Thread: Eccles: Physical vs. Spiritual Communion Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000820
Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on
:
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 ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
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.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
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.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on
:
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 ]
Posted by BenjaminS (# 13224) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
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.
Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on
:
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.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
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.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
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.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
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.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
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.
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on
:
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.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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!
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on
:
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)
Posted by ChippedChalice (# 14057) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
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?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
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.
My two cents.;-)
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
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.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
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.
Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on
:
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 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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 ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
We have also ignored the washing of feet (except on Maudy Thursday in some traditions and, more regularly, in some Pentecostal traditions.)
[ 09. April 2011, 10:27: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Oh no we don't, Ken - well, not all of us, all the time!
Although your general premise is quite right!
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
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 )
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
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.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
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.
They may have done both, named the varieties individually and considered them all kinds of wheat. We do similar things. We name different varieties of pine or evergreen (spruce, etc.) but we all call them pine trees or evergreens ( and consider them suitable for Christmas Trees).
quote:
And there were still barley and oats.
But if the Last Supper is a sacrificial meal, as Catholics consider the Mass to be a sacrificial meal, the info I've been able to find suggests only wheat flour was used for the temple/sacrificial breads, but more on that later.
[ 13. April 2011, 20:20: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
But if the Last Supper is a sacrificial meal, as Catholics consider the Mass to be a sacrificial meal, the info I've been able to find suggests only wheat flour was used for the temple/sacrificial breads, but more on that later.
I believe there are some sacrifices that specifically required barley.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
But if the Last Supper is a sacrificial meal, as Catholics consider the Mass to be a sacrificial meal, the info I've been able to find suggests only wheat flour was used for the temple/sacrificial breads, but more on that later.
I believe there are some sacrifices that specifically required barley.
Do you remember which ones? The Jewish Study Bible says the essential ingredients for the minha in Leviticus were semolina of wheat and olive oil (the oil so it could be burned). The stuff I've seen about the shewbread say they were of wheat and unleavened (but I'll have to check again on that).
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Do you remember which ones? The Jewish Study Bible says the essential ingredients for the minha in Leviticus were semolina of wheat and olive oil (the oil so it could be burned). The stuff I've seen about the shewbread say they were of wheat and unleavened (but I'll have to check again on that).
I know that Torah required that an omer of barley be offered in the Temple on the second day of Passover. There may be other examples of barley in sacrifices that I don't recall right now.
As for the showbread, it was required to be wheat. Whether it mattered it mattered which of the three kinds of wheat I don't know.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I know that Torah required that an omer of barley be offered in the Temple on the second day of Passover. There may be other examples of barley in sacrifices that I don't recall right now.
As for the showbread, it was required to be wheat. Whether it mattered it mattered which of the three kinds of wheat I don't know.
Thanks, Nick. The wikipedia article on the Counting of the Omer has an interesting bit on the symbolic meaning of the barley, saying it was the counterpart of the wheat offered on Pentecost. According the article it symbolizes growth; going from barley ("animal food" according to the article) to wheat ("people food" according to the article) symbolizes the journey of the Israelits in the desert, going from spiritual immaturity at their escape from Egypt to maturity weeks later when they were capable of receiving the Law, something celebrated on Pentecost.
One sacrifice I've seen connected a number of times to the Last Supper is the todah offering. Todah means thanksgiving , just like the word eucharist . There's an interesting article from a Catholic point of view right here:
From Jewish Passover to Christian Eucharist: The Story of the Todah
[ 13. April 2011, 21:46: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
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?
I'm not a trans or con believer, but Christ is in any case present where two or three gather in His name.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
I apologize if this reply seems late, long, and redundant, but I meant to reply to this post earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
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.
But the Latin Church isn't working on assumptions, it's working on tradition, on memories of what was received from the apostles, not on assumptions of seders in general but on memory of a specific meal, the Last Supper. Even the ancient churches that do not use leaven bread insist on wheat flour, like the churches of the Byzantine Rite.
quote:
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.
