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.
Because I'd heard a Lutheran minister on TV Sunday night, I looked up what they believe. And at least this branch of the Lutherans believe the same way as Catholics on the sacraments (I think)...
From the Evangelical Lutheran Synod website:
We hold with Luther that "[the Sacrament of the Altar instituted by Christ himself] is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, given to us Christians to eat and to drink." (SC VI, pp. 351)
Because I'd heard a Lutheran minister on TV Sunday night, I looked up what they believe. And at least this branch of the Lutherans believe the same way as Catholics on the sacraments (I think)...
From the Evangelical Lutheran Synod website:
We hold with Luther that "[the Sacrament of the Altar instituted by Christ himself] is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, given to us Christians to eat and to drink." (SC VI, pp. 351)
Is this the same as the Catholic belief?
My understanding is yes that would be the same. I am wondering why others don't think this. Do you know?
This is one of those things that I ask; does this realy matter. I mean is it going to in the end determine if ones is a Christian or not? If one goes to Heaven or not? I think not.
Communion is symbolic . "This do in remembrance of me" It is representative of the body and the blood of Christ.
No way is Communion symbolic. This is not MY opinion, this is what Jesus said.
"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
I think the following commentary voices my belief on the Lord's Supper:
From a commentary on Matthew 26:26: And said, take, eat, this is my body; in Luke it is added, "which is given for you", Luk_22:19; that is, unto death, as a sacrifice for sin; and by the Apostle Paul, 1Co_11:24, "which is broken for you"; as that bread then was, and so expressive of his wounds, bruises, sufferings, and death, for them. Now when he says, "this is my body", he cannot mean, that that bread was his real body; or that it was changed and converted into the very substance of his body; but that it was an emblem and representation of his body, which was just ready to be offered up, once for all: in like manner, as the Jews in the eating of their passover used to say (r) of the unleavened bread,
הא לחמא דעניא, this is "the bread of affliction", which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Not that they thought that was the selfsame bread, but that it resembled it, and was a representation of the affliction and distress their fathers were in at that time: ...
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.