The Elements

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

After discussing this issue with another Lutheran last night, I am now posting the topic in hopes to hear what other people think on this topic:
In the Lord's Supper it seems apparent that Jesus used Unleavened Bread and Wine
Does the use of either Leavened Bread instead of unleavened or Grapejuice instead of wine no longer make it the elements and therefore no longer the sacrament (i.e. can one use grapejuice or leavened bread and it still remain a sacrament)?
Please do not offer preferences, for I'm sure there are people who would prefer unleavened and wine but are not "against" the use of grapejuice or leavened. Because this question regards the validity of the event. Also, please give your reasoning for whichever side you take. Thanks and peace.

[seajoy]

After discussing this issue with another Lutheran last night, I am now posting the topic in hopes to hear what other people think on this topic:
In the Lord's Supper it seems apparent that Jesus used Unleavened Bread and Wine
Does the use of either Leavened Bread instead of unleavened or Grapejuice instead of wine no longer make it the elements and therefore no longer the sacrament (i.e. can one use grapejuice or leavened bread and it still remain a sacrament)?
Please do not offer preferences, for I'm sure there are people who would prefer unleavened and wine but are not "against" the use of grapejuice or leavened. Because this question regards the validity of the event. Also, please give your reasoning for whichever side you take. Thanks and peace.
There was a reason Christ used unleavened bread and wine for communion. It seems that if it was ok to use something else, as long as the Words of Institution were said, He would have said so. We should do the same as He did, just as we use water for baptism, and not something else.

Sacraments were instituted by Christ, I'm sure we wouldn't want to change anything about them.

seajoy

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

There was a reason Christ used unleavened bread and wine for communion. It seems that if it was ok to use something else, as long as the Words of Institution were said, He would have said so. We should do the same as He did, just as we use water for baptism, and not something else.

Sacraments were instituted by Christ, I'm sure we wouldn't want to change anything about them.

seajoy
Thanks for the feedback, I hope more people reply to this. Peace.

[Jim47]

I agree with Seajoy. To make changes in the sacrament is the same as to change what is written in the bible. We are to abide what God has done without changes on our part.

[Gospellightofmine]

Does the use of either Leavened Bread instead of unleavened or Grapejuice instead of wine no longer make it the elements and therefore no longer the sacrament
No

(i.e. can one use grapejuice or leavened bread and it still remain a sacrament)?
Yes
(We can use any form of "bread" and "fruit of the vine")

Please do not offer preferences
OK

please give your reasoning for whichever side you take
The vocabulary used was "bread" and "fruit of the vine". No direct command was given.
Jesus most likely used unleavened bread originally and for that reason, we use it. I can't imagine our Pastor breaking a piece off of a loaf... What a mess. The wafer must be the most convenient way to distribute.
If a Pastor was visiting a member who was dying and forgot his communion "kit" (?) I'm sure he would use whatever is available - or if an alcoholic was going to be distracted with the taste of the wine, I'm sure that Pastor would use juice.


*Side Note - Good question :) Peace to you too

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

No


Yes
(We can use any form of "bread" and "fruit of the vine")


OK


The vocabulary used was "bread" and "fruit of the vine". No direct command was given.
Jesus most likely used unleavened bread originally and for that reason, we use it. I can't imagine our Pastor breaking a piece off of a loaf... What a mess. The wafer must be the most convenient way to distribute.
If a Pastor was visiting a member who was dying and forgot his communion "kit" (?) I'm sure he would use whatever is available - or if an alcoholic was going to be distracted with the taste of the wine, I'm sure that Pastor would use juice.


*Side Note - Good question :) Peace to you too
Thank you for offering the other side of the coin from the others who posted. Again, I hope more people feel the desire to discuss this issue. Peace.

[seajoy]

Thank you for offering the other side of the coin from the others who posted. Again, I hope more people feel the desire to discuss this issue. Peace.
I may be wrong on this, but there isn't very often another side of the coin in this part of the forum. The other side of the coin is in the more liberal forum. :)

[dinkime]

Jesus did not use the words unleavened bread and wine, just brad & fruit of the vine...we used unleavened bread/wafers for convenience & it is more traditional (likely what Jesus actually used)...we use wine for the same traditional reason....

i do not think i had communion in my church (or one within fellowship) that was leavened bread and grape juice i would mind.........

i also think offering grape juice as an alternative -- it is still a drink made with the fruit of the vine -- if juice cannot be used, many alcoholics would never take communion, which is very sad...


i am very conservative, and i know many WELS and LCMS churchs offer the grape juice as an alternative...so i will not take this opinion to the more liberal forum ;)

[seajoy]

I did say "I may be wrong." :)

I do understand the difficulties for recovering alcoholics. I'm not even sure what my church does in that instance.

