Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, he did say those things, but wasn't the literal interpretation of that rejected during the Protestant split? Leaving, then, only the Catholics and Othodox religions believing it is the body and blood or Christ. Most Protestant services I've been to see if as a symbol only, not the true embodiment of our Lord.
I've been looking elsewhere, too, to research more on my original question. I still can't nail it down, but if seems like people say that if, as a Catholic, I'd take Protestant communion, I would inadvertantly be suggesting that it is equal to my own Catholic Eucharist, which it is not. The Protestants specifically cast off the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, and if I took Prot. communion during church, I'd be implying a unity that isn't really there.
I'm sure I'm missing something else to the equation, but that's just what I've come up with since my original post.
It's kind of a crapshoot in the Protestant realm. Lutherans believe in the Sacramental Union (a form of Real Presence theology that doesn't delve so far into the "Chemistry" of the elements as Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation). Some Protestant churches believe that Christ is "Spiritually Present" in the bread and wine, and some believe that it is merely symbolic of his body and his blood.
I think the Roman Catholic Church would more likely take issue with the question of Priesthood and the person presiding over the consecration of the elements.
Prostantant churches consider the bread and wine as a "symbol" of the body and blood of Christ. Catholics see it as the actual body and blood of Christ. It is not symbolic to us. It's the real deal!
Ok, I really wasn't planning on getting into the Catholic vs everyone else thing. If anything I say offends anyone, it's really not personal.
It is my understanding that the reformation happened because certain of the Church in that day believed that most of the clergy were pushing a religion lacking in real life changeing faith.
Today, many non-Catholic circles do not even call themselfs protestants, but they do value some of the doctrines emphisised by the reformers. For example, Baptist prefer to be called Baptist rather than protestants. But they hold Martin Luther to be a great man in Church history. Pentecostals and Charismatics deny they are protestants, but usually think well of the reformers also.
So apart from Catholic circles, you will find some variations of scripture interpretations. This includes holy communion doctrine.
My personal position is that all today who call themselves Christian need to take a step up. I include myself in that flock. It seems that my knowledge of scripture has exceded my tendencies to live according to it, in some points, so the rest of me needs to catch up.
Now, the only people who are allowed to participate in holy communion are those who believe the gospel of JESUS CHRIST, have been baptised in the name of JESUS CHRIST, and have been baptised in the HOLY SPIRIT. All others are simply acting wrongfully when they suppose themselves to be rightly participating in communion.
Notice I gave no indication of denomination, but rather the three essential spiritual qualifications required.
It's really simple----The LORD said, "This is my blood", the LORD also said,"This is my body".
How can anyone not understand this? Must we consult phd theologians who write volume after volume of complicated explinations, or should we simply believe what the Creator of the universe has said?
john 6:55 - 64
"55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before 63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
This is understood by protestants to show that Jesus was not literally referring to cannibalism when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but his words were meant to be understood as a spiritual analogy.
My question is can anyone point to specific doctrine that forbids accepting Protestant communion? I've never seen source material on it. Or, at the very least, explain the reason for it so I can then re-explain it to my mother-in-law?
I'm Catholic and don't know of any particular doctrine that forbids us Catholics from taking Protestant Communion, but why would any Catholic want to take Protestant communion when they don't view communion in the same way we do?
When you take communion, whether it is in a Catholic church or a Protestant church, you, in effect, are saying you believe the same way everyone else believes.
I know many Protestants raise issues with how communion is closed to non-Catholics with the RCC, but I know of Protestant churches were their communion is closed. In fact, if you're, say Baptist, and attend another Baptist church it's quite possible you'll not be taking communion at the other Baptist church simply because they have no way of knowing if you believe the way they do.
john 6:55 - 64
"55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before 63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
This is understood by protestants to show that Jesus was not literally referring to cannibalism when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but his words were meant to be understood as a spiritual analogy.
If he meant it as merely a spiritual analogy, why did he let thousands leave over a simple misunderstanding. If it was just a misunderstanding he would have had a moral obligation to correct it. No, instead he let them leave, and turned to the apostles and asked if they wanted to leave too. He meant what he said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
