How Often Should You Partake in Holy Communion?

[ExOrienteLux]

Because scripture is Holy and as I use the Authorised Version I see the two words every day on its cover. However the Orthodox churches/Catholic churches do not hold scripture in such high regard instead of prefering the traditions of men. Is that code three or four?

When was the last time that you saw a dispensationalist church that had a copy of the Scriptures that had covers made of gold with precious gems placed in it? When was the last time the church's copy of the Scriptures was taken from its place on the altar (if you have one) and treated with the dignity that the words of the Lord deserve? When was the last time that it was carried around the church with the honor that should be accorded to it?

For me, it was three days ago on Sunday morning. During my nearly two decades as a Methodist (a quite conservative one who learned toward KJVOism myself for a while), I had never seen the Scriptures treated with as much reverence as they are treated in liturgical churches (ie: Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran) where they are carried in procession around the Church while all stand to hear the words of the Lord.

When it comes to the question of the Real Presence, I may go so far as to postulate that there is a good chance that you don't have life in you. I base that on our Lord's saying:

"I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the Living Bread Which came down from heaven; if any man eats this Bread, he will live forever; and the Bread which I give for the life of the world is My Flesh.... 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 that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me will live because of Me. This is the living Bread Which came down out of heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this Bread will live forever."

Immediately after this, His disciples told Him that it was 'a hard saying'. It doesn't mean that it's difficult to understand. It obviously wasn't that hard for them to figure out what He was talking about, because they left in droves, thinking that He was advocating cannibalism.

So, if you don't think that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord, then according to His own words, you have no life in you, because you haven't eaten His Flesh and drank His Blood. (Just for your information, I haven't partaken of the Holy Mysteries myself, so as of right now, I stand under the same judgement.)

Just a few little thoughts to think about...

+IC XC NIKA+
Josh.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Because scripture is Holy and as I use the Authorised Version I see the two words every day on its cover. However the Orthodox churches/Catholic churches do not hold scripture in such high regard instead of prefering the traditions of men. Is that code three or four?

Your opinion is wrong and quite sad.

 

[Koey]

...how often it is appropriate or necessary to take communion...

I would word the question a different way, "How often can we partake of mass, communion, Eucharist, the Lord's Supper?" I believe that the church has perverted this simple ceremony with sacerdotalism -- the unbiblical, control-freak idea that only a priest can perform it. Jesus' example was a simple ceremony. He did not limit it to sacerdotes (priests) or church overseers to perform, nor did he forbid us taking it in small groups without a pastor present.

Jesus left a lot up to us. His instructions were simple, yet the churches have filled encyclopedias with their regulations, which I find disgusting and imprisoning. Jesus made no such rules and I follow him, not some man.

 

[StevenL]

I would word the question a different way, "How often can we partake of mass, communion, Eucharist, the Lord's Supper?" I believe that the church has perverted this simple ceremony with sacerdotalism -- the unbiblical, control-freak idea that only a priest can perform it. Jesus' example was a simple ceremony. He did not limit it to sacerdotes (priests) or church overseers to perform, nor did he forbid us taking it in small groups without a pastor present.

Jesus left a lot up to us. His instructions were simple, yet the churches have filled encyclopedias with their regulations, which I find disgusting and imprisoning. Jesus made no such rules and I follow him, not some man.

 

[PaladinValer]

Control freak? God was a control-freak when He ordained the Apostles as the first bishops who, until the order of priests stemmed from them, where the only order of priest who could celebrate the Holy Eucharist?

I find that extremely offensive that you would call my God a "control-freak"

 

[Pilgrim and stranger]

Acts 20
7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

We should break bread at least once a week!

 

[StevenL]

Control freak? God was a control-freak when He ordained the Apostles as the first bishops who, until the order of priests stemmed from them, where the only order of priest who could celebrate the Holy Eucharist?

I find that extremely offensive that you would call my God a "control-freak"

Maybe you shouldn't be so easily offended. There is no such teaching in the Scriptures written by these first "bishops" that only they could "administer" the Lord's supper. Such is a false and very dangerous teaching.