I have heard of an LCMS pastor using tincture (sp?)or dipping, of the wafer into the wine, so the person would not get much of a taste of the wine. I'm not sure how that would work though.

I need to ask my Pastor what he does in these cases.

seajoy

[filosofer]

From Luther's SC:
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.


Note that the critical thing is Christ's body and blood, and the Word which is there. Faith attaches to the promises of the Word, not the form of the physical substance (poor play on theological terms, but couldn't help it).

In Christ's love,
filo

[synger]

Intinction is just one way of serving communion. When we went to the Ablaze weekend in Richmond, VA, they used intinction when serving. For ease of service, I think.

Just like you can take individual cup or common cup, or you can have the Pastor put the wafer on your tongue or you can take it in your hand, you can also take your wafer and dip it into the wine. Just another way of serving communion.

It's rather like the different ways one can be baptized. There's immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. All are efficacious. Our Pastor could do any of the three. In our church, however, pouring is done 99 percent of the time. If someone specifically asked for immersion, he'd probably do that instead.

[DaRev]

After discussing this issue with another Lutheran last night, I am now posting the topic in hopes to hear what other people think on this topic:

To offer a pastoral response...


In the Lord's Supper it seems apparent that Jesus used Unleavened Bread and Wine
Does the use of either Leavened Bread instead of unleavened or Grapejuice instead of wine no longer make it the elements and therefore no longer the sacrament (i.e. can one use grapejuice or leavened bread and it still remain a sacrament)?


We know for a fact that our Lord used unleavened bread and grape wine for the institution of the Lord's Supper. Remember, it is the Lord's Supper, not ours. In keeping with the command of our Lord, unleavened bread and regular grape wine should be used. Remember, the Church exists where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the Sacraments are administered rightly according to Christ's command. While the text does not specifically say "unleavened" in the verba, the Scriptures do indeed tell us it was unleavened bread. Also, the term "fruit of the vine" can only refer to wine since there was no way to preserve grape juice in the 1st century. These specifics need not be mentioned specifically. They are a given.

Now, there may be instances of pastoral discretion where non-alcoholic wine/grape juice or even bread made from some grain other than wheat might be used, such as people who have allergies to glutan or alcohol (I have a member who is extremely allergic to alcohol), but these are not the norm. To simply say that any kind of bread or juice can be used is not in keeping with the Lord's command.

Please do not offer preferences, for I'm sure there are people who would prefer unleavened and wine but are not "against" the use of grapejuice or leavened. Because this question regards the validity of the event. Also, please give your reasoning for whichever side you take. Thanks and peace.

The validity of the Sacrament is in keeping with the Lord's command and belief in His words.

[BelindaP]

Unleavened bread was used by Jesus because the last supper happened during the Passover season. Theological arguments could be made that unleavened bread should be used precisely for that reason--Jesus was the ultimate Passover lamb. One could argue the other way, too. Unleavened bread was ordained for the festival because the Israelites had to flee Egypt on short notice. Whether this aspect of the Passover celebration would carry forward into Communion in questionable.

The wine that Jesus used would have been much less fermented than what we use today, as the fermentation technology to make wine is much better now than it was then. In biblical times, the fruit of grapes was often placed into a wineskin and would have fermented in that. Depending on how fresh the wine was, it may have been closer to grape juice than wine. Given the season, however, it probably was more fermented rather than less. If one wished to be absolutely correct, one would use kosher wine anyway, as some churches do.

If I remember correctly, Nazarites were forbidden from drinking any fruit of the vine, fermented or not. I believe that to be God's standard. Thus, it seems clear to me that grape juice would suffice.

As the previous poster stated, it is how Communion is offered and taken that is most important.

[walloffire]

Well I suppose it was called (in the old testament) the "feast of UNLEAVENED BREAD" for a reason. God seemed pretty strict back then that unleavened bread be used.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I agree with BelindaP (#13),

In our Congregation we do use Kosher wine.

Mark:thumbsup:

[DaRev]

When I was on vicarage, the congregation there used "kosher" wine. I remember one of the