Can I get your thoughts on this regaurding the Lord's Supper...
Posted : 5 Jan, 2012 07:35 PM
I just recently got a copy of a book from a friend who wanted me to tell him if i thought that it was something that every Christian should know when we gather together for communion. I agreed that it did for obvious reasons after researching the whole thing but i wondered how others in Christ might react to it. With that thought, I suddenly figured that this little snippet of information would be an interesting read and stepping stone for discussion on the subject of the Lord's supper. I'd like to know your thoughts on this, if you wouldn't mind.
Here it goes.
THE LORD'S SUPPER:
Rivers of blood have been shed at the hands of Protestant and Catholic Christians alike over the doctrinal intricacies related to Holy Communion.21 The Lord's Supper, once precious and living, became the center of theological debate for centuries. Tragically, it moved from a dramatic and concrete picture of Christ's body and blood to a study in abstract and metaphysical thought. We cannot concern ourselves with the theological minutiae that surround the Lord's Supper in this book. But clearly Protestants (as well as Catholics) do not practice the Supper the way it was observed in the first century. For the early Christians, the Lord's Supper was a festive communal meal.22 The mood was one of celebration and joy When believers first gathered for the meal, they broke the bread and passed it around. Then they ate their meal, which then concluded after the cup was passed around. The Lord's Supper was essentially a Christian banquet. And there was no clergyman to officiate.23 Today, tradition has forced us to take the Supper as a tongue-tickling thimble of grape juice and a tiny, tasteless bite-size cracker. The Supper is often taken in an atmosphere of solemnity. We are told to remember the horrors of our Lord's death and to reflect on our sins. In addition, tradition has taught us that taking the Lord's Supper can be a dangerous thing. Thus many contemporary Christians would never take Communion without an ordained clergyman present. Often, they point to 1 Corinthians 11:27-33. In verse 27, the apostle Paul does warn believers not to participate in the Lord's Supper "unworthily." In this instance, however, he appears to have been speaking to church members who were dishonoring the Supper by not waiting for their poor brethren to eat with them, as well as those who were getting drunk on the wine. TRUNCATING THE MEAL So why was the full meal replaced with a ceremony including only the bread and the cup? Here is the story. In the first and early second centuries, the early Christians called the Lord's Supper the "love feast."24 At that time, they took the bread and cup in the context of a festive meal. But around the time of Tertullian, the bread and the cup began to be separated from the meal. By the late second century, this separation was complete .15 Some scholars have argued that the Christians dropped the meal because they wanted to keep the Eucharist from becoming profaned by the participation of unbelievers." This may be partly true. But it is more likely that the growing influence of pagan religious ritual removed the Supper from the joyful, down-to-earth, nonreligious atmosphere of a meal in someone's living room.' By the fourth century, the love feast was prohibited among Christians!28 With the abandonment of the meal, the terms breaking of bread and Lord's Supper disappeared.29 The common term for the now truncated ritual (just the bread and the cup) was the Eucharist.30 Irenaeus (130-200) was one of the first to call the bread and cup an offering.31 After him, it began to be called the "offering" or "sacrifice." The altar table where the bread and cup were placed came to be seen as an altar where the victim was offered.32 The Supper was no longer a community event. It was rather a priestly ritual that was to be watched at a distance. Throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, there was an increasing sense of awe and dread associated with the table where the sacred Eucharist was celebrated." It became a somber ritual. The joy that had once been a part of it had vanished.34 The mystique associated with the Eucharist was due to the influence of the pagan mystery religions, which were clouded with superstition.35 With this influence, the Christians began to ascribe sacred overtones to the bread and the cup. They were viewed as holy objects in and of themselves.36 Because the Lord's Supper became a sacred ritual, it required a sacred person to administer it.37 Enter now the priest offering the sacrifice of the Mass.38 He was believed to have the power to call God down from heaven and confine Him to a piece of bread.39 Around the tenth century, the meaning of the word body changed in Christian literature. Previously, Christian writers used the word body to refer to one of three things: (1) the physical body of Jesus, (2) the church, or (3) the bread of the Eucharist.
