|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Physical vs. Spiritual Communion
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
Though I understand that there is a fundamental difference in the theology of trans- vs. con-substantiation and communion being a mere symbol or memorial, I confess that I'm a bit puzzled about something. The puzzlement actually extends to all components of liturgy, but the discussion about non-wheat wafers brought it this to my mind:
I understand that, in representing Christ's last supper, wheat is used for the bread because he used wheat bread and said, "this is my body."
However, if bread were made of, say, rice or soy flour, do believers in transubstantiation believe that Christ refuses to bless the bread with his presence?
Does Christ refuse to bless the cup if it's not wine?
The symbolism of it, I do understand. However, I'm finding it a bit hard to get my mind around why the ingredients in the elements are so important. In my opinion, it's the prayers that ask Christ to enter into the elements that consecrate them, not the substance of them. (or maybe I just answered my own question).
And I heard recently what's supposed to be an old joke (but was new to me): it's easier to believe those wafers are Christ's body than they are to believe they are bread!
[ 29. September 2011, 07:36: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I believe there have been previous threads on the Ship discussing a variety of foodstuffs that have been used in the Eucharist. I think many of us are not too fussy about the matter.
At the church I attend, there is normally a gluten-free (hence, not wheat) option. Many churches use grape juice instead of wine.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
The Eucharist is a form of anamnesis, remembering [Catholics agree that it's a memorial, but not that it's just a memorial]. We ask Jesus to remember his promise to us. The promise was to be present in bread and wine. If we asked him to be present through some other foodstuffs, we wouldn't be asking him to rememner a promise he made, but making a novel request.
[ 05. April 2011, 19:03: Message edited by: Hart ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
Well, I suppose that answers the question, then. Thanks.
I still like to believe that he'd bless whatever bread we ask - provided we are approaching him with with truth and sincerity. (as in, what some have used as examples - using cookies and milk, or m & m's and Coke - would be for fun & games, and not taking the sacrament seriously)
As a Methodist, I have a foot in both camps.
When the altar guild asks me details about how to set the altar or liturgy or something, I remind them that those are reminders to help us be in an attitude of worship, and it's not like God will not show up unless it's done a certain way. I feel much the same way about communion, even though I do see it as a sacrament.
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I have read, although I do not know, that the bread of Jesus earthly era would have been made of what we now call "heirloom grains" most likely spelt, not what today we call "wheat" which is a modern highly engineered high gluten hybred and often sterile; certainly Jesus didn't identify himself with GE wheat containing genes God neither put into wheat nor allowed cross-pollination to provide.
And back then they prepared the grain and baked the bread differently than we do today, probably with some different ingredients in addition to the grain. Certainly the last supper bread was not little white wafers!
Meanwhile, bread is made of many different grains and yet universally understood to be bread. 100% rye bread, for example, is nowhere scorned as "fake bread."
I'd be more impressed by an argument either that (a) the bread must be made of heirloom grains and prepared the way it would have been for a meal back then, or (b) any kind of simple whole grain bread is just fine. A supposed requirement to use a grain that really didn't exist back then is utterly unconvincing to me. YMMV.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
The promise was to be present in bread and wine. If we asked him to be present through some other foodstuffs, we wouldn't be asking him to rememner a promise he made, but making a novel request.
quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
Well, I suppose that answers the question, then. Thanks.
I don't think it does answer it, really, at least not as you framed your question -- a context of non-wheat breads, such as rice or soy flour breads.
Yes, Jesus's promise is to be present in the bread. Bread, by definition, is made from flour ground from grain. While the setting of the Last Supper certainly suggests that the bread in use that night was unleavened, it doesn't say it was wheat bread, as opposed to, say, barley bread. As Belle Ringer says, there were and are many varieties of bread recognized as "bread" in Judaism; breads made from wheat, barley, oats, rye and spelt all require the blessing for bread. It's my understanding that barley matzah was common in ancient times.