In the limited time I've had to look online it seems like the important thing is that it not be chametz , a leavened product from one of 5 types of grains (3 of which are wheat species). In the articles I've checked online they seem to assume that wheat flour will be used for the matzoh. The wikipedia article on matzo seems to imply that non-wheat flours are more the exception though allowed ("For those who cannot eat wheat, it is possible to buy oat and spelt matzah with kosher certification.").
That in itself isn't decisive but I think it suggests something, though as I point out the church is working on a living tradition and not suggestions or assumptions. Also, I found a note in the Jewish Study Bible about the grain offerings in the book of Leviticus, Chapter 2. According to the note those offerings were made of semolina of wheat. If the Last Supper was a kind of grain offering, it makes sense that Christ and the apostles would make sure the bread was wheat bread, whether or not the meal was an actual seder. If the bread at the Last Supper was supposed to be like the showbread in the Temple, my understanding is that it was made of wheat (and unleavened) too. The old Jewish Encyclopedia says “The loaves of bread used for divine sacrifice were naturally made only from the choicest wheat flour”.
quote:
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?
In a commentary on Psalm 81(80), Pope John Paul II sees a prophecy in verse 17 (“He fed them with the finest of the wheat”), a connection he points out Origen already made in his “74 Homilies on the Book of Psalms":
quote:
the Lord "made them enter into the promised land; there he does not feed them with manna as he did in the desert, but with the wheat that has fallen to the ground (cf. Jn 12,24-25) that is risen.... Christ is the wheat; again, he is the rock whose water quenched the thirst of the people of Israel in the desert. In the spiritual sense, he satisfied them with honey and not with water, so that all who believe and receive this food, may taste honey in their mouths"
In the Gospel of St. John 12:24-24, Jesus says “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone: but if it dies, it bears much fruit”.
St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) , who tradition says was a disciple of St. John, wrote in his Letter to the Romans:
quote:
I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.
St. Ireneus of Lyons wrote in Against Heresies (c. 180):
quote:
And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ…
This is what I’ve been able to find so far.
quote:
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
The old Catholic Encyclopedia says only a couple of theologians have believed a grain other than wheat could be used for the Eucharist. Even the siligo mentioned by St. Thomas Aquinas seems to be a type of wheat. There are references to medieval monks growing the finest wheat. So far I haven't found when the first official decree was made that only wheat flour be used. Often, the Church didn’t bother making decrees about stuff until there was a disagreement about it but between those medieval references and the quotations from the Church Fathers I found so far, plus the use of choicest wheat flour for (at least most) temple sacrifices, it seems to me that the belief that it should be wheat flour existed from the beginning.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
One sacrifice I've seen connected a number of times to the Last Supper is the todah offering. Todah means thanksgiving , just like the word eucharist . There's an interesting article from a Catholic point of view right here:
From Jewish Passover to Christian Eucharist: The Story of the Todah
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
Another interesting read to check out might be Max Thurian's two-part The Eucharistic Memorial. It's an attempt to dig into what the disciples would have understood Jesus to mean when he told them to celebrate the Eucharist as his memorial. Thurian focuses on the First Fruits offering as being particularly relevant, as it shows what Jesus and his contemporaries would have understood a memorial to be. This is the offering that begins "A wandering Aramean was my father" and moves into the offerer identfying with the liberated people of Isreal ("we" and "us").
As for the omer of barley being for the animals, that goes back to the point being made earlier: Barley was the grain of the poorer people. Certainly people ate it -- that's what the five loaves that fed the five thousand were made from.
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
In the limited time I've had to look online it seems like the important thing is that it not be chametz , a leavened product from one of 5 types of grains (3 of which are wheat species). In the articles I've checked online they seem to assume that wheat flour will be used for the matzoh. The wikipedia article on matzo seems to imply that non-wheat flours are more the exception though allowed ("For those who cannot eat wheat, it is possible to buy oat and spelt matzah with kosher certification.").
Again, though, this goes back to whether leavened or unleavend bread is assumed. That's what chametz is -- leavened bread.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
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.