The early church fathers saw the church as a faith community that identified itself by the breaking of bread. But by the tenth century, there was a shift in thinking and language. The word body was no longer used to refer to the church. It was only used to refer to the Lord's physical body or the bread of the Eucharist.'� Consequently, the Lord's Supper became far removed from the idea of the church coming together to celebrate the breaking of bread.4' The vocabulary change reflected this practice. The Eucharist had ceased to be part of a joyful communal meal but came to be viewed as sacred on its own-even as it sat on the table. It became shrouded in a religious mist. Viewed with awe, it was taken with glumness by the priest and completely removed from the communal nature of the ekklesia. All of these factors gave rise to the doctrine of transubstantiation. In the fourth century, the belief that the bread and wine changed into the Lord's actual body and blood was explicit. Transubstantiation, however, was the doctrine that gave a theological explanation of how that change occurred.' (This doctrine was worked out from the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries.) With the doctrine of transubstantiation, God's people approached the elements with a feeling of fear. They were reluctant even to approach them." When the words of the Eucharist were uttered, it was believed that the bread literally became God. All of this turned the Lord's Supper into a sacred ritual performed by sacred people and taken out of the hands of God's people. So deeply entrenched was the medieval idea that the bread and cup were an "offering" that even some of the Reformers held to it.' While contemporary Protestant Christians have discarded the Catholic notion that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, they have continued to embrace the Catholic practice of the Supper. Observe a Lord's Supper service (often called "Holy Communion") in most Protestant churches and you will observe the following: The Lord's Supper is a bite-size cracker (or a small piece of bread) and a shot glass of grape juice (or wine). As in the Catholic church, it is removed from the meal. The mood is somber and glum, just as it is in the Catholic church. Congregants are told by the pastor that they must examine themselves with regard to sin before they partake of the elements, a practice that came from John Calvin." Like the Catholic priest, many pastors will sport clerical robes for the occasion. But always, the pastor administers the Supper and recites the words of institution, "This is my body," before dispensing the elements to the congregation.`}6 With only a few minor tweaks, all of this is medieval Catholicism through and through.
SUMMARY...
In the same vein, the Lord's Supper, when separated from its proper context of a full meal, turns into a strange, pagan-like rite.'' The Supper has become an empty ritual officiated by a clergyman, rather than a shared-life experience enjoyed by the church. It has become a morbid religious exercise, rather than a joyous festival-a stale individualistic ceremony, rather than a meaningful corporate event. As one scholar put it, "It is not in doubt that the Lord's Supper began as a family meal or a meal of friends in a private house ... the Lord's Supper moved from being a real meal into being a symbolic meal ... the Lord's Supper moved from bare simplicity to elaborate splendor ... the celebration of the Lord's Supper moved from being a lay function to a priestly function. In the New Testament itself, there is no indication that it was the special privilege or duty of anyone to lead the worshipping fellowship in the Lord's Supper. 1151 When Israel had departed from God's original thought, the prophet cried: "Thus says the LORD, `Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; and you will find rest for your souls"' (Jeremiah 6:16, NASB). In the same way, can we shun the vain traditions of men and return to the ancient paths ... those holy traditions that were given to us by Jesus Christ and His apostles ?
QUESTION: The apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, in which he reminds believers of Jesus' words when instituting the Lord's Supper, seem to emphasize communion as a time to remember Christ's sacrificial death. Naturally, then, many believers use it as a time to confess their sin and remember God's mercy. It is hardly an "empty ritual" as you describe it. Your thoughts?
ANSWER: We agree that the Lord's Supper is not an empty ritual for all Christians. At the same time, we regret that so many churches have lost the focus the first Christians had when they celebrated communion. The early Christians took the supper in an atmosphere of joy and celebration. By it, they proclaimed Christ's victorious death and His future coming. They also took it as a full meal in fellowship with the body of Christ, the church. This is the way it was handed down to us by Jesus and the apostles. Therefore we ought to ask ourselves: Is stripping the Lord's Supper from the meal and making it a somber occasion a development or a departure? Have we improved upon what Jesus and the apostles passed down to us, or have we strayed from it?
Can I get your thoughts on this regaurding the Lord's Supper...
Posted : 5 Jan, 2012 08:42 PM
at the risk of getting my feelings hurt again i am going to give you my reply on this subject of the Lords supper!
