Communion/ Eucharist/Lord's Table

I always wonder why there is so much 'difficulty' about Communion. Well, I do understand the reasons in a way.

But it makes me awfully sad that what Jesus instigated has become so complicated. All the different rules and regs in different denominations....some are more strict than others.

As far as I can tell from what I've read ages ago, I wouldn't be able to have Communion in a Lutheran church (can't remember why now, but probably to do with my way of looking at it, and the way plenty of others look at it).

But just supposing Jesus were physically here now (and there were a reason for sharing the Lord's Supper/Eucharist), with a whole group of different Christians from diverse persuasions, do you think He would forbid Communion to half the people?
'Oh terribly sorry, your beliefs don't quite line up with what they should be, oh sorry, I will have to put the wafer in your mouth personally' etc etc.

As I say, I do understand where some of the difficulties come in and I'm not getting at different churches.

But it does seem dreadful to me that these differences can be or have sometimes in the past been a little divisive. If we all belong to Christ and supposed to be one in Him, some of it can seem to me against that union amongst ourselves, not to mention Christ.

chevyontheriver said:

Jesus did hand pick twelve and only twelve for his first communion. So who is to say that he might be selective with who he would pick if he returned? Those twelve didn't have perfect theology though. And one of them apostasized moments later.

My guess is that we are in for a rude surprise when Jesus returns. Even those of us who are found acceptable will be found only barely acceptable.

As to receiving the Eucharist, I think the Anglican Ordinariate in the Catholic Church do it most reverently. You kneel. The priest places the host on your tongue. another priest comes around with the one cup and you take a sip. You don't 'take' but 'receive'.

Click to expand...

That's part of my point in a way, those twelve didn't have perfect theology (who does!) and Judas was also there.
Interesting what you say about reverence, but sometimes I can be quite reverent at Communion, but other times it just fills me with such delight, I feel like jumping up and dancing about (not that I do...I think other people would look at me very askance if I did, especially in traditional churches).
Perhaps I should research if possible, how they went about it normally in the very early church.
Trouble is, sometimes the very solemnity of an occasion makes my sense of humour 'worse'. When I used to go to an Anglican church, the bit where the vicar says about 'source of all holiness' immediately (on occasion) made me think of a bottle of tomato ketchup being poured all over us, and then I wanted to burst out laughing (obviously I didn't). And it wasn't like I wasn't concentrating on the service or God or anything. So I would then have to mentally laugh about it with God (otherwise I may well have started laughing!)

Tangible said:

Closed communion is not about perfect theology, it's about fellowship. Among the many facets of the Lord's Supper is that those who commune together should share the same confession of faith. To commune together is to make a statement that you are one in doctrine. If you do not share the same confession, it would be disingenuous to commune together.

Closed communion also has to do with acting on our love and concern for our brothers and sisters who do not share a scriptural understanding of the nature and purpose of Holy Communion by preventing them from harming themselves by partaking in an unworthy manner, without discerning the body and blood of Our Lord, as explained by St Paul in 1 Corinthians.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that Communion (whether closed or not) is about fellowship. And I should have thought that pretty much all the denominations do share the same basic core confessions along say, the lines of the Nicene or the Apostle's Creed. A lot of other things (to me at least) aren't so important. If I were to go to a church and found I disagreed with with what I might consider to be the central doctrines of Christianity, then I might very well decide not to take part in Communion anyway. And probably would not go to that church again in any case.

Yes, I do understand what you say in your second paragraph. But perhaps this is the rub, I think maybe different people or churches understand 1 Corinthians a little differently.

I'm certainly not suggesting a kind of free-for-all, where anything goes. I just wish I knew what the answer was . It's merely that I think it a huge shame that some Christians may be disbarred in effect from partaking of the Lord's Supper in some churches.
And who's to say that someone might pretend to share the same confession of faith? Then they may very well be harming themself anyway. But I should have thought most Christians worth their salt would not do that anyway.

Still, I do not want to stir up any contention or anything...heaven knows there's been enough of it over the centuries. I'm sure God will sort it all out

Though I've just suddenly thought (unlikely scenario) that if a group of people were on a desert island and everyone were Lutheran, say, except myself, that would mean that there was no-one that I could have Communion with. Unless perhaps I changed my views. But I wouldn't want to do that unless I were persuaded

Tangible said:

Would you like to be persuaded?