So if the question is why must it be wheat bread, then I don't think the question has been answered.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
If you believe the Last Supper took place during Passover, and that your celebration of the eucharist stems from that meal, you'll want to use bread made of wheat, as that was the bread Christ and the apostles presumably used.
If you come from a tradition embodied in a community that traces itself to those first disciples, you'll want to follow the beliefs handed down from those disciples. If those beliefs include that the eucharist must be made of wheat, you follow that belief because you presume they, being the first disciples, had a good reason to believe it.
Everything Christ did had a purpose. If he instituted the eucharist in or around Passover there was probably a good reason for it.
If the exact genetic make-up of the strains of grain we use today were in issue, then I suppose we'd all be in trouble. But since, as Christianity spread around the Mediterranean, earlier Christians didn't seem concerned about the using the exact strain of wheat as they did did about the actual preparation of the bread, it never seems to have been an issue. ( And they, being earlier Christians, would have remembered if it was and passed it on to their descendandts.) Therefore, we can be reasonably confident it shouldn't be an issue today.
In Catholic spirituality, the term "spiritual communion" has a different meaning than what I think the OP means.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
If you believe the Last Supper took place during Passover, and that your celebration of the eucharist stems from that meal, you'll want to use bread made of wheat, as that was the bread Christ and the apostles presumably used.
That's just it. From what I have read, while we could reasonably assume that wheat bread was used, it is quite possible that it was bread of another grain, such as barley or a mixture of grains. Passover just means it would not have had leaven; matzoh can be made from grains other than wheat. As I understand it, Jewish ritual did not and does not distinguish between bread made from wheat and bread made from oats, barley, rye or spelt -- they are all, in Jewish understanding, "bread."
So that raises the question of whether requiring wheat bread imposes a distinction that Jesus, as a Jew, would not have made.
And if appeal is going to be made to a practice handed down from the first disciples (who were all Jews), then for me another question is raised: What is the earliest reference we have to wheat being the required grain for eucharistic bread? The use of only wheat bread was not formally mandated in the Western Church until the Fifteenth Century, I think.
Wheat was certainly the "finer" grain in ancient Palestine, while barley (or a mixture of grains) was more often what made the bread of the poor. My guess would be that to the extent the early church had a preference for wheat, it was not because of Dominical command or example, but because as the "better" bread, wheat bread was seen as more fitting for the eucharist. That's assuming they could afford the wheat.
[ 05. April 2011, 20:59: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
The Eucharist is a form of anamnesis, remembering [Catholics agree that it's a memorial, but not that it's just a memorial]. We ask Jesus to remember his promise to us. The promise was to be present in bread and wine. If we asked him to be present through some other foodstuffs, we wouldn't be asking him to rememner a promise he made, but making a novel request.
a novel request... meaning that one couldn't be certain that he would agree to it? You couldn't say for certain that Christ would or would not turn his back on bread made from barley flour.
Based on what I know about Christ, his suffering, death, and resurrection and invitation to all, I have difficulty reconciling that with a God who refuses to enter into elements with the wrong ingredients. Although he addressed a far more extreme version of debating over legalities, it does seem he were agin' legalism.
thanks to other posters, too, btw, for the thoughtful feedback.
[ 05. April 2011, 23:12: Message edited by: Angel Wrestler ]
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BenjaminS
Apprentice
# 13224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
a novel request... meaning that one couldn't be certain that he would agree to it? You couldn't say for certain that Christ would or would not turn his back on bread made from barley flour.
Based on what I know about Christ, his suffering, death, and resurrection and invitation to all, I have difficulty reconciling that with a God who refuses to enter into elements with the wrong ingredients. Although he addressed a far more extreme version of debating over legalities, it does seem he were agin' legalism.
This is not inconsistent with the argument that we ought only to use particular materials. Tradition mandates the use of wheat in our reenactment of the Last Supper, and so we, out of respect and mindful of the gravity of what is being given, treat all such matters with delicacy and precision.
So, even if we have no great reason to believe that Christ would refuse to make barley bread into His flesh, we should be very careful before we decide to use it in place of wheat bread.
