christian. All heresies start with a warped view of the nature of God.

I can agree with you statement because anyone who really understands what it means to believe that Jesus is the Christ knows that that means He is deity.
I don;t know that you could classify Mormons as Christians, I'm not that familiar with their beliefs.

Mormons have a rich tradition of heresy, but the only really important thing to know for this conversation is that they deny the Trinity.

I some of what they believe, enough to know their off base.

justaname · Mar 30, 2011

Templar81 said:
Really, havn't you ever read John 6:53?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

John 6 : 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
John 6 : 51 I am the living bread which came from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I give is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world.

I think we can both agree Jesus did not mean to literally bite his arm to get flesh and blood. In the above verses he explains the metaphor. In verse 51 he is speaking of his future death of the flesh, on the cross.

And finally as Jesus explains to his distraught disiples John 6 : 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
And Peter confirms John 6 : 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Ephesians 1 : 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise,

It is by the grace of God that we are saved, not by works. No man can deposit the Holy Spirit in you, only God can. Men can not give Gods blessing, only Jesus can.

I pray this helps in your understanding.

Templar81 · Mar 30, 2011

It isn't man that turns the elements (bread and wine) into thje body of glood of Christ. The priest only leads the congregation in prayer that God will through his Holy Spirit transform the bread and wine into Chrsit's body and blood. So i want to be very clear that it is womething God does, not man.

The Eucharist is a kind of spiritual food, it is only a tiny waifer and sip of wine, so it isn't going to fill a grown man's stomach but it is not food for the body, it is for the soul. Even so we have to recieve it in the same manner as we would with ordinary food.

I've given examples of scriptural evidence for the real presence and I know that slavation isn't by works, but i wouldn't call recieving the Eucharist a work. It is fulfilling Christ's command to us that we eat his body and drink his blood because he has given them to us, they are his gifts to us and we are all called to recieve them. However works are usually superfluous, they don't save us but they are manifestations of of one who has accepted jesus Christ as Lord and elected to live the way he commanded us to.

justaname · Mar 30, 2011

Well, I am not sure how you interpret "this is my Body broken for you; this is my blood poured out for you" as anything other than the Real Presence. The fact is, to claim otherwise is to deny scripture, the beliefs of the Early Church, the Church Fathers, early theologians like Augustine, 1500 years of united Christian belief, and even Reformers like Luther and King Henry VIII (modified belief). My point is, that what you see so clearly in scripture is a new idea in Christianity.

[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]1 Cor 11 : 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he come.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]
[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]In full context. Paul is speaking verse 18 - 34 chapter 11 1 Cor of how that church practiced the Lord's supper. Obviously they were doing it wrong. Explained; none waited for another, they were getting drunk, and what they were doing did not hold holy the gift Paul gave to them. In verse 26 he gives a clear description of how he views the reason for practicing the Lords supper. It if for remembrance.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]
[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]For one to exclude because another does not believe in the dogma related to that specific church is plain wrong. [/color][/font]

aspen · Mar 30, 2011

LOL Templar - it sounded like you said a "womenthing, not a man thing"!

Great post, BTW

justaname said:
[font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]For one to exclude because another does not believe in the dogma related to that specific church is plain wrong. [/color][/font]

Really? I went to a Sikh wedding a couple of years ago and they are very inclusive. We were invited to bow to their holy book, as brothers and sisters in worship. I got a lot of flack for refusing to worship their god with them, but I knew that worship is reserved for God alone, despite their hospitality. Frankly, I think it is "just plan wrong" to pressure a person to participate in worship of anything other than the God they believe in.

justaname said:
It is by the grace of God that we are saved, not by works. No man can deposit the Holy Spirit in you, only God can. Men can not give Gods blessing, only Jesus can.

One man's faith is another man's works. I call responding to an alter call and "accept Jesus into your heat" a work (and extra-Biblical, BTW) - you cannot separate works and faith - all relationships take work. The fact is, Jesus was talking about works of men - specifically works without faith or love. Works preformed without a justified, sanctified relationship with Him.

Templar81 · Mar 30, 2011

it's "womething" very special.

justaname,
Henry VIII was not a reformer in any way , shape or form.

He lived and died a Catholic and when he died he had masses aid for his soul.

In fact all he did was assert Royal Supremacy over the chruch but it was still the Catholic church.

Even after the split with rome, Henry had Protestants burned as heretics, some of the being Lollards and some being Lutheran. early in hsi reign he had English Bibles burned and got the title ; Defender of the Faith from the POpe. Though it wa given by the RCC it is still one of the Queen's titles today.

The real reforms came after his death int eh reigns of his son Edward Vi and his daughter Elizabeth I.

Closed communion

New Member

Butch5

New Member

Butch5

New Member

Butch5

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

Butch5

New Member

Butch5

New Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

Butch5

Butch5

Disciple of Jesus Christ

New Member

Disciple of Jesus Christ

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

Similar threads