Lords supper, does it have to be bread and wine?

MarkRohfrietsch · Oct 28, 2021

zoidar said:
I don't hold to the view Lords supper must be given by a priest. The same with baptism, all Christians can baptize.

It is not a case of "Must" but "Should". A person who is not ordained does not have the authority of the Church, and therfore Christ to do so. The power to forgive and retain sin; to loose and bind, is given to the Church, not to individuals. The authority to do so in the stead of Jesus Christ was given to the church corporate; it is only the Church that can infer this authority to individuals through ordination.

Thatgirloncfforums · Oct 28, 2021

@zoidar et al, I think we are forgetting about the agape meal in the NT, and even today in Orthodoxy, if you can't partake of the Eucharist, you are given blessed bread. Also, as Grace stated above, in Catholicism, you can make a spiritual communion. And aren't all meals between Christians sacred? So Christ is with us in multiple meal-like ways, we don't need the Eucharist for that.

The Eucharist however is a sacrament. It requires grace and a particular earthly sign. Alter the sign, you alter or do away with completely, the sacrament. For the same reason, you wouldn't baptize a person with dirt if you had no access to water. You would just trust all to God's mercy.

zoidar · Oct 28, 2021

Thatgirloncfforums said:
@zoidar et al, I think we are forgetting about the agape meal in the NT, and even today in Orthodoxy, if you can't partake of the Eucharist, you are given blessed bread. Also, as Grace stated above, in Catholicism, you can make a spiritual communion. And aren't all meals between Christians sacred? So Christ is with us in multiple meal-like ways, we don't need the Eucharist for that.

The Eucharist however is a sacrament. It requires grace and a particular earthly sign. Alter the sign, you alter or do away with completely, the sacrament. For the same reason, you wouldn't baptize a person with dirt if you had no access to water. You would just trust all to God's mercy.

I know this questions is almost hypothetical because 99,99% of us will never be stranded where we don't have access to bread and wine.

Sure you can have some kind of "communion" with blessed bread, that would be fine.

I think God can and often do things outside the box. There is an editor here in Sweden to a Christian magazine that came to faith when taking the eucharist. She was an unbeliever and didn't do it for herself, but she didn't want make her daughter sad at her confirmation. Then we have people saying unbelievers are not to be allowed to take the eucharist.

Coke and bread when camping, feels like disrespect to what is holy. I do love the symbolics in church. And yes like I said, I believe it's Christ's body and blood and not only symbolics.

zoidar · Oct 28, 2021

public hermit said:
I agree, in extreme circumstances. The example of camping doesn't strike me as extreme, but something like prisoners who have no access to the elements might be.

I can imagine a scenario where a group is stranded and in extreme distress. Under those circumstances the desire to share together in the Eucharist with whatever is at hand makes sense. But to just use milk and cookies under less than extreme circumstances seems a bit too much.

I'm a Protestant, but if someone holding a cup of Coke says, "In the same way he took the cup, saying: This cup is the new covenant sealed in my blood, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink it,
do this in remembrance of me" it had better be an extreme situation, as far I'm concerned. The mystery of the Eucharist should not be treated in a trite manner.

Maybe coke would be like the last choice. Makes me think of that Santa Claus commercial.

public hermit · Oct 28, 2021

Thatgirloncfforums said:
For the same reason, you wouldn't baptize a person with dirt if you had no access to water. You would just trust all to God's mercy

Water is fairly ubiquitous where humans live since humans need it. It might not be a lot of water, but if humans live there, then there must be some water.

In the early church when it came to baptism, the preference was for "living water," i.e. flowing water. But we can see them making exceptions for those who didn't have flowing water, e.g. a stream.

"But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; And if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any other also who are able; And thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.” Didache 7:1-4 (c. 60-100 AD)

Obviously, it's the same element, but adjustments were made for need. Perhaps one should abstain if no bread and wine are available. In dire circumstances, if one used crackers and water, I seriously doubt any harm would be done so long as the hearts of those partaking are right, which in dire circumstances they likely would be.

At the end of the day, I don't think God's grace is bound by the sacraments. The sacraments were created for humanity; humanity was not created for the sacraments. Likewise, the sacraments are not magic, but means of grace, which again is not bound by our performance. If one can receive grace without the sacraments, then to use what is available (again, in the most dire of circumstances) would hardly negate the grace that is available without the sacraments.

Albion · Oct 28, 2021

Perhaps one should abstain if no bread and wine are available.

One would have to abstain.

In dire circumstances, if one used crackers and water, I seriously doubt any harm would be done so long as the hearts of those partaking are right, which in dire circumstances they likely would be.

Whether or not there would be harm isn't the issue, however. If that were what happened, it presumably would be done in a spirit of Christian fellowship and prayer, both of which are meaningful; it just wouldn't be the sacrament Christ ordained.

public hermit · Oct 28, 2021

Albion said:
Whether or not there would be harm isn't the issue, however. If that were what happened, it presumably would be done in a spirit of Christian fellowship and prayer, both of which are meaningful; it just wouldn't be the sacrament Christ ordained

In that kind of situation, it doesn't matter if it was the sacrament or not. God's grace would provide whatever was needed for that body gathered in that moment, which is the whole point of the sacrament.