Except that when Christ instituted the Eucharist, it wasn't during a 'daily' meal, but during the Paschal feast. (Perhaps the 'rebellious' one done by those who did not condone the sacrifices of the current, politicized, priesthood.) This is of course another discussion than 'wheat instead of rye,' but it seems to me that many people think the way you do here; that the Eucharist is about the daily bread and Christ being present "in and through the most daily and basic of our foods."
If that is the symbolism, we should use something else than wine. In western countries we should probably use beer instead. Or perhaps milk.
(Just for the record; I believe we should use wheat and alcoholic wine. But that is because I don't believe that the Eucharist is primarily about Christ being present "in and through the most daily and basic of our foods." It is more, and intrinsically linked to the Last Supper.)
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Another interesting read to check out might be Max Thurian's two-part The Eucharistic Memorial.
Thanks.
quote:
As for the omer of barley being for the animals, that goes back to the point being made earlier: Barley was the grain of the poorer people. Certainly people ate it -- that's what the five loaves that fed the five thousand were made from.
I'm not disputing that people ate it or that it was poor people food, but you seem to be going from "it could have been used for the Passover seder" to "it must have been used for the Last Supper" or at least "because barley or another grain could have been used for unleavend bread, we can't say that Christ and the Apostles used wheat for the Last Supper ", despite the indications from Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the tradition of the Church. Even the ancient apostolic churches that use leavened bread use wheat flour.
Despite their poverty, Christ and his disciples had the help of women of means (Luke 8:3). People were willing to give Jesus expensive gifts and he was willing to accept them (the woman with the alabaster jar). Just because they were poor doesn't mean that they didn't have access to wheat flour, or that they must have used something other than wheat flour.
For what it's worth, the old Jewish Encyclopedia notes quote:
The meal offering of jealousy" (Num. v. 15) seems to have been the only use made of barley in the Hebrew ritual.
Even taking into account the counting of the Omer, it took place not on the eve or first day of Passover, like the Last Supper, but on the second.
quote:
Again, though, this goes back to whether leavened or unleavend bread is assumed. That's what chametz is -- leavened bread.
The Latin Church doesn't assume about this, it receives, remembers and teaches it. Even so, if the Last Supper was a seder, and it was the first day of Passover, then it was unleavened bread. If it was on the eve of Passover, it could still have been unleavened bread. By the eve of Passover I would expect Jewish homes to have been cleaned of all or nearly all leavened products. If the Last Supper and the Eucharist were prefigured by the todah offerings and the showbread in the Temple, they were also unleavened, and of wheat too.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'm not disputing that people ate it or that it was poor people food, but you seem to be going from "it could have been used for the Passover seder" to "it must have been used for the Last Supper" . . . .
Hmmm, I actually thought I was being very careful not to go there. I'll readily concede that the likelihood is wheat bread. I merely raised the possibility that, since bread from certain other grains are considered "bread" in Jewish understanding, I don't know that we can say with certainty is must have been wheat bread.
quote:
. . . or at least "because barley or another grain could have been used for unleavend bread, we can't say that Christ and the Apostles used wheat for the Last Supper ", despite the indications from Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the tradition of the Church. Even the ancient apostolic churches that use leavened bread use wheat flour.
This is much closer to what I was trying to say. And while I'll concede that wheat bread has been the standard from the start and may have place of (strong) preference, I'm not willing to concede that non-wheat bread is forbidden, or that use of non-wheat bread negates the Sacrament. Nor does my tradition concede that. While we would say it must be bread, and while in practice it almost always is wheat bread, we do not say it must be wheat bread.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
There is no law that says the bread of the Presence is unleavened. So it probably wasn't.
Leviticus and Exodus are very clear that no leaven must be brought to the altar, but the shewbread is symbolically very different. Its inside the Holy Place to which the altar is merely the gateway.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is no law that says the bread of the Presence is unleavened. So it probably wasn't.
Well, Josephus reported that it was unleavened. Antiquities of the Jews III, 10 § 7.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'm not disputing that people ate it or that it was poor people food, but you seem to be going from "it could have been used for the Passover seder" to "it must have been used for the Last Supper" . . . .
