Why Crackers and Grape Juice?

[Strong in Him]

People have used the excuse of not making a weaker brother to stumble, to never using wine at all.

The easier thing to do is for an alcoholic to simply not receive the cup, if the provision for having non-alcoholic, suitable alternatives is not available (and no, orange squash does not cut it).

It may be easier, but it's not very loving to say to someone "you're an alcoholic so you may not participate in Communion". Jesus said to remember his death, and he died for all, not just those who met certain conditions.
On that basis, if someone had alcohol issues and were gluten intolerant, they'd miss out altogether.

 

[FireDragon76]

It may be easier, but it's not very loving to say to someone "you're an alcoholic so you may not participate in Communion". Jesus said to remember his death, and he died for all, not just those who met certain conditions.
On that basis, if someone had alcohol issues and were gluten intolerant, they'd miss out altogether.

I don't see it about being just loving other people, but also fidelity to a receive tradition (in this case, a tradition of God himself). You cannot change the eucharistic elements to be something other than what Christ himself said they were. I am surprised those who focus on baptism and the Lord's Supper being about a divine ordinance that requires obedience would have a problem understanding this.

Those who cannot receive communion are not excluded from participation altogether at many churches, they can come forward to the altar for a blessing. There is also the Catholic tradition of spiritual communion, and I don't think that is inappropriate for those who are physically unable to receive communion.

Lutherans, and Catholics for that matter, do not understand Baptism or the Lord's Supper as being strictly necessary for salvation. Only in a generalized sense.

 

[Paidiske]

...and there are gluten free wafers available. Catholics won't use them but most of the rest of us will.

 

[FireDragon76]

...and there are gluten free wafers available. Catholics won't use them but most of the rest of us will.

Typically bread is made from wheat. The ancient near east was home to wheat and similar grains.

There are wheat wafers that are safe for celiacs and acceptable to Catholics, they are made from wheat starch. I used to buy them and took them to church when I suspected I might have celiac (further testing seems to suggest I do not). They taste better than the typical gluten-free wafers you get, though they are more hygroscopic than regular communion wafers and have to be kept in a dry place (always a problem in Florida in a building that is only used a few times a week), or they become a bit rubbery or tough (sort of like rice noodles).

I have IBS and SIBO so I generally avoid wheat and bread, but the small amount of wheat in a communion wafer makes no difference to me.

In most cultures there's no such thing as "gluten-free bread" that would resemble what we think of as leavened bread: light, spongy stuff that you cut in slices to make a sandwich. To make gluten-free versions of that requires lots of franken-food ingredients like guar gum or xanthan gum, and generally the results are crumbly and I would hardly call the finished product a "health food".

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I never understood the theology behind that since Jesus had bread and wine. When I was growing up I never had a church that offers bread and wine even when they say they follow the Bible. Does anybody know the reason Evangelical churches have this change?

Probably because the Bible belt group does not want to offer wine that challenges those who are or were alcholics. No question that Jesus drank wine not grape juice. But in kindness to the alcoholic or were such brethren, they switched. I am not sure but I can imagine it. I do not think there is any difference as far as the intention of the remembering of Christ goes.

 

[Paidiske]

There are wheat wafers that are safe for celiacs and acceptable to Catholics, they are made from wheat starch.

Are they acceptable to Catholics? I was taught that the Catholic church insisted that there must be a tiny amount of gluten present for it to be really "bread."

Note here: http://abmcg.blogspot.com/2017/07/god-and-gluten-wheat-tradition-and.html

"Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist. Low-gluten hosts (partially gluten-free) are valid matter, provided they contain a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of procedures that would alter the nature of bread."

 

[FireDragon76]

Are they acceptable to Catholics? I was taught that the Catholic church insisted that there must be a tiny amount of gluten present for it to be really "bread."

They are made in a convent so I assume so. When they are kept fresh they taste exactly like a regular communion wafer.

They are not completely gluten free. They have less than 20ppm. I seem to recall testing them myself and the level was safe.

Here's a link to the product page:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00H57KZT2/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Note here: http://abmcg.blogspot.com/2017/07/god-and-gluten-wheat-tradition-and.html

"Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist. Low-gluten hosts (partially gluten-free) are valid matter, provided they contain a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of procedures that would alter the nature of bread."

This sounds like Catholic jargon, written by someone who hasn't actually experimented with low-gluten cooking. I think what this would effect, more than anything, is leavened bread for communion. In the regular wafer Catholics typically use, the gluten isn't essential to the cohesion of the wafer, it's the starch that is doing that.

 

[Paidiske]

Ah; well I have known coeliacs (including my archbishop) who have refused to use the low-gluten wafers, saying that even that tiny amount is not safe for them. So I guess it depends on how strict people really are. But that Catholics won't allow a true gluten-free wafer.

 

[FireDragon76]

Those wafers aren't just the typical kind they use in Europe where they cut wheat flour with starch. Though it's possible some people will object to them just on principle.