Posts: 48 | From: Austin, Texas | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think the question of whether the Eucharist "works" or not under certain circumstances doesn't really come up in my way of thinking about it.
Let's start with the basic fact that the Eucharist isn't magic. Christ can be present, absent, or dancing a jig wherever or whenever he pleases, and no amount of my trying to tie him down with a lot of rubrics is going to worry him in the slightest.
What the Eucharist is, is an important - some would say central - element in the New Covenant between God and humanity. It is an act of the Church, ritual and corporate in nature, in which the Church in all times and places comes together in proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes.
It seems important, therefore, given its nature and significance, that the event should take place within a certain disciplined structure, or it risks losing or compromising its significance and meaning. Therefore, certain elements of the event have come to be seen as non-negotiable (or at least minimally negotiable) in making the Eucharist what it is. This line of thinking is what's also behind the priest's intention, in Catholic tradition, to "do as the Church does" in participating in the Eucharist.
I suppose that's a long-winded way of saying that the Eucharist is what it is, and that if it were different, it would be different.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
And I think that the use of the words refuse/refuses frames the question in a very partisan and, dare I say, not terribly mature, way.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) so sorry for my ignorance. I truly was trying to get my mind around just why... um... I'm going to stop now because all other substitute words that come to mind seem like they'd give the same vibe.
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
I suppose my question would be about motivation: Why use something other than (wheat) bread and (grape) wine?
I don't come from a "certain percentage of gluten must be present" tradition, so I could see a case for using alternate materials if: (1) wheat bread and grape wine were truly and completely unavailable due to geography or climate (2) a communicant cannot consume either of the traditional elements due to health reasons like severe allergy.
I have more trouble with the idea of consecrating other materials "just because we can." For some reason it reminds me of a child screaming, "I want candy for supper instead!" God may be very tolerant of Her children, but AFAIC the deal is that supper at Her house is bread and wine.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
And I think that the use of the words refuse/refuses frames the question in a very partisan and, dare I say, not terribly mature, way.
Commandment 5 states not just "don't easily offend" but also "don't be easily offended." Dismissing a poster trying to engage a way of thinking not her own as immature is not a terribly helpful way to further discussion.
Hart, Eccles host
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
I suppose my question would be about motivation: Why use something other than (wheat) bread and (grape) wine?
Using a different grain to make bread so everyone can participate seems to me (YMMV!) more in tune with God's values and message than knowingly intentionally leaving some of those present out (conveying a terrible message via that behavior "no we/God will not make any accommodation to meet your genuine needs").
Seems to me the symbolism that matters most is not "wheat instead of rye" or "grape wine instead of rice wine" but God's presence in and through the most daily and basic of our foods.
I have read there are parts of the world where wheat does not grow, or grapes, or both. An argument favoring the use of the local equivalent of bread and wine in daily meal function would make more sense to me than an argument that poor, rural, tribal people who have never tasted wheat or wine must import these foreign foods and somehow see in that foreignness God's immediacy to their own tribe.
But YMMV. I guess if we all agreed on what is MOST important, life would be less interesting. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
I suppose my question would be about motivation: Why use something other than (wheat) bread and (grape) wine?
I guess it depends on how much pre-planning you put into communion.
From a Catholic perspective pre-planning is pretty much inevitable, but some of my most meaningful communion experiences have involved five minutes of forethought and the scrounging of whatever ingredients happen to be at hand.
In those cases, we've gone for the closest approximation to bread/wine that we can get (sometimes crackers, sometimes grape juice), but haven't seen the ingredients as nearly so important as the fact that we are doing communion right then and there.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Belle Ringer: If you had read my post, you would have noted that I make specific provisions for both of your concerns: for people whose health issues present "genuine needs" and for those places where, due to climate and geography, wheat and grapes are unavailable.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I suspect some practical reasons underlying the tradition. Wine is in part an infection control mechanism - as is the use of noble metal for the chalice and the restriction on the number of people handling the elements.
