Communion rules

[Dennis1209]

I'll just state my belief and I'm not criticizing others.

Communion is for the remembrance and appreciation of what Christ did for us [the body of believers, His church] on the Cross. It is for believers, those that have accepted Christ as their own personal Lord and Savior. 

Luke 22:19 (KJV) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 10:16 (KJV) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Edited September 29, 2019 by Dennis1209

[JTC]

20 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Luke 22:19 (KJV) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The key words in the verse above is "do this in remembrance of me". It is to remember Jesus and His death, resurrection and ascension. 

  The early church in Corinth was practicing a "love feast" (love of the Lord) and they were eating a meal because the last supper was a meal. The Catholics, and maybe some others, have turned it into a ritual and worse still a ritual that's supposed to add to salvation. I'm pretty sure a strict Catholic who knows another Catholic who never takes communion would say that person's salvation is in danger. I don't know what Lutheran's think. The point is all of this is not Biblical. Granted that in our day & age eating an entire meal is not feasible. Even so, I prefer a church that passes out a small piece of matzoh & an ounce of grape juice to represent the Blood. Everyone present gets some. The pastor then reads an account of the last supper, as per Jesus, followed by everyone eating their matzoh & drinking their juice. I think this is the Biblical way to celebrate the last supper and to honor Jesus.

  As for the Catholic notion that the Host contains Jesus and saves us, suppose a crumb falls to the floor and a mouse eats it, is that mouse now saved? Silly isn't it. But theologians used to debate things like this, until churches who wish to practice Biblical Christianity came along. These churches aren't perfect but they wouldn't have a problem with letting a new person share in remembering our Lord.

   Nevertheless, to the OP I say while you had the right idea, you tried it in the wrong kind of church. It is necessary to respect the rules of the church you're in, unless you can get those rules changed.

[Neighbor]

Hi all, there may be a misunderstanding regarding the words worthily  and worthy.

From my own perspective there is a major difference in meaning of the two words worthily and worthy.  

worthily:

adverb

In a worthy manner; honorably; with due dignity, reverence, or respect; reverently. Excellently; rightly; becomingly; suitably; fittingly. Deservedly; justly; according to merit.

worthy:

adjective

Having worth, merit, or value. Honorable; admirable. Having sufficient worth; deserving.

 

 

[Dennis1209]

For those interested, I think Albert Barnes explains it pretty well below:

Verse 29. For he that eateth, etc. In order to excite them to a deeper reverence for this ordinance, and to a more solemn mode of observing it, Paul in this verse states another consequence of partaking of it in an improper and irreverent manner. Comp. 1Co 11:27.

Eateth and drinketh damnation. This is evidently a figurative expression, meaning that by eating and drinking improperly he incurs condemnation-which is here expressed by eating and drinking condemnation itself. The word damnation we now apply, in common language, exclusively to the future and final punishment of the wicked in hell. But the word here used does not of necessity refer to that; and, according to our use' of the word now, there is a harshness and severity in our translation which the Greek does not require, and which probably was not conveyed by the word "damnation" when the translation was made. In the margin it is correctly rendered "judgment." The word here used (krima) properly denotes judgment; the result of judging, that is, a sentence; then a sentence by which one is condemned, or condemnation; and then punishment. See Ro 3:8; 13:2. It has evidently the sense of judgment here; and means that, by their improper manner of observing this ordinance, they would expose themselves to the Divine displeasure, and to punishment. And it refers, I think, to the punishment or judgment which the apostle immediately specifies, 1Co 11:30,32. It means a manifestation of the Divine displeasure which might be evinced in this life; and which, in the case of the Corinthians, was manifested in the judgments which God had brought upon them. It cannot be denied, however, that a profane and intentionally irreverent manner of observing the Lord's Supper will meet with the Divine displeasure in the eternal world, and aggravate the doom of those who are guilty of it. But it is clear that this was not the punishment which the apostle had here in his eye. This is apparent,

(1.) because the Corinthians did eat unworthily, and yet the judgments inflicted on them were only temporal-that is, weakness, sickness, and temporal death, (1Co 11:30;) and,

(2.) because the reason assigned for these judgments is, that they might not be condemned with the wicked; i.e., as the wicked are in hell, 1Co 11:32.--Whitby. Comp. 1Pe 4:17.

Not discerning the Lord's body. Not discriminating mh diakrinwn between the bread which is used on this occasion, and common and ordinary food. Not making the proper difference and distinction between this and common meals. It is evident that this was the leading offence of the Corinthians, Cmt. on 1Co 11:20 and this is the proper idea which the original conveys. It does not refer to any intellectual or physical power to perceive that that bread represented the body of the Lord; not to any spiritual perception which it is often supposed that piety has to distinguish this; not to any view which faith may be supposed to have to discern the body of the Lord through the elements; but to the fact that they did not distinguish or discriminate between this and common meals. They did not regard it in a proper manner, but supposed it to be simply an historical commemoration of an event, such as they were in the habit of observing in honour of an idol or a hero by a public celebration. They, therefore, are able to "discern the Lord s body" in the sense intended here, who with a serious mind regard it as an institution appointed by the Lord Jesus to commemorate his death; and who distinguish thus between this and ordinary meals, and all festivals and feasts designed to commemorate other events. In other words, who deem it to be designed to show forth the fact that his body was broken for sill, and who desire to observe it as such. It is evident that all true Christians may have ability of this kind, and need not incur condemnation by any error in regard to this. The humblest and obscurest follower of the Saviour, with the feeblest faith and love, may regard it as designed to set forth the death of his Redeemer; and observing it thus, will meet with the Divine approbation.

{1} "drinketh damnation" "judgment" Ro 13:2