Hmmm, I actually thought I was being very careful not to go there. I'll readily concede that the likelihood is wheat bread. I merely raised the possibility that, since bread from certain other grains are considered "bread" in Jewish understanding, I don't know that we can say with certainty is must have been wheat bread.
I suppose you can if it's your continuous tradition, and you are that same community of believers taught by Jesus and led by the Apostles, as the Catholic Church believes itself to be.
The requirement comes not just from a memory of ancient Passovers, but a memory of a specific meal at a specific Passover with a specific purpose and meaning. It comes from a specific understanding of the Last Supper and the Eucharist.
quote:
quote:
. . . or at least "because barley or another grain could have been used for unleavend bread, we can't say that Christ and the Apostles used wheat for the Last Supper ", despite the indications from Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the tradition of the Church. Even the ancient apostolic churches that use leavened bread use wheat flour.
This is much closer to what I was trying to say. And while I'll concede that wheat bread has been the standard from the start and may have place of (strong) preference, I'm not willing to concede that non-wheat bread is forbidden, or that use of non-wheat bread negates the Sacrament. Nor does my tradition concede that. While we would say it must be bread, and while in practice it almost always is wheat bread, we do not say it must be wheat bread.
I would say that the belief that it must be bread comes from the the same source as the belief that it must be wheat, and that source is the Church. If you don’t believe that it must be wheat, then why believe that it must be bread? If you say, “the Gospels say it was bread”, I would say “the Gospels came from the Church”. I suppose it all relates to continuity, and to what you believe about Tradition and the Eucharist.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is no law that says the bread of the Presence is unleavened. So it probably wasn't.
Leviticus and Exodus are very clear that no leaven must be brought to the altar, but the shewbread is symbolically very different. Its inside the Holy Place to which the altar is merely the gateway.
The Jewish Study Bible says it was unleavened. The old Jewish Encyclopedia says it probably was: quote:
Though not explicitly stated to be so, these cakes were most probably unleavened. It is true they were not offered upon the altar, from which leaven was scrupulously excluded (Lev. ii. 11); but, as most holy, they were carried into and exposed in the inner sanctuary, and therefore the supposition that the use of leaven in them was prohibited carries a high degree of probability.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I suppose you can if it's your continuous tradition, and you are that same community of believers taught by Jesus and led by the Apostles, as the Catholic Church believes itself to be.
Pancho, I mean no offense -- I recognize that is the Catholic self-understanding. As a Reformed Christian, it's an understanding that I respect but don't affirm. But it is a bit of a discussion stopper when the answer is "well, the Church says so and the Church knows so that's that."
quote:
If you don’t believe that it must be wheat, then why believe that it must be bread? If you say, “the Gospels say it was bread”, I would say “the Gospels came from the Church”.
I believe it must be bread because Jesus appointed the use of bread.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Pancho, I mean no offense -- I recognize that is the Catholic self-understanding. As a Reformed Christian, it's an understanding that I respect but don't affirm. But it is a bit of a discussion stopper when the answer is "well, the Church says so and the Church knows so that's that."
I also respect, but don't affirm, the understanding of the Protestant Reformed tradition. I intended "if it's your continuous tradition, and you are that same community of believers taught by Jesus and led by the Apostles, " to be a quick summary of reasons and not a discussion stopper.
I pointed to Saints Ignatius and Irenaeus as early evidence for wheat, the context of the Last Supper and allusions in scripture. May I ask what a satisfactory reason would be for the use of wheat?
I do think there's an element of looking from the outside and looking from the inside. My impression is that you're starting from a premise of "let's look back and see what we can figure out about what they did back then, because it was so long ago and far away" whereas my premise is "this is what we have received from our ancestors the earliest Christians, we've never stopped doing it this way, and all the other evidence is consistent with this belief".
quote:
I believe it must be bread because Jesus appointed the use of bread.