For most of history, there has not been tight control of food purity. A baker's dozen exists to deal with the concerns about people messing with the bread. Also, mystery cults around the time of Christ are believed to have used mind altering substances in their rites.
Ergo, I think the highly specified ingredients act to avoid these risks. You also want to avoid the risk of ergot poisoning if you reserve the sacrament - so I don't think rye bread would be a goer either.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think the question of whether the Eucharist "works" or not under certain circumstances doesn't really come up in my way of thinking about it.....the Eucharist is what it is, and..if it were different, it would be different.
Exactly, for me it's a non-question.
It is as you said:
quote:
...an act of the Church, ritual and corporate in nature, in which the Church in all times and places comes together in proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes...Therefore, certain elements of the event have come to be seen as non-negotiable (or at least minimally negotiable) in making the Eucharist what it is. This line of thinking is what's also behind the priest's intention, in Catholic tradition, to "do as the Church does" in participating in the Eucharist.
Or, as Leaf put it:
quote:
I have...trouble with the idea of consecrating other materials "just because we can." For some reason it reminds me of a child screaming, "I want candy for supper instead!" God may be very tolerant of Her children, but AFAIC the deal is that supper at Her house is bread and wine.
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
My approach to this question is to ask - why exactly should wine represent blood, and why should bread represent body?
I suppose with red wine, there's an obvious symbolism in that both wine and blood are red, and that they're both liquids. I'm sure it's not hard to find stories of sacrifice in literature before the New Testament in which an animal's blood is offered to a god, and stories of sacrifice in which wine is poured out too. I dare say that in at least some combinations of these stories, the pouring of blood and the pouring of wine is probably described in much the same way.
I don't think we need to be restricted to Israelite literature in making that assessment; after all, the Gospels were all written in Greek, and therefore drew upon Greek literary tradition just as much as Hebrew tradition. Point is, I don't doubt that there's a tradition of wine representing sacrificial blood that goes back a lot further than the story of Jesus (although I could be proved wrong on that).
But - bread representing a sacrificial body? Where might that idea have come from?
Perhaps we have to look a bit closer at the Passover traditions to understand that.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
From what I have read, while we could reasonably assume that wheat bread was used, it is quite possible that it was bread of another grain, such as barley or a mixture of grains. Passover just means it would not have had leaven; matzoh can be made from grains other than wheat. As I understand it, Jewish ritual did not and does not distinguish between bread made from wheat and bread made from oats, barley, rye or spelt -- they are all, in Jewish understanding, "bread."
To me, that begs the question, why was bread ever necessary in Passover in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Belle Ringer: If you had read my post, you would have noted that I make specific provisions for both of your concerns: for people whose health issues present "genuine needs" and for those places where, due to climate and geography, wheat and grapes are unavailable.
Accepted. However, it seems to me that this may still lead people to consider Eucharist in areas where wheat and grapes are available, as somehow more "special" than Eucharist conducted elsewhere. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, though.
It looks to me that the rules about Passover bread are quite fussy - and I suspect that a lot of what passes for an acceptable bread for the purposes of Catholic Eucharist would not be acceptable for a Jewish Passover festival.
Not that I'm assuming that modern day Rabbinic tradition is automatically closer to ancient Israelite tradition than modern day Catholic tradition - however, I think it's interesting to compare the two.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
A slightly different question, but still relating to the issue of what food and drink we use, is why most of us don't have Communion as a full meal. 1 Corinthians 11 certainly places celebration of the Lord's Supper in the context of a meal, doesn't it?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Well, that's more relating to Agape isn't it? IIRC it is not clear whether this was ever quite the same as a Eucharist within the context of worship. Actually quite a deep topic I suspect!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
A slightly different question, but still relating to the issue of what food and drink we use, is why most of us don't have Communion as a full meal. 1 Corinthians 11 certainly places celebration of the Lord's Supper in the context of a meal, doesn't it?