Albion · Oct 28, 2021

public hermit said:
In that kind of situation, it doesn't matter if it was the sacrament or not. God's grace would provide whatever was needed for that body gathered in that moment, which is the whole point of the sacrament.

Your argument seems to say that what the sacrament does or accomplishes is nothing out of the ordinary, but I have to conclude that nothing we find in Christ's own words spoken at the Last Supper when he instituted this ceremony AND ordered it to be continued, AND for certain purposes he explained then also, makes it no more than what is with believers anyway.

You might as well argue that nothing else that Christ directed his followers to do needs to be done because, well, God is always with us anyway...or God doesn't really need us to do this or that...or God can overlook or compensate for our failure to comply.

public hermit · Oct 28, 2021

Albion said:
Your argument seems to say that what the sacrament does or accomplishes is nothing out of the ordinary, but I have to conclude that nothing we find in Christ's own words spoken at the Last Supper when he instituted this ceremony AND ordered it to be continued, and for certain purposes he explained then also, makes it no more than what is with believers anyway.

You might as well argue that nothing else that Christ directed his followers to do needs to be done because, well, God is always with us anyway...or God doesn't really need us to do this or that...or God can overlook or compensate for our failure to comply.

I'm saying the grace provided by the sacraments is not bound by the sacraments. We are not justified or sanctified by the sacraments but by God's grace, of which the sacraments are a sign and seal. We obey our Lord in doing as he commanded. But God is able to provide that same grace sans sacraments. What makes the sacraments out of the ordinary is the grace that is given of which they have been instituted as a sign and seal.

The context of this discussion is extra-ordinary. The distinction I am making matters always, but it becomes salient in extra-ordinary situations.

To argue otherwise can verge on the absurdity that our Lord was bound to institute the sacraments using only those methods and elements. God could have made virtually anything as sign and seal, but chose the ones we have been given. All creation is God's, and in a wide sense all creation is sacramental.

Albion · Oct 28, 2021

public hermit said:
I'm saying the grace provided by the sacraments is not bound by the sacraments. We are not justified or sanctified by the sacraments but by God's grace, of which the sacraments are a sign and seal. We obey our Lord in doing as he commanded. But God is able to provide that same grace sans sacraments.

You're also saying that the sacrament doesn't "do" anything other than what you have repeatedly referred to here--provide grace to those involved. That's incorrect.

But when we get right down to it, the drift of this discussion towards saying people can perform the sacrament we call Holy Communion on their own, in any manner that they deem appropriate to the circumstances, or do without it, is based upon nothing but a rationalization and a guess that Our Lord "didn't really mean it."

We might as well rationalize away everything else God has commanded of his people. Why not? He doesn't actually "need" our compliance in order to do whatever he chooses. That's an argument that can always be made.

dzheremi · Oct 28, 2021

Thatgirloncfforums said:
if you can't partake of the Eucharist, you are given blessed bread.

And also if you can! (Or is this a difference between EO and OO that I am not aware of? I thought EO gave their antidoron to all...)

Thatgirloncfforums · Oct 28, 2021

The grace of the Eucharist can be given apart from the Eucharist. See @anna ~ grace 's post. But the Eucharist itself cannot be changed. We as individuals do not have the authority to do so. It is a Sacrament of God and his Church.

public hermit said:
Water is fairly ubiquitous where humans live since humans need it. It might not be a lot of water, but if humans live there, then there must be some water.

In the early church when it came to baptism, the preference was for "living water," i.e. flowing water. But we can see them making exceptions for those who didn't have flowing water, e.g. a stream.

"But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; And if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any other also who are able; And thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.” Didache 7:1-4 (c. 60-100 AD)

Obviously, it's the same element, but adjustments were made for need. Perhaps one should abstain if no bread and wine are available. In dire circumstances, if one used crackers and water, I seriously doubt any harm would be done so long as the hearts of those partaking are right, which in dire circumstances they likely would be.

At the end of the day, I don't think God's grace is bound by the sacraments. The sacraments were created for humanity; humanity was not created for the sacraments. Likewise, the sacraments are not magic, but means of grace, which again is not bound by our performance. If one can receive grace without the sacraments, then to use what is available (again, in the most dire of circumstances) would hardly negate the grace that is available without the sacraments.

Thatgirloncfforums · Oct 28, 2021

dzheremi said:
And also if you can! (Or is this a difference between EO and OO that I am not aware of? I thought EO gave their antidoron to all...)

I don't think there is a difference. I was speaking from my own experience when I attended an Orthodox liturgy. I was given blessed bread.

RDKirk · Oct 28, 2021

I'm not Catholic, but I tend to agree with the Catholic logic explained in this thread.

If I'm going to perform communion, I will perform it as instructed (my denominational teaching) or delay it until I'm able to perform it properly. If grace would allow me to perform it improperly, the same grace would allow me to delay it.