The usual gluten-free wafers I have tried have been terrible, they are more like a potato chip, and the oils in the bean flour don't hold up well.

I tried to convince my pastor at one point just to let me commune under one kind but he didn't have alot of experience doing that, and it wasn't the easiest thing for him to do. It should be an option for people, and our theology also doesn't see that as invalid.

I'd rather do that, than eating something strange or wierd.

 

[Paidiske]

I think the ones I'm used to are made from rice. They're not too bad; the texture is wrong, but I certainly wouldn't say they're like a potato chip. I don't like them much, but for some people they're the only option if they want the bread, so...

I have one person who communes under one kind - refusing the wine - and I don't find that an issue. I don't really understand why that should be a problem?

 

[FireDragon76]

I think the ones I'm used to are made from rice. They're not too bad; the texture is wrong, but I certainly wouldn't say they're like a potato chip. I don't like them much, but for some people they're the only option if they want the bread, so...

I have one person who communes under one kind - refusing the wine - and I don't find that an issue. I don't really understand why that should be a problem?

He would say "The Body and Blood of Christ under one kind", and I think that may be technically correct from a certain interpretation of concomittance, but I think it's unnecessary as far as rubric goes. I don't like "special treatment" of that sort. If I can't participate in a sacrament in the usual manner, I'd rather just opt out of that bit.

Sometimes I have just received the host in communion. I dislike the practice of self-intinction and sometimes our church has the wrong kind of communion cup in use.

Lutherans are not nearly as good at being consistent or rigorous as Anglicans in their liturgy, in my experience so far.

 

[Paidiske]

Yeah, that sounds... fussy.

 

[FireDragon76]

The main thing for me now days is don't create a fuss at the altar rail. I know churches want to be welcoming which is a good thing but sometimes that can be taken to an extreme.

 

[EvangAlived]

''crackers' (unleavened bread) & 'grapejuice''

This may be of no use to you - https://www.worthychristianforums.c...bstantiation-unsubstantiated-substantially-p/

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't see it about being just loving other people, but also fidelity to a receive tradition (in this case, a tradition of God himself). You cannot change the eucharistic elements to be something other than what Christ himself said they were.

Yet as Jesus and his disciples were celebrating a Passover meal, they would have had unleavened bread; bread made without yeast, that would not have risen and been quite flat.
If you want to talk about changing things, any church that offers white/brown/wholemeal, risen bread at communion has already done that.

But what kind of bread you offer does not change the fact that Jesus is the bread of life, his body was broken for us and he died for us to reconcile us to God.
Jesus is the 2nd Moses who freed us from slavery to sin and death; he was the Passover Lamb who was killed for us, 1 Corinthians 5:7. He is the Bread of Life, John 6:35, and the True Vine. John 15:1. At communion/Eucharist we remember his death and all that he has done, and made possible, for us. That doesn't change - and I can't believe that God is going to be seriously offended if we use white/brown/wholemeal bread, gluten free bread or a cracker. My friend who is coeliac has been having rice crackers for years. He is a lovely, sincere Christian and a lay preacher; God doesn't seem to have struck him down yet.

Those who cannot receive communion are not excluded from participation altogether at many churches, they can come forward to the altar for a blessing.

But they are being denied communion; participation in the Lord's Supper. It would be like saying to them, "you messed up, got drunk and became addicted to alcohol. You cannot receive the blood of Christ - which by the way will cleanse you and make you whole - because we choose to use real wine."
(Whether anyone ever fell off the wagon through one sip of communion wine anyway, is debatable.)

I am surprised those who focus on baptism and the Lord's Supper being about a divine ordinance that requires obedience would have a problem understanding this.

I'm surprised to find a thread that seems to imply that unless you are using the exact same elements in communion that Jesus used at the Last Supper, you are somehow cheapening communion.
Like I said, they ate a Passover meal and Jesus would have taken unleavened bread. Is that what happens at your church; a full Passover meal with lamb, herbs and unleavened bread? No? Well maybe you aren't "following the Bible" either.

And do you really think that the Lord who knows and understands all our weaknesses would exclude certain people from his Eucharist - or that he would punish the churches who used non alcoholic wine, instead of fermented wine, to commemorate his shed blood?

 

[Not David]

Yet as Jesus and his disciples were celebrating a Passover meal, they would have had unleavened bread; bread made without yeast, that would not have risen and been quite flat.
If you want to talk about changing things, any church that offers white/brown/wholemeal, risen bread at communion has already done that.

But what kind of bread you offer does not change the fact that Jesus is the bread of life, his body was broken for us and he died for us to reconcile us to God.
Jesus is the 2nd Moses who freed us from slavery to sin and death; he was the Passover Lamb who was killed for us, 1 Corinthians 5:7. He is the Bread of Life, John 6:35, and the True Vine. John 15:1. At communion/Eucharist we remember his death and all that he has done, and made possible, for us. That doesn't change - and I can't believe that God is going to be seriously offended if we use white/brown/wholemeal bread, gluten free bread or a cracker. My friend who is coeliac has been having rice crackers for years. He is a lovely, sincere Christian and a lay preacher; God doesn't seem to have struck him down yet.