Typically, for those who do not have a high view of the sacraments, it seems as those who do have a high view are overly concerned about them. But for those who do have a high view, we don't feel as though we are being exclusionary, we really are acting out of concern and love.

Click to expand...

Well, I do have a high view of Communion/Eucharist/Lord's Table, whichever name it is called by. That is why it makes me sad that not all Christians can partake if they don't hold to quite the same views (and I am talking about those who hold it in high view).
And yes, I certainly do understand that those who are being 'exclusionary' for want of a better word, are acting out of concern and love . I certainly don't hold it against them.
In practice, it doesn't actually affect me personally as there are no for example, Lutheran churches, in the city I live in.

Maybe I will look into all this again...I haven't really gone into it much for several years. There may be some aspect after all that I'm not quite 'getting'. I'm always open to changing my viewpoint on something if I find new information and am persuaded by other perspectives.
Thank you very much for your responses

FireDragon76 said:

You are welcome to receive communion at an ELCA Lutheran church, we have open communion for different theological reasons than the LCMS. Just be aware that we, like all Lutherans, believe Jesus Christ is the meal, just as they do. How this is so, we consider a bit of a mystery but we believe and confess there is a physical presence of Christ in the sacrament, as do the LCMS and other Lutherans. Other than that, in the interests of Christian fellowship, we are not for peering into peoples souls and fencing the table. It's enough for you to believe that you truly receive the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of all your sins, for us to have limited fellowship with you (not necessarily pulpit/altar fellowship), even if you are not a Lutheran.

I believe there are even some LCMS churches where the pastor will allow you to receive communion if you believe the same things that Lutherans do about the sacrament. It will just be up to the particular parish. This is what is called "close" communion, rather than closed communion.

The Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist makes the most sense of what I read in the Bible and what Christians had always believed, without making too many philosophical distinctions. I've never found the Calvinist or memorialist doctrines that persuasive without buying into alot of humanist baggage about what God can and cannot do with a body. It's also noteworthy that both Wycliffe and Jan Hus essentially agreed with Luther on this point, that the presence of Christ was physical without the bread necessarily being destroyed in substance.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that's interesting.
Thing is, I was baptised aged 7 in the Catholic church. Ok, I was only young, and whereas I could understand concepts like the Trinity, I never could believe that the bread and wine actually turns literally into the body and blood of Christ. And am still not convinced. (I don't count myself as Catholic anymore btw).
As for consubstantiation I am not so sure. I certainly believe that Christ is present in some way, but not sure in what way. But for me, it doesn't really matter, whether it's trans- con- or whatever else. As long as one is remembering Christ's death until He comes and coming to Communion in the right spirit and not holding on to unforgiveness etc. and being in right relationship with God and others, as far as one is able, for me I think that Christ is present in Communion in whatever way He is...I guess it's a mystery, whatever way one looks at it.
But, as I intimated above, I wouldn't want to get into loggerheads with anyone over it. As Scripture says 'live at peace with everyone as far as it depends on you'. I just don't like division if there seems no reason for it

FireDragon76 said:

Also, we Lutherans do deny a carnal or capernaitic eating of Christ in the sacrament. We do not receive pieces of Christ, we receive the whole person of Christ. This is also why we accept the doctrine of concomittance, as do the Roman Catholics.

This is very useful for me, as due to dietary restrictions, there have been times I have only received communion from the chalice. But it doesn't matter because we receive the same benefits. It's just for ordinary purposes, people should be permitted to receive both the bread and the wine.

Click to expand...

When I used to go to the Catholic church, we only received the bread, even the adults (I'm assuming they wouldn't have given children wine as they are children)

Tangible said:

It has been a pleasure. Below is a link to a really good pamphlet (pdf) from my church, the LCMS, about this topic.

www.lcms.org/document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1097

Click to expand...

Thank you I've downloaded that to my computer and will read it when I can concentrate a bit better(not been feeling too well the last few days and things have been very stressful, plus had toothache )

FireDragon76 said:

I'm guessing by your profile, and your mention that there are no Lutheran churches near you, that you are in the UK? There aren't alot of Lutheran churches in the UK, though some exist. Mostly, Lutherans have good relations with the Anglicans there, as both religions are fairly similar in their tone and practice, if not in complete agreement on doctrine.