Good question - however, I can't help but suspect that the idea of what constitutes a "full meal" is likely to be highly culturally bound; much more so than the interpretation of many items in the Christian creeds.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
My approach to this question is to ask - why exactly should wine represent blood, and why should bread represent body?
The answers are in the Old Testament and the Temple sacrifices.
quote:
I don't think we need to be restricted to Israelite literature in making that assessment;
Yes we do - the whole of the NT is entirely calqued on OT. Everything is explained as a fulfiment of prophecy, the outcome of God's action in history the new instantiation of God's presence in the temple now available to all. Whether it is true or false that remains the case - if the apostles just made it all up then they made it all up to fit in with OT.
Anyway it fits with all that "bread of life" stuff in Jhn 6 and so on. Jesus is associating himself with the holy bread that is scrificed to God in the Temple.
In the Temple system animal sacrifices were done at the altar outside the holy place. They are a sort of entry condition to holiness.
The sacrifices brought in to the Holy of Holies, the symbolic presence of God, include no meat. Its bread, oil, wine, incense. Its the bread that goes into the Most Holy Place and can only be handled by priests - the blood if for every body.
So by associating Jesus with the sacrifices of sheep and lambs the NT claims that he is our way to God - that is about reconciliation and redemption. (Not actually the Paschal lamb in particular, all the other blood sacridices)
But by associating Jesus with bread and wine the NT claims we are brought in to the very presence of God in Jesus.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
I also do not advocate using just anything simply because we can! or to make it a funny ha-ha; it's anything BUT.
And I recall a lovely communion meal wherein someone had accidentally drunk the wine (in our case, it's grape juice), not realizing what it was for and, with it being Autumn, our celebrant substituted some apple juice, making allusion to God's provision and the beauty of Autumn. Our more liturgical folks on the board might not understand, but I thought it was a lovely and poignant twist - all because someone didn't know what that little grape juice box was for!
(and to add... she is the most gifted liturgist / celebrant I've ever had the pleasure of worshiping with)
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChippedChalice
Shipmate
# 14057
|
Posted
I know I'm going to sound like a complete curmudgeon -- but this entire discussion absolutely astounds me.
And I also know different Christians have different beliefs about Holy Communion -- from the trasubstantiation & strict rules about about the allowed elements to spiritual memorials and the use of grape juice.
But --
When we start talking about things like using apple juice because no wine was handy and it's a meaningful reminder of the harvest -- aren't we moving away from Holy Communion and into some other spiritual territory?
It would be like deciding to baptise using a mixture of milk & honey instead of water, because that's a symbol of the promised land -- or simply because we like the symbolism.
Isn't what's crucial about the the Lord's Supper that it is exactly that -- the LORD's Supper?
Something that he instituted -- using specific elements that carry with them specific promises: Bread, Wine, ... Body, Blood ... forgiveness.
The focus is on Christ and his promise -- not on our own internal spiritual feelings.
That doesn't mean we can do other spiritual exersizes -- for example, I admire the Zen tea ceremony.
But we shouldn't think that they are Holy Communion.
ok -- I'm off my soapbox now.
Posts: 131 | From: Chicago | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
A slightly different question, but still relating to the issue of what food and drink we use, is why most of us don't have Communion as a full meal. 1 Corinthians 11 certainly places celebration of the Lord's Supper in the context of a meal, doesn't it?
Good question - however, I can't help but suspect that the idea of what constitutes a "full meal" is likely to be highly culturally bound; much more so than the interpretation of many items in the Christian creeds.
I'm sure it would be highly culturally bound. I think that's a wonderful thing; the exact nature of the celebration would be rooted in the culture of that particular group, rather than being an imperialistic imposition of another culture.
Although I do agree with what Ken says about the powerful symbolism that go with the elements of bread and wine. But then (thinking aloud here...) did God just use the symbols that ancient Jewish culture presented Him with? So Japanese Christians could happily use rice and sake instead of bread and wine, just noting that when their Bibles said 'bread' they should think 'rice'. Hmm, Jesus is the ricecake of life... Is that blasphemy or incarnating the Gospel within a culture?