But here's the thing, we know Jesus appointed the use of bread because of the Church. It wasn't like Christians were given a copy of the scriptures and then began to celebrate the eucharist, the eucharist was already being celebrated when the New Testament scriptures arose among those Christian communities. If you give weight to one belief that arose in those ancient Christian communities (bread) why not give weight to another belief that arose in those same communities (wheat)?
p.s. last night I was thinking about this, and I was wondering if one of the reasons for the requirement of wheat (besides believing wheat was used at the Last Supper) could be because it signifies "bread" more than other grains do. After all, one can make wine from other stuff besides grapes , but our requirement for the Eucharist is wine made from grapes. Maybe there's something much more "bread-y" about wheat bread (and something much more "wine-y" about grape wine), and for the completeness and fullness of whatever the Eucharist is you need the fullness and completeness of the elements, to reflect the fullness and completness of the Body and Blood of Christ and of salvation as manifested in the Eucharist. Does this sound weird? It's just a theory.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
May I ask what a satisfactory reason would be for the use of wheat?
I assume you meant for a "something other than" in there?
I would posit that availability would be one reason. Culture could be another -- if another culture values bread made from another grain more than it values wheat bread, is that something to be paid attention to?
The "rule" in my tradition is that the bread should be one "common to the culture" and that ultimately the decision as to the specific kind of bread is left to the local community. I'm fine with that.
quote:
I do think there's an element of looking from the outside and looking from the inside. My impression is that you're starting from a premise of "let's look back and see what we can figure out about what they did back then, because it was so long ago and far away" whereas my premise is "this is what we have received from our ancestors the earliest Christians, we've never stopped doing it this way, and all the other evidence is consistent with this belief".
No, I'm starting from the premise of what does Jesus or Scripture say about this, because I come from a tradition where Scripture is the authority, not Tradition. While T/tradition may be very beneficial in understanding Scripture and the experience of the church, it can also be wrong. It must always be evaluated (and reformed) in the light of Scripture, so that a requirement not found in Scripture cannot be considering binding.
And it seems to me that the appeal to Tradition raises as many questions as it answers. If we're doing what we've never stopped doing and what is consistent with what's been handed down from the apostles, then why do we see such markedly different forms of sacramental bread in the Orthodox churches and the Catholic church? And why are individual wafers used, when even The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "There is nothing to indicate that the first Christians thought of reproducing the appearance of the 'loaves of proposition' of the Jewish Liturgy; they simply used the bread that served as food." Why is it acceptable to use a form of bread that would be unrecognizable to the apostles and would never serve as food, but not acceptable to use ingredients other than wheat and water?
quote:
quote:
I believe it must be bread because Jesus appointed the use of bread.
But here's the thing, we know Jesus appointed the use of bread because of the Church. It wasn't like Christians were given a copy of the scriptures and then began to celebrate the eucharist, the eucharist was already being celebrated when the New Testament scriptures arose among those Christian communities. If you give weight to one belief that arose in those ancient Christian communities (bread) why not give weight to another belief that arose in those same communities (wheat)?
Because Scripture attests in numerous places to the one requirement: bread. It nowhere attests to a requirement that the bread must be wheat bread.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
I'm really sorry for disappearing from this thread and not returning sooner, but stuff came up in Real Life, and I only had time for a few drive-by posts on some random threads now and then.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
May I ask what a satisfactory reason would be for the use of wheat?
I assume you meant for a "something other than" in there?
I did mean "for the use of wheat", because it was my impression you were seeking me to justify the use of only wheat in my church for the eucharist. I was wondering what kind of answer would satisfy you.
quote:
I would posit that availability would be one reason. Culture could be another -- if another culture values bread made from another grain more than it values wheat bread, is that something to be paid attention to?
Christians have confronted this dilemma before and as far as I know, until the Reformation they continued using wheat.
In the New World where maize was the thing the Church continued using wheat. In the Phillipines where rice was the thing wheat was still used. In Japan, where missionaries were pretty succesful until the persecution from the Shoguns, wheat was used. As far as I know the Malabar Christians in India use wheat, even though my impression is they could have used rice, if it was just about what was available.
quote:
quote:
I do think there's an element of looking from the outside and looking from the inside. My impression is that you're starting from a premise of "let's look back and see what we can figure out about what they did back then, because it was so long ago and far away" whereas my premise is "this is what we have received from our ancestors the earliest Christians, we've never stopped doing it this way, and all the other evidence is consistent with this belief".