It's understandable that Christians have been divided over the Eucharist. We are talking about a traditionally very intimate moment. At one time Christians did not even allow outsiders to witness it. In the middle ages, a certain primitive scientific speculation started about its exact nature and the language we should use in talking about what is happening, and this lead to the root of most of the disagreement. It only got worse during the Reformation. Not everybody had the same impulses towards reform. Some were just interested in ending the de facto papal rule of Europe and saw the Bible as a constitution of sorts in that project (Zwingli and the Swiss Reformed), others were more concerned that the message of the Gospel was being obscured by an indifferent church hierarchy (Lutherans). And some just wanted out of a bad marriage (Anglicans).

Christian (dis)unity is a tragic thing, I have no easy answers there. We all want the kind of unity we should have, but I think it will have to wait till the next world. In the mean-time, we can appreciate what is good and true happening in various traditions of the Christian faith.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do live in the UK .
And you make good points. When one comes to think about it, anything that is central or or highly important to people (whether it be spiritual or secular) is, I suppose, almost bound to cause disagreements or divisions. Look at political parties, or lots of other things one could name.

Not sure if it's true, but didn't some people centuries ago think that Christians were almost like cannibals, eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ? And of course, if outsiders weren't allowed to witness it, it would be fairly easy I guess for them to come to the wrong conclusion.

As for your last paragraph, I suppose it's the Holy Spirit who will ultimately bring true and whole unity between all His people and with God. I love that bit in the Bible where Jesus prays that we'd all be one and one in Him, and one with the Father and so forth..that is so encouraging.
And absolutely I agree about appreciating other traditions and Christians within them. I think that one can get a lot from different churches.. different understandings and perspectives . Every church and Christian has something to offer, so to speak.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

I'm LCC, in fellowship with the LCMS.

You assume wrongly. Children, after instruction in our Church receive communion in both kinds, bread and wine; body and blood. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, this is done from infancy. Children receive both kinds in the Anglican Church as well.

When our Lord says "take and eat" "take and drink", there is not an option; likewise He states that the bread is His body, and the wine, His blood. To assume otherwise, that each is both, is reading something into Scripture that is not there. Such is why Luther was adamant that the blessed sacrament be received in both kinds, for the same reasons that the EO administer it in both kinds.

This Sacrament was instituted by Christ, with clear instructions as to how it be administered; and clear instructions as to how it should be received, and how it should not be.

The ideas of needing only one kind, or the ignoring of the admonitions in Scripture regarding the worthy manner of reception is , in my opinion, playing fast and loose with God's Word, and therefore with His Will.

Click to expand...

Yes, maybe so. However, whenever I've been to a Catholic church, even the adults have not been given the wine, only the priests (and possibly other 'higher-ups') This may not be so in all Catholic churches, but it has been in my experience. It always puzzled me, and the only thing I could think of, at least in the case of children, was that perhaps they shouldn't be drinking alcohol. Otherwise, I don't know what the explanation is . Perhaps it's a British thing?

MarkRohfrietsch said:

More and more Catholic Parishes are returning to the practice of both kings; however you are correct that it has been their tradition. At the time of the reformation, that was their tradition also. This, however was not the practice of the the early Church, nor was it ever the practice of the Eastern Orthodox, or, I believe the Eastern Rite Catholic Church.

This is why Luther mandated a return to this practice. It really has nothing to do with the consumption of alcohol and age. At some point in history, and I have done no research, for what ever reason, the CC decided to stop the practice of providing the sacrament to the laity in both kinds; it may have been a power thing, it may have been economics, it may simply have been to avoid the risk of spilling the precious blood and concern for it's defilement (seems to me, the spillage may have been the reason).

For what ever reason, flawed logic was used to justify withholding the precious blood from the laity by arguing that bot are present in each; which is at odds with God's own words in Holy Scripture.

Children in ancient time would also have drank wine or milk; water was often not fit. Milk was expensive, wine was cheep.

It is only a recent development, post reformation, among the radical reformed protestants that any and all alcohol is bad. Most European countries have virtually no laws regarding drinking age, and any that do, It was recent times when they were initiated.

Click to expand...

Thanks, your explanations make sense - I have always been puzzled by that...makes one feel somehow cheated