ETA - A somewhat ironic cross-post with ChippedChalice above!
[ 07. April 2011, 18:26: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
While the setting of the Last Supper certainly suggests that the bread in use that night was unleavened...
Really?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
My opinion -- grumpy higher-up-the-candle Lutheran speaking -- is that our consumerist culture has lured many of us into a mentality where EVERYTHING is turning into a Chinese menu of countless choices. (The new ELCA hymnal being a case in point...but I digress...)
Just because you can theoretically do something liturgically or sacramentally doesn't mean that you should, except in some rare emergent circumstance.
Mind you, I'm not talking about things like making gluten-free wafers or grape juice available to communicants who for whatever reason can't ingest the traditional wafers and wine. I'm talking about situations like the EKD gathering I read about awhile back where drinks and hors-d'oeurves were enlisted into service as Eucharistic elements, apparently just because it seemed edgy and ironic. "Oh -- more kids like Pop-Tarts and Kool-Aid than the traditional elements for Communion so let's use Pop Tarts and Kool-Aid for the youth service." That sort of nonsense, which I think has far less to do with respecting the underlying sacramental concept than it does with rather desperately attempting (emphasis on "attempting") to be hip and novel and un-boring...because Lord knows what would happen if we actually embraced a sense of history and tradition as something worth cherishing and passing along to a new generation instead of being embarrased by it. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
My two cents.;-)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
While the setting of the Last Supper certainly suggests that the bread in use that night was unleavened...
Really?
The Synoptics refer to "the first day of Unleavened Bread" (Mark 14:12, Mt 26:17) or "the day of Unleavened Bread (Luke 22:7). The setting in John's Gospel is earlier so that the crucifixion takes place on the day of Preparation for the Passover.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
While the setting of the Last Supper certainly suggests that the bread in use that night was unleavened...
Really?
The Synoptics refer to "the first day of Unleavened Bread" (Mark 14:12, Mt 26:17) or "the day of Unleavened Bread (Luke 22:7). The setting in John's Gospel is earlier so that the crucifixion takes place on the day of Preparation for the Passover.
Thank you for this, Mamacita. I was aware of the differing traditions and thought this common knowledge, hence my surprise at Nick Tamen's certainty.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
I'm with you, Lutheran Chick. I'm also not as "curmudgeonly" (said with a smile) as our friend... If, that night, we received in only one kind, then so be it. I believe that we had been made one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world.
I would add that I also don't find jokes about communion funny* - especially when used in that "let's be relevant by being irreverent" sort of way, either. A guy in my church (now a pastor) used to always joke about putting in a vending machine for it... he told the joke a number of times and I don't know why he never caught on to my lack of laughter. but this is a bit of a tangent, so I'll leave it at that.
* and I'm low on the candle!
[ 07. April 2011, 23:58: Message edited by: Angel Wrestler ]
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But then (thinking aloud here...) did God just use the symbols that ancient Jewish culture presented Him with?
I'd tend to think that God presented the symbols to the ancient Hebrews.
quote:
So Japanese Christians could happily use rice and sake instead of bread and wine, just noting that when their Bibles said 'bread' they should think 'rice'. Hmm, Jesus is the ricecake of life... Is that blasphemy or incarnating the Gospel within a culture?
I think I'd stick with bread and wine.
Wine drinking was a pretty exotic practice in Northern Europe when our ancestors became Christians, but we learned to associate them with Jesus. Same with olive oil, which only became a common food here in my lifetime. Anointing with oil would have ben unknown here, and the idea still looks weird to most of us. When an RE teacher tells a class of kids that the words "Messiah" and "Christ" literally mean someone who has had olive oil poured on their head the most common reaction is more or less "Ewwwwwwwww..." But churchgoers pretty soon learn what its about.