The first thing that comes to mind is a study I did almost 20 years ago about pegainism in the catholic church and how they perfectly round crackers they ate at their communion was relatied closely to sun god worship and we know that many many of the custons in the protestant churches are rooted in the catholic rituals!
Now as far as us taking the communion and drinking to ourselfs damnation, thats not what Paul meant he was speaking specificaly to the people trying to eat before the poor ate! However my unsaved daughter did not take communion and I encoraged her not to! If you are not saved you shouldnt take communion! I dont think n esasarly you wil be damned for doing so, but still is probably blasphemy! and as far as us not having a meal when we take communion, well I think a meal would have been for 2 things one would be for to feed the poor the other would be for fellowship! Which we cover without sitting down and having a mean sopecificaly for the Lords supper, we remember him is communion, I cant take communion without breaking down in rememberebce of my Lord and what he did fo me,and we still fellowship all the time! We eat together a lot and we feed the poor as well, so why does it have to be done just like the they did? Thats what I was saying before about legalisim, something that was suposed to be for fellowship and comeremeration can turn into an empty ritual! Thats what matters , its a matter of the heart, not the exact formula of what is done! RIGHT?
I have said before and I wil say it again. the old testement was about forcing your flesh to do tings outwardly , the new testement is about an inward change that causes an outward change! remeber the song we sang in bible school as children Jesus on the inside working on the outside? thats the essence of the thing! Without Jesus on the inside worki g on the outside, its nothing but nasty rotten flesh all cleaned up and presented to godm he will reject that! I dont think it matters if it is done with the right heart!
Can I get your thoughts on this regaurding the Lord's Supper...
Posted : 6 Jan, 2012 02:16 AM
I believe the Lord's supper is that the bread and wine are emblems or symbols of the real, literal body of Christ that was crucified in history and today is in heaven at the Father's right hand. But we believe that there is a real feeding on Christ spiritually by faith - not on his physical body, but on his real, spiritual presence. And even though a believer can nourish himself any time and anywhere on the presence of Christ in his word, there is a special nourishing offered in eating the Lord's Supper and hearing the preaching of God's word.
Can I get your thoughts on this regaurding the Lord's Supper...
Posted : 6 Jan, 2012 06:51 AM
Interesting topic Agape. I see the celebrating of communion by the church a rememberance celebration, however, if taken solemnly like you say it is out of respect for the Lord and the sacrifice He made, we are unworthy to approach G-d, if not by the precious blood of Jesus and this ceremony is a dedication to our Lord Jesus.
Man and the church may have incorporated some of its own traditions, does that make it wrong? I'm curious how the Jewish practice the seder meal, is that like a communion? I am not familiar with the way they celebrate the feasts. I also think one can celebrate communion in their own home, it does not require an elaborate ritual.
Can I get your thoughts on this regaurding the Lord's Supper...
Posted : 6 Jan, 2012 07:33 AM
When one has willing given their ear to hear the word of God, the inner ear's of the inner man, no involvement of man's mind or will and emotion's and flesh.
When the word is heard with the ear to hear, then it is man's choice to receive the word by believing, no believing equals no faith, interpretation as some are given to will not produce faith.
The seed of the word is then planted in the (heart) of man's spirit and the process of faith is started and is never finished it must be continuingh in the process, ongoing.
Faith is not a general term it is always specific, the will of God must first be made known by the word of God.
Can I get your thoughts on this regaurding the Lord's Supper...
Posted : 6 Jan, 2012 09:55 AM
Thanks all for your comments thus far.
One thing that I do wnt to address is tht the sAder wAs a celebratory meAl. Still is. Even in PAul's epistle we still see thAt in his rebuke. 1 cor 11:20-24a.
Paul rebukes them for eating more nd neglecting the hungry ones. (In those days people met everyday or when ever they could before and After "work(depending on the stAtus of the person".
He also rebukes others for getting drunk on the wine in thanks
That shows that it is a meal and a toast in thanks for Christ.
Coincidentally, we hear Paul's rebuke spoken more than the praise and thanks more at communion.
Btw, I also wnt to Add thAt my "a"s are messed up on my BB phone and I'm sorry for the lack or abundance of them in asome of the wordas typed.
So in sum, even us protestAnts hAve it wrong by the awy we do communion in church. Does anyone agree?