But they are being denied communion; participation in the Lord's Supper. It would be like saying to them, "you messed up, got drunk and became addicted to alcohol. You cannot receive the blood of Christ - which by the way will cleanse you and make you whole - because we choose to use real wine."
(Whether anyone ever fell off the wagon through one sip of communion wine anyway, is debatable.)



I'm surprised to find a thread that seems to imply that unless you are using the exact same elements in communion that Jesus used at the Last Supper, you are somehow cheapening communion.
Like I said, they ate a Passover meal and Jesus would have taken unleavened bread. Is that what happens at your church; a full Passover meal with lamb, herbs and unleavened bread? No? Well maybe you aren't "following the Bible" either.

And do you really think that the Lord who knows and understands all our weaknesses would exclude certain people from his Eucharist - or that he would punish the churches who used non alcoholic wine, instead of fermented wine, to commemorate his shed blood?

Since the beginning of the Church the clergy decides who can partake communion and I don't find it unreasonable since Paul said that people got sick and died for unworthy manner.
Moreover, the real deal is the bread and the wine since they become the body and blood of Jesus (At least for the Traditional Christians).

 

[Strong in Him]

Since the beginning of the Church the clergy decides who can partake communion and I don't find it unreasonable

It's not Scriptural though.
Jesus offered the bread and cup to all his disciples, even Judas, and told them to do this in remembrance of him. He did not say, "before you do this, find the right person, get them ordained and they will preside at a service and share my body and blood with you.
When the apostles broke bread together daily; who presided, or took the lead in that? What words did they use?
When Paul rebuked the Corinthians for their observance of the Lord's supper, was it because they did not have a clergyman present?

Why do clergy decide whether or not I can take part in communion? No one has said that to me - except a Catholic priest because I was the "wrong" denomination.

since Paul said that people got sick and died for unworthy manner.

He was talking about people eating and drinking together as the body of Christ. He said that they were not doing this, there was no unity; NOT that people got sick and died because there was no clergyman present.

Moreover, the real deal is the bread and the wine since they become the body and blood of Jesus (At least for the Traditional Christians).

For Catholics, maybe.
The bread and wine I had this morning at communion were bread and wine; brought from the shops.
They did not turn into flesh and blood in my mouth. Yet I still received, and drew close to, Jesus.
No Jew would have ever eaten human flesh - it would have made God like the pagan god Molech who commanded human sacrifices, and who they were forbidden to worship. No Jew would have drunk real human blood. The Lord told Noah that life is in a person's blood and they were forbidden from eating animal meat that still had blood in it. This is why people were so horrified by what he was saying in John 6, and left him.
If the disciples had thought they were eating real flesh and blood, they would not have done so. There is nothing in Scripture to say that Jesus' body turned into real flesh in their mouths.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The notoriety of alcohol is based on societal whims. Society decided to demonize alcohol for the damage it has done to people yet the same society celebrates excessive sugar consumption despite that it has done far more damage to far more people, including children. In fact, many people who claim to be Christians and are conservatives will unabashedly support the rights of businesses to poison people by pumping excessive sugars into foods with no government regulation.

"Notoriety" is a poor reason for irrationally banning a substance from the diets of people under the guise that the substance is somehow "sinful".

That's like a slight of hand magic trick.

"Hey, don't look over here!"
"Look over here instead!"

Both are a problem and one problem does not undo the other. Sugar is indeed a problem, too. But I would say that more lives are destroyed by alcohol than say sugar. People do not drive drunk and kill families because of sugar. Sugar Cain is more of a subtle killer that slowly takes years off of a person's life. They may not truly realize it. But it is not in any way like the problem of alcohol.

 

[drjean]

For me it has to do with the purity of Christ.
I will refuse communion if it is not unsweetened grape juice 'unfermented' wine and unleavened bread.
It is symbolic in my beliefs and since it is symbolic of Christ's body/blood, there's no sense is putting symbols of sin into the elements, and no reason to take it (as it wouldn't be symbolic/representative).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

General Alcohol Statistics:

• Alcohol poisoning kills six people every day. Of those, 76 percent are adults ages 35-64, and three of every four people killed by alcohol poisoning are men.
• The group with the most alcohol poisoning deaths per million people is American Indians/Alaska Natives (49.1 per 1 million).
• Alcohol-impaired driving accounts for more than 30 percent of all driving fatalities each year.
• More than 15 million people struggle with an alcohol use disorder in the United States, but less than eight percent of those receive treatment.
• More than 65 million Americans report binge drinking in the past month, which is more than 40 percent of the total of current alcohol users.
• Teen alcohol use kills 4,700 people each year. That’s more than all illegal drugs combined.
  Drunk driving costs the United States $199 billion every year.
• Kids who start drinking young are seven times more likely to be in an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident.

Source:
https://talbottcampus.com/alcoholism-statistics/