Same with Communion. We actually eat and drink the stuff, in the context of an elaborate ritual, along with hymns, bible reading and sermons. We learn the symbols by doing the actions. Using everybody's favourite food might weaken the symbolism, not strengthen it.
Translating the Lord's Prayer is a different problem, because it deals with words rather than physical symbols. So the petition to "Give us this day our daily bread" has to mean something that the petitioners would really want to ask. So it probably needs a well-known food to make sense.
Especially if there is no local word for wheat bread. "Give us today our daily lump of crushed grass seeds mashed into a paste with water and left on the fire until almost burned" probably wouldn't cut it somewhere where bread was unknown. OK there probably is nowhere where bread is completely unknown any more, but there were lots of them until quite recently.
And there are hundreds of millions of people for whom bread is a mildly exotic or even luxurious food. "Give us this day our daily bananas" wouldn't mean quite the same thing said by Europeans as it might when said by East Africans.
One common Kikuyu translation of the NT says, roughly "give us this day our daily mashed potatoes and beans". Which is one word for them, "irio", which is a cheap staple in some parts of East Africa.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
While the setting of the Last Supper certainly suggests that the bread in use that night was unleavened...
Really?
Valid point. I was trying to make the point that if we're looking at using the sort of bread used at the Last Supper, the question would more likely be leavened or unleavened, and that's why I said "suggests" rather than "was." But no, it isn't exactly clear, and in my haste I wasn't clear. Sorry 'bout that.
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Mind you, I'm not talking about things like making gluten-free wafers or grape juice available to communicants who for whatever reason can't ingest the traditional wafers and wine.
I feel like I'm on a bit of a Jewish theme here lately, what with what I've posted about Jewish understandings of bread here and what I've said about Jewish understanding of Satan elsewhere, but I do think it can matter in how we understand our own traditions. So, I feel the need to add this as well: Generally speaking, it is permissible in Jewish ritual to substitute grape juice for wine (provided the grape juice is kosher). The blessing for wine is also said over grape juice.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
To me it's less about being "culturally relevant" (skin beginning to crawl) to communicants and more about an attempt to, even in some small way, transport them to the Upper Room and participate in that first Eucharist. So for me, anyway, if I were in Japan, it would be nix on the rice-and-sake Eucharist unless we were trapped in a sushi bar during a disaster or in some other extreme situation where what we had was what we had.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Anyway, the name Bethlehem means "home of bread". Its all linked in a 3000-year deep web of connotation.
[ 08. April 2011, 23:04: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We actually eat and drink the stuff, in the context of an elaborate ritual, along with hymns, bible reading and sermons. We learn the symbols by doing the actions. Using everybody's favourite food might weaken the symbolism, not strengthen it...
Ken, I'm grateful for all of your interesting post but I want to follow up on this bit in particular. It seems you're saying that we've taken two parts of the Last Supper (the bread and the wine), ignored some other parts (I'm thinking here of the fact that the Last Supper was a supper, a meal) and added some new parts (the ritual aspect).
Given this, can we be tolerant of the many different ways of remembering our Lord's death? Can we be thankful that there are so many different styles of Communion, rather than being dogmatic about how it should be done?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It seems you're saying that we've taken two parts of the Last Supper (the bread and the wine), ignored some other parts (I'm thinking here of the fact that the Last Supper was a supper, a meal) and added some new parts (the ritual aspect).
Given this, can we be tolerant of the many different ways of remembering our Lord's death? Can we be thankful that there are so many different styles of Communion, rather than being dogmatic about how it should be done?
Well yes, definitely. In my opinion anyway.
I think personally that using real bread and real wine is probably more important than what clothes the presider wears or exactly which liturgy they use or whether they were ordained by a bishop or not.
And certainly Communion can be in the context of a church service, or a real meal, or in the street, or accompanying last rites for a dying person. Or even a trench under fire or on a sinking ship - cue Dix's Purple Passage.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Has anyone celebrated communion with the two cups as described in Luke?
One of the advantages of being Reformed is we sometimes get to hear that account (along with Matthew's and Mark's) rather than Pauls one from 1 Corinthians.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Has anyone celebrated communion with the two cups as described in Luke?