No, I'm starting from the premise of what does Jesus or Scripture say about this, because I come from a tradition where Scripture is the authority, not Tradition. While T/tradition may be very beneficial in understanding Scripture and the experience of the church, it can also be wrong. It must always be evaluated (and reformed) in the light of Scripture, so that a requirement not found in Scripture cannot be considering binding.
Whereas we do the opposite, interpret scripture in light of tradition, because both are fruits of the church, and scripture was made to be proclaimed at the liturgy. Before Christ told St. John to "write this down", he told the Apostles to "do this in memory of me". Before St. Paul wrote to the Corinthinians in his first letter they already remembered and held to the traditions he passed on to them (1 Corinthians 1:2).
quote:
And it seems to me that the appeal to Tradition raises as many questions as it answers. If we're doing what we've never stopped doing and what is consistent with what's been handed down from the apostles, then why do we see such markedly different forms of sacramental bread in the Orthodox churches and the Catholic church?
They're not markedly different. The only real difference is in the use of leaven or not, and from the Latin Catholic side that does not invalidate, even if some people on the Latin side think unleavened is a better sign. Some Easterners also use unleavened bread: the Armenians and the Maronites. Some people make a big deal that if it doesn't look like a loaf of bread at the supermarket it's not "real" bread but that's a poor argument, ignoring all the flatbreads and other forms of bread that exist in the world.
And both the Catholic and the Orthodox require wheat flour. If one is going to question the appeal to tradition, the requirement for wheat is not the example to use, because we're both in agreement on that. It would seem to strengthen the weight of tradition on that score.
quote:
And why are individual wafers used, when even The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "There is nothing to indicate that the first Christians thought of reproducing the appearance of the 'loaves of proposition' of the Jewish Liturgy; they simply used the bread that served as food." Why is it acceptable to use a form of bread that would be unrecognizable to the apostles and would never serve as food, but not acceptable to use ingredients other than wheat and water?
The first Christians also lived and worshipped in difficult circumstances, with relatively few resources hostility from secular and religious authorities, they had to make do with with they had.
It makes perfect sense that, as Christians grew in their understanding of the Eucharist, their production of bread fro the eucharist begin to reflect that understanding, just as the liturgy itself began to reflect a greater understanding of the Eucharist, and just as other aspects of Christian life began to reflect a greater understanding of the faith (as in the way people talk and wrote about the Trinity, for instance).
Wafers do not affect the matter of the sacrament (which is wheat flour and grape wine, if I'm not mistaken) and I disagree that they would be unrecognizable as bread to the apostles. Anybody can see that a wafers are baked goods, and the typical wafer doesn't look too different from a much large, round piece of flatbread, except much smaller, cleaner, whiter, and smooth looking.
quote:
quote:
quote:
I believe it must be bread because Jesus appointed the use of bread.
But here's the thing, we know Jesus appointed the use of bread because of the Church. It wasn't like Christians were given a copy of the scriptures and then began to celebrate the eucharist, the eucharist was already being celebrated when the New Testament scriptures arose among those Christian communities. If you give weight to one belief that arose in those ancient Christian communities (bread) why not give weight to another belief that arose in those same communities (wheat)?
Because Scripture attests in numerous places to the one requirement: bread. It nowhere attests to a requirement that the bread must be wheat bread.
But the scriptures that attest to the use of bread whre produced by the communities that attest to the use of wheat. All signs point we have point to the use of wheat, like the quotes from St. Irinaeus and St. Ignatius above. No one, until the Reformation appearantly, thought that non-wheat flour would be acceptible.
It's like inheriting grandma's cookbook, but then ignoring your mother's advice, even though mom cooked under grandma, and remembered the tips grandma told her.