But I would not knowingly perform it improperly and then pretend I've performed it at all. "Strange incense" is the scriptural phrase that comes to mind.

Albion · Oct 28, 2021

Thatgirloncfforums said:
The grace of the Eucharist can be given apart from the Eucharist. See @anna ~ grace 's post. But the Eucharist itself cannot be changed. We as individuals do not have the authority to do so. It is a Sacrament of God and his Church.

Here's a thought that might or might not influence anybody here. There are indeed people in our "modern" times who are pastors and teachers, etc. in the church who have participated in new Communion liturgies with unconventional attire or ingredients.

These ceremonies that I can (sort of) remember used Champagne and spice cake in one instance and something like that in another. But the point is that Champagne is wine and spice cake is basically like sweet bread. So even these revisionists, or experimenters or whatever you'd call them, did not venture into using mushrooms and sausage, for example, and call it just as good.

Thatgirloncfforums · Oct 28, 2021

Didn't the Eucharist come out of the Jewish Seder meal?

Albion said:
Here's a thought that might or might not influence anybody here. There are indeed people in our "modern" times who are pastors and teacher, etc. in the church who have participated in new Communion liturgies with unconventional attire or ingredients.

These ceremonies that I can (sort of) remember used Champagne and spice cake in one instance and something like that in another. But the point is that Champagne is wine and spice cake is basically like sweet bread. So even these revisionists or whatever you'd call them, did not venture into using mushrooms and sausage, for example, and call it just as good.

MarkRohfrietsch · Oct 28, 2021

public hermit said:
Water is fairly ubiquitous where humans live since humans need it. It might not be a lot of water, but if humans live there, then there must be some water.

In the early church when it came to baptism, the preference was for "living water," i.e. flowing water. But we can see them making exceptions for those who didn't have flowing water, e.g. a stream.

"But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; And if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any other also who are able; And thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.” Didache 7:1-4 (c. 60-100 AD)

Obviously, it's the same element, but adjustments were made for need. Perhaps one should abstain if no bread and wine are available. In dire circumstances, if one used crackers and water, I seriously doubt any harm would be done so long as the hearts of those partaking are right, which in dire circumstances they likely would be.

At the end of the day, I don't think God's grace is bound by the sacraments. The sacraments were created for humanity; humanity was not created for the sacraments. Likewise, the sacraments are not magic, but means of grace, which again is not bound by our performance. If one can receive grace without the sacraments, then to use what is available (again, in the most dire of circumstances) would hardly negate the grace that is available without the sacraments.

See the post below. It does matter.

Thatgirloncfforums said:
@zoidar et al, I think we are forgetting about the agape meal in the NT, and even today in Orthodoxy, if you can't partake of the Eucharist, you are given blessed bread. Also, as Grace stated above, in Catholicism, you can make a spiritual communion. And aren't all meals between Christians sacred? So Christ is with us in multiple meal-like ways, we don't need the Eucharist for that.

The Eucharist however is a sacrament. It requires grace and a particular earthly sign. Alter the sign, you alter or do away with completely, the sacrament. For the same reason, you wouldn't baptize a person with dirt if you had no access to water. You would just trust all to God's mercy.

zoidar · Oct 28, 2021

MarkRohfrietsch said:
See the post below. It does matter.

Thatgirloncfforums said:
@zoidar et al, I think we are forgetting about the agape meal in the NT, and even today in Orthodoxy, if you can't partake of the Eucharist, you are given blessed bread. Also, as Grace stated above, in Catholicism, you can make a spiritual communion. And aren't all meals between Christians sacred? So Christ is with us in multiple meal-like ways, we don't need the Eucharist for that.

The Eucharist however is a sacrament. It requires grace and a particular earthly sign. Alter the sign, you alter or do away with completely, the sacrament. For the same reason, you wouldn't baptize a person with dirt if you had no access to water. You would just trust all to God's mercy.

There is also water in the eucharist. Where does that idea come from? Jesus said nothing of water in the wine. As far as I know it's not mentioned in the NT.

Is it possible to use like less wine and more water? Would that do?

Torah Keeper · Oct 28, 2021

It is Passover. To keep it properly you need to keep Passover from a Christian perspective. And yes it is unleavened. And yes the wine is alcoholic but was often mixed with water to about 2-3% alcohol. A sip of that is not getting anyone drunk.

Thatgirloncfforums · Oct 28, 2021

Thank you

@zoidar, see post

Torah Keeper said:
It is Passover. To keep it properly you need to keep Passover from a Christian perspective. And yes it is unleavened. And yes the wine is alcoholic but was often mixed with water to about 2-3% alcohol. A sip of that is not getting anyone drunk.

Lords supper, does it have to be bread and wine?

Lords supper, does it have to be bread and wine?

Yes!

No!

The only exception would be if you are "stranded".

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

social troglodyte

Facilitator

social troglodyte

Facilitator

social troglodyte

Facilitator

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency