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

[Strong in Him]

Personally speaking, I wish we kept the purification and liturgical laws of the OT as they point to and inform us about Jesus. I understand that we ought not to keep them as covenant, but to not keep them at all seems to deprive us (or maybe it's just me) of some much needed spiritual context. I would rejoice to be 'Jewish' in practice, bc I would recognize it as a connection to Jesus (doing as he did, as Father of my house and Lord of my life)

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't keep them if you feel that you need/want to.
I don't believe it's necessary, don't believe that they were given to us and, personally, feel that you would need to keep ALL of them - which includes being unclean at certain times of the month. But if you feel you want to do that, it's not hurting anyone.
It only becomes a problem when people say "Christians HAVE to do this"; implication, 'you're not as spiritual if you don't'.

 

[Strong in Him]

I am fairly certain that you likely don't accept the very real presence of the body and blood, but only treat this as a commemoration rather than a sacrament. Purely symbolic with no efficacy what so ever?

I'm not too clear what people mean by "real presence".
If you mean that Jesus is really present with us; yes, of course I do.
If you mean that the bread and wine are his body and blood and we are remembering, and sharing in, his suffering and death; again, yes, of course I do.
If you mean that the bread somehow, in some mysterious way, actually becomes part of his flesh, and the wine his blood, and that unless we believe this we do not receive him; no. Scripture doesn't say we have to believe we are literally eating Jesus in order to receive him and be in him.

 

[Strong in Him]

True, but are we at liberty to say that whatever Christ did NOT specify is ours to innovate? I don't think so,

Which is what I'm saying.
Christ did not specify that those who preside over a service of Communion - and I don't think they had such a thing in the early church - has to be an ordained minister/vicar/priest. So what right do we have to insist that this should be so?
Do clergy really believe that God will refuse to be present by his Spirit and speak to people because the person "in charge" does not have a dog collar?

Jesus died so that we could come to God, be in communion with, reconciled to and live in him as one of God's children. He wants us to remember this, his sacrifice for us. I do not believe that this becomes "invalid" if there is no ordained person to lead us in the ceremony.

I once took part in a communion service at the end of a 25 mile pilgrimage, in the open air where the "altar" was made up of about 30 rucksacks. True, there was a bishop present - but there was no liturgy or service, and if I remember we passed round a bread roll and had some juice. I seem to remember it was a moving service.
Was that communion because there was a bishop present? Did God decide to bless us because we were doing it (semi) "properly"? Or did he bless his children who were worshipping him, remembering his Son and asking to be filled with his Spirit?

 

[Albion]

Which is what I'm saying.
Christ did not specify that those who preside over a service of Communion - and I don't think they had such a thing in the early church

Well, they did.

- has to be an ordained minister/vicar/priest. So what right do we have to insist that this should be so?

He gave instructions all over the place and it's recorded in what we Christians consider to be God's own word given in revelation. So if we discard all of them in favor of doing whatever seems meaningful, what do we have?

Do clergy really believe that God will refuse to be present by his Spirit and speak to people because the person "in charge" does not have a dog collar?

No, they don't. They do believe, however, that the congregation calls its ministers into service according to a formal process and that the validity of certain acts, such as administering a sacrament, depends on the authority that was given to the officiant. Christian worship, like Hebrew worship before it, has never been a "do it yourself" process. Some religions are like that, but not ours.

I once took part in a communion service at the end of a 25 mile pilgrimage, in the open air where the "altar" was made up of about 30 rucksacks. True, there was a bishop present - but there was no liturgy or service, and if I remember we passed round a bread roll and had some juice. I seem to remember it was a moving service.

Well, that seems to be a valid Eucharist. You said there was a called and ordained officiant and the proper elements were used (bread, wine). So if it was open air, the altar was improvised, there wasn't the normal liturgy, none of that makes it invalid. But neither is that what you are trying to convince me of. For an example of that, you'd have had to say that at the end of a long day, a group of unordained Christian men and women passed around the remains of a watermelon, everyone present ate some, and everyone gave their testimony about what God meant to them personally. Something like that.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well, they did.

I doubt it was in the form that we have it now; a service of worship, a "communion hymn", special liturgy and everyone walks up to stand, or kneel, at a table to receive a wafer/bit of bread and a sip of wine - that was my point.
Neither Acts 2 nor 1 Corinthians 11 describe that.

He gave instructions all over the place

Where, for example?
Where does God's word say "and when you meet together, make sure that only ordained clergy break bread and say a prayer of blessing over it and the wine"?

No, they don't. They do believe, however, that the congregation calls its ministers into service according to a formal process and that the validity of certain acts,

Yes - they also rightly believe, and teach, that every member ministers and has a ministry.
Even Peter said that we are a holy priesthood, James told us to confess our sins to one another and Paul said that we are all the body of Christ; the head being Jesus, not an Archbishop/Pope.
As followers of Christ, Children of God and those who are filled with the Spirit, we should all be able to break bread, honour the Lord and commemorate his death.

Well, that seems to be a valid Eucharist. You said there was a called and ordained officiant and the proper elements were used (bread, wine).

It was.
I was thinking more of the comment made in this thread that we do it "properly" or not at all. Some might say that wasn't "proper". And to be honest it was so long ago I couldn't swear that even bread and wine were used.

But neither is that what you are trying to convince me of. For an example of that, you'd have had to say that at the end of a long day, a group of unordained Christian men and women passed around the remains of a watermelon, everyone present ate some, and everyone gave their testimony about what God meant to them personally. Something like that.

I'm not actually trying to convince you; I said that my belief is that you don't need ordained clergy present to make Communion "valid" - that is not a Scriptural teaching. I said also it is my belief that eating and drinking, on your own or with friends, and remembering the Lord's death - in his presence - is just as much "Communion" as the service that I described earlier.

What does God think; how does he see it?
Does he refuse to bless people who eat and drink bread and wine without the "correct" person being present?
Are people who take cake and juice/tea and biscuits/bread and water or whatever they have to hand, but do it in sincerity and with thankful hearts actually sinning?
What of people who take the correct elements in a proper service with an ordained minister, but who do it because they are told to/they have always done it/their hearts are far from God or they don't actually have a relationship with him? Are they still better than a devout, sincere Christian who remembers the Lord's death while eating a sandwich and drinking juice?
How is someone in the scenario that you described not in communion with God?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sure. I didn't imply anything else. It's still from the fruit of the vine.

The question was about where there was any evidence that they cut their wine.

In fact, cutting the wine with water was the normal way Romans drank wine.

Not just the Romans either.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I doubt it was in the form that we have it now; a service of worship, a "communion hymn", special liturgy and everyone walks up to stand, or kneel, at a table to receive a wafer/bit of bread and a sip of wine - that was my point.
Neither Acts 2 nor 1 Corinthians 11 describe that.



Where, for example?
Where does God's word say "and when you meet together, make sure that only ordained clergy break bread and say a prayer of blessing over it and the wine"?



Yes - they also rightly believe, and teach, that every member ministers and has a ministry.
Even Peter said that we are a holy priesthood, James told us to confess our sins to one another and Paul said that we are all the body of Christ; the head being Jesus, not an Archbishop/Pope.
As followers of Christ, Children of God and those who are filled with the Spirit, we should all be able to break bread, honour the Lord and commemorate his death.



It was.
I was thinking more of the comment made in this thread that we do it "properly" or not at all. Some might say that wasn't "proper". And to be honest it was so long ago I couldn't swear that even bread and wine were used.



I'm not actually trying to convince you; I said that my belief is that you don't need ordained clergy present to make Communion "valid" - that is not a Scriptural teaching. I said also it is my belief that eating and drinking, on your own or with friends, and remembering the Lord's death - in his presence - is just as much "Communion" as the service that I described earlier.

What does God think; how does he see it?
Does he refuse to bless people who eat and drink bread and wine without the "correct" person being present?
Are people who take cake and juice/tea and biscuits/bread and water or whatever they have to hand, but do it in sincerity and with thankful hearts actually sinning?
What of people who take the correct elements in a proper service with an ordained minister, but who do it because they are told to/they have always done it/their hearts are far from God or they don't actually have a relationship with him? Are they still better than a devout, sincere Christian who remembers the Lord's death while eating a sandwich and drinking juice?
How is someone in the scenario that you described not in communion with God?

Since the worship of the Jews was liturgical because God clearly instructed them how to build the Tabernacle and the Temple, and how to conduct worship, it would follow that the first Christians would retain that practice. Services lead by a Priest in the temple, and Rabbis in the Synagogues.

When we look at the Didache and other writings of the Early Church Fathers we note that the Divine Service, Divine Liturgy, the Mass as we know it, was in wide and common usage in the first centuries of the Church. When we see how the "gentile" congregations also worship(ed) by the records of their practices, it is clear that they did also.

Some say that the legalization of Christianity and the Council of Nicea imposed these practices, they are wrong; rather it leveled up and standardized the practice, with the Churches all agreeing to do so in the interest of uniformity. Then and now, Regional and linguistic and musical differences continue... But, walk into any Church that retains the doctrine of the real presence, anywhere in the world, and you can not help but know exactly what is happening.

Regarding the Revelation of St. John; note that worship in Heaven is also ordered and liturgical. St. John recorded the revelation around the end of the first century; about half a life-time after our Lord Ascended into heaven.

Your are partially correct in that we should remember God in all things, walking, talking, thinking. working, eating etc. Walking and talking is no more a sacrament than eating a sandwich is; however doing so is part of a godly life.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm not too clear what people mean by "real presence".
If you mean that Jesus is really present with us; yes, of course I do.
If you mean that the bread and wine are his body and blood and we are remembering, and sharing in, his suffering and death; again, yes, of course I do.
If you mean that the bread somehow, in some mysterious way, actually becomes part of his flesh, and the wine his blood, and that unless we believe this we do not receive him; no. Scripture doesn't say we have to believe we are literally eating Jesus in order to receive him and be in him.

Since this discussion is regarding the efficacy and validity of the Eucharist that is indeed dependent on the real presence of the true and very real body and blood of our Lord, the the answer to my question regarding your position on the Eucharist is that you do not accept "the real presence". It is clear that you do desire to lead a Godly life.

 

[Strong in Him]

Since this discussion is regarding the efficacy and validity of the Eucharist that is indeed dependent on the real presence of the true and very real body and blood of our Lord, the the answer to my question regarding your position on the Eucharist is that you do not accept "the real presence".

Maybe, maybe not.
As I said, I'm not too clear on what the "real presence" is.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Maybe, maybe not.
As I said, I'm not too clear on what the "real presence" is.

I am, as are most of those who are posting in this thread.

 

[Strong in Him]

I am, as are most of those who are posting in this thread.

Yes I'm sure - I was hoping that someone might explain it to me though.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Yes I'm sure - I was hoping that someone might explain it to me though.

Martin Luther
What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?
These words, “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” show us that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

St John Chrysostom - Prayer before communion
And grant that I may partake of thine All-holy Body and Precious Blood for the sanctification, enlightenment and strengthening of my weak soul and body; for the relief from the burden of my many sins; for my preservation against all the snares of the devil; for victory over all my sinful and evil habits; for the mortification of my passions; for obedience to thy Commandments; for growth in thy divine Grace and for the inheritance of thy Kingdom.

Anglican Article 28
The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

 

[Albion]

I doubt it was in the form that we have it now; a service of worship, a "communion hymn", special liturgy and everyone walks up to stand, or kneel, at a table to receive a wafer/bit of bread and a sip of wine - that was my point.

Yes, but why make a list of obvious incidentals be the feature of your argument? When I read that, it just says to me that there's no merit to the argument when it comes to the real issues, so this kind of diversion has to be used instead.

It goes without saying that the Communion service is not rendered either valid or invalid depending on whether or not there are stained glass windows in the building, or if the communicants stand to receive the elements or kneel instead.

 

[Strong in Him]

Martin Luther
What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?
These words, “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” show us that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

St John Chrysostom - Prayer before communion
And grant that I may partake of thine All-holy Body and Precious Blood for the sanctification, enlightenment and strengthening of my weak soul and body; for the relief from the burden of my many sins; for my preservation against all the snares of the devil; for victory over all my sinful and evil habits; for the mortification of my passions; for obedience to thy Commandments; for growth in thy divine Grace and for the inheritance of thy Kingdom.

Anglican Article 28
The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Thank you.

I don't disagree with any of that. Though I would say that not having had communion for 18+ months does not mean that I have not had forgiveness of sin, life or salvation for that time.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, but why make a list of obvious incidentals be the feature of your argument? When I read that, it just says to me that there's no merit to the argument when it comes to the real issues, so this kind of diversion has to be used instead.

It goes without saying that the Communion service is not rendered either valid or invalid depending on whether or not there are stained glass windows in the building, or if the communicants stand to receive the elements or kneel instead.

I know.
My answer was to the comment, "it needs to be done properly or not at all", post #2 - I was wondering what counted as "properly". If it was meant as "Scripturally", there are a few things included in our modern day observance of communion which are not stated, and probably were not practiced, in Scripture and the time of the early church.

 

[Albion]

Thank you.

I don't disagree with any of that. Though I would say that not having had communion for 18+ months does not mean that I have not had forgiveness of sin, life or salvation for that time.

Some would say that the reception of any sacrament reassures the faithful of the forgiveness of their sins. The intimacy that we associate with the Lord's Supper does indeed provide that; and when any of us is absent from the sacrament, and even from ordinary worship services, that can tend to weaken our sense of being close to God.

 

[Albion]

I know.
My answer was to the comment, "it needs to be done properly or not at all", post #2 - I was wondering what counted as "properly". If it was meant as "Scripturally", there are a few things included in our modern day observance of communion which are not stated, and probably were not practiced, in Scripture and the time of the early church.

Yes, but are they essential to the Eucharist or just surroundings, etc. that neither validate nor invalidate the sacrament?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Thank you.

I don't disagree with any of that. Though I would say that not having had communion for 18+ months does not mean that I have not had forgiveness of sin, life or salvation for that time.

While I'm Orthodox, I agree with Luther's sentiment in the Large Catechism:

Those who feel no need of the Sacrament should first “put their hand into their shirt to check whether
they have flesh and blood” (LC V, 75). Our own flesh wars against God’s Spirit (Galatians 5:19-21)
demonstrating that nothing good dwells in us (Romans 7:18) and Satan is constantly on the attack as
a liar and murderer (John 8:44). If this knowledge does not drive you to the Sacrament, “at least
believe the Scriptures. They will not lie to you, and they know your flesh better than you yourself”
(LC V, 76).

 

[zoidar]

Thank you.

I don't disagree with any of that. Though I would say that not having had communion for 18+ months does not mean that I have not had forgiveness of sin, life or salvation for that time.

Why haven't you? Jesus says we are to in remembrance of him. I don't think we have to take the Lords Supper every week, but once in a while seems to me like the right thing.

 

[Strong in Him]

Why haven't you? Jesus says we are to in remembrance of him. I don't think we have to take the Lords Supper every week, but once in a while seems to me like the right thing.

Here in the UK, our churches were closed for about a year, due to lockdown. Communion has only been slowly reintroduced, and for the last few months whenever our church has had a communion service, I have been preaching elsewhere and therefore missed it.

As our church is Methodist/URC and the URC's are allowed to hold communion services online, I have taken part in a couple; but not been to actual services with the rest of the body of Christ.