[ 20. May 2011, 22:19: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
I have IBS. It is set off by wheat. Am I to receive the sacrament only ever in a form I cannot digest and my body wants to reject? The feeling of receiving the sacrament in a form I actually can digest is amazing. All this rhaphsodising about wheat strikes me as....well nonsense will do.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
I have IBS. It is set off by wheat. Am I to receive the sacrament only ever in a form I cannot digest and my body wants to reject? The feeling of receiving the sacrament in a form I actually can digest is amazing. All this rhaphsodising about wheat strikes me as....well nonsense will do.
I think you will find that similar topics have been covered on the board if you do a search. There are low-gluten hosts available. One is free to receive the precious blood if one cannot ingest wheat.
[ 20. May 2011, 22:49: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on
:
In some parts of the world wheat is not "naturally" available - for example, the tropics. Can you substitute with other foods if wheat is not available? I would have thought that the symbolism and intent was that a common food stuff was used - in middle eastern culture, there is not much more basic than bread. It is the food of poor and rich alike, and the basic staple - and therefore fitting that Jesus should say he is the bread of life. But what about east Asia with rice, or Oceania with root vegetables? Could these be used if no flour is available, or indeed in preference to imported food stuffs as they are, for that culture, "the staff of life"?
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
In some parts of the world wheat is not "naturally" available - for example, the tropics. Can you substitute with other foods if wheat is not available? I would have thought that the symbolism and intent was that a common food stuff was used - in middle eastern culture, there is not much more basic than bread. It is the food of poor and rich alike, and the basic staple - and therefore fitting that Jesus should say he is the bread of life. But what about east Asia with rice, or Oceania with root vegetables? Could these be used if no flour is available, or indeed in preference to imported food stuffs as they are, for that culture, "the staff of life"?
In my tradition one cannot, and as I pointed out above that tradition has existed for hundreds of years in places where wheat was not at first readily available: Japan, Phillipines, New World.
I inclined to believe that the symbolism and intent of a "common food stuff" has been over-stated, otherwise it would have led to the use of rice wine in Asia or other common food stuffs in ancient times, like mead and apple cider in Northern Europe.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
The absolute insistence on wheat was invented by either JPII or the present tenant, I forget which. This was the point at which coeliacs were excluded from the priesthood. There are many reasons why I could never come under the holy see, but that ruling is a perfect example in miniature. Its capacity to ignore human reality is truly a marvel to behold.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
p.s.
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
All this rhaphsodising about wheat strikes me as....well nonsense will do.
Christ has been known to rhapsodize about wheat.
quote:
Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
and Ignatius of Antioch too
quote:
I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
As far as I'm aware, the same thing happens equally to any given crop seed. The symbol is not damaged in any way by the substitution.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
As far as I'm aware, the same thing happens equally to any given crop seed. The symbol is not damaged in any way by the substitution.
That's just it. They could've used any given crop seed. But they used wheat. Not any given crop seed would've had the same significance, and sacrificial, and eucharistic allusions and connotations. Christ was aware of that. His hearers were aware of that. The author of the Gospel was aware of that, which is why he included that. St. Ignatius was aware of it.
[ 20. May 2011, 23:37: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on
:
I can see a deeper issue here - to what extent can the bible and traditions be modified to fit culture? Yes, Jesus used wheat, for very good reasons. But does his use of wheat bind us to the same tradition today? This has been a live question in Oceania, partly because of the historical unavailability of wheat (for example, in the Melanesian Prayer Book "our food for today" is substituted for "our daily bread" because bread as a foodstuff was not widely available until recently). On some of the smaller and remoter islands there is often no bread or flour - I recall some occasions when even the capital of the Solomon Islands ran out of flour. What then?
But it has also been a live question because local theologians want to reclaim some of the symbolism. It should be said that this is not without controversy, and that most of my colleagues (and myself) preferred bread and wine to taro and coconut juice! But it does raise the question as to whether wheat bread is absolutely mandated. For my money it is to be preferred, but there will often be good reasons (such as unavailability of flour or health reasons) why other options might be looked at.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0