One of the advantages of being Reformed is we sometimes get to hear that account (along with Matthew's and Mark's) rather than Pauls one from 1 Corinthians.
Eh? Its them there Baptists that always use the Corinthians passage. Us lectionary-whipped Anglicans end up reading alll four Gospels at the Eucharist, sooner or later.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Oh no we don't, Ken - well, not all of us, all the time!
Although your general premise is quite right!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Has anyone celebrated communion with the two cups as described in Luke?
One of the advantages of being Reformed is we sometimes get to hear that account (along with Matthew's and Mark's) rather than Pauls one from 1 Corinthians.
Jengie
Only for reasons of distributive convenience.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I have read, although I do not know, that the bread of Jesus earthly era would have been made of what we now call "heirloom grains" most likely spelt, not what today we call "wheat"...
"Spelt" is just a name for a species of wheat (genus Triticum )
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyway, the name Bethlehem means "home of bread". Its all linked in a 3000-year deep web of connotation.
I think that's an important point. The reasons behind these things are ancient and deeply woven into the Bible from beginning to end.
I was surprised to see this thread since I didn't realize that these questions were an issue outside of my denomination.
In the New Church the question of the authenticity of the elements in communion comes up because the holiness of the sacrament rests on the symbolism of the bread and the wine. In the New Church lexicon bread and wine stand for God's love and truth, not only in this story but everywhere they appear. When you take the sacrament you are symbolically receiving God's love and His truth. More that that, the symbolism also causes a genuine and miraculous reception of these things from God if a person is able to receive them.
But does the same thing happen if it is not wheat bread or actual wine? This is a question that gets debated a lot.
The main emotional issue, though, is always the concern about discriminating against recovering alcoholics. I'm surprised that this has not been raised here.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I have read, although I do not know, that the bread of Jesus earthly era would have been made of what we now call "heirloom grains" most likely spelt, not what today we call "wheat"...
"Spelt" is just a name for a species of wheat (genus Triticum )
Well, biologically perhaps, but if I buy regular bread it says ingredients include wheat, if I buy spelt bread it says ingredients include spelt. "Spelt" and "wheat" commonly refer to related but different grains.
"Spelt is related to wheat, although it is not identical to modern wheat. Some people who are allergic to wheat may be able to tolerate some spelt...[W]hen food is labelled as “wheat-free”, always double check for spelt!
allergy discussion
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Well, biologically perhaps, but if I buy regular bread it says ingredients include wheat, if I buy spelt bread it says ingredients include spelt. "Spelt" and "wheat" commonly refer to related but different grains.
They're part of the same genus, even more closely related than the tomato to the tomatillo. Would ancient Israelites have made a distinction? I think there's a good chance they didn't, and it would have been all wheat to them.
The wikipedia article on Matzo briefly discusses five grain species believed to be native to the land of Israel, 3 of them are wheat ( triticum ) species.
According to the article modern bread wheat evolved later in Europe and the northern Fertile Crescent, but if the article is correct (it being wikipedia and all) spelt didn't grow in biblical Israel either.
But modern taxonomy wasn't around ancient Israel either. If the grain looked and tasted like wheat they probably considered it wheat.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
The wikipedia article on Matzo briefly discusses five grain species believed to be native to the land of Israel, 3 of them are wheat ( triticum ) species.
. . .
But modern taxonomy wasn't around ancient Israel either. If the grain looked and tasted like wheat they probably considered it wheat.
I wouldn't assume that, given that Rabinnic sources distinguished between them.
And there were still barley and oats.
[ 13. April 2011, 19:53: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
The symbolism of it, I do understand. However, I'm finding it a bit hard to get my mind around why the ingredients in the elements are so important.
Would you use orange juice or Red Bull or Diet Coke for baptisms?
Serious question.
[ETA: this is not what I thought this thread was going to be about...]
[ 13. April 2011, 19:55: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