 

[PaladinValer]

Maybe you shouldn't be so easily offended. There is no such teaching in the Scriptures written by these first "bishops" that only they could "administer" the Lord's supper. Such is a false and very dangerous teaching.

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. The Holy Bible doesn't state whom can and whom can't.

That is why Holy Tradition (to which the Holy Bible is a part of) is utilized as orthodoxy was passed from bishop to bishop in Apostolic Succession.

 

[StevenL]

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. The Holy Bible doesn't state whom can and whom can't.

That is why Holy Tradition (to which the Holy Bible is a part of) is utilized as orthodoxy was passed from bishop to bishop in Apostolic Succession.

OK.

 

[Eusebios]

*[mod hat on] It has come to the attention of staff that this thread is progressing towards incivility. Let this post serve as notice that personal insults will not be tolertaed. Further lack of decorum may result in warnings being issued and/or posts being deleted.[/hat]
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios-Moderator Ecclisiology

 

[Koey]

God was not a control-freak when He ordained the Apostles. I think you misunderstood my post and are taking offense because maybe you want to find an offense. MEN are the control-freaks, when they take Jesus' simple Last Supper and Paul's comments regarding same, and turn it into something that only priests can administer and add dozens if not hundreds of little regulations on top of it all.

 

[33ad]

Maybe you shouldn't be so easily offended. There is no such teaching in the Scriptures written by these first "bishops" that only they could "administer" the Lord's supper. Such is a false and very dangerous teaching.

You are speaking from the premise that the Holy Scriptures are the Only Authority (Sola Scriptura). I feel sorry for you. The Holy Scriptures form only a miniscule portion of Church History. Paul the Apostle only wrote to churches he could not personally get to. Imagine his teachings that were not written down for you to peruse in your Bible. John the Evangelist also wrote that if everything that Jesus said and did were written down, they would fill the whole world. How short sighted you are to reject what the early ante-Nicene fathers wrote, as they got their teachings directly from the Apostles themselves, and finally got to write them down. Much early Church doctrine was Never written down, but has survived in the Church to this day because they were strictly adhered to, and finally became what the Church calls "Holy Tradition". One can not interpret the scriptures without them!
Paul urged us to "Hold Fast to the TRADITIONS I have taught you." Were his teachings the "traditions" of men? I think NOT.

Kolya

 

[bliz]

God was not a control-freak when He ordained the Apostles. I think you misunderstood my post and are taking offense because maybe you want to find an offense. MEN are the control-freaks, when they take Jesus' simple Last Supper and Paul's comments regarding same, and turn it into something that only priests can administer and add dozens if not hundreds of little regulations on top of it all.

Being raised in a church that did not ordain women, I always found it intresting that only men could serve communion when God chose to use the body of a woman to literally present the body and blood of Christ to the world.

 

[Koey]

How do we know what is the difference between the "traditions of men" and the "traditions of the elders?" How do we know which is the right branch of the Church or even if that is important? The Catholics and Orthodox and many others each claim to the the "right" branch.

I personally believe that the whole thing is a mixture of good and evil, good traditions and evil ones, visible churches organized by men that perhaps all contain people who belong to the invisible church, who have their names in the Book of Life.

 

[33ad]

How do we know what is the difference between the "traditions of men" and the "traditions of the elders?" How do we know which is the right branch of the Church or even if that is important? The Catholics and Orthodox and many others each claim to the the "right" branch.

Koey, That' a very good and valid question. How do we know the difference? We go and study them to check them out. If something about a Church is immoral according to the scriptures, one can safely make a decision about the "Goodness" or "Rightness" of a church.

I personally believe that the whole thing is a mixture of good and evil, good traditions and evil ones, visible churches organized by men that perhaps all contain people who belong to the invisible church, who have their names in the Book of Life.

Only the Holy Spirit can convict any one to make a Spiritual descion for right or wrong. There is no harm in examining the beliefs of others, as long as one does it with prayer and an open mind to the Spirit's leading. In fact, that is part of the responsibility of man, to ensure that he is in fact on the right road.

I know that you have made up your mind about certain errors in the church you were attending, and you made the decision to change. So you are quite capable of continuing your spiritual journey.
I personally am not going to try to persuade you to think any church is better than another. That is for you alone to decide.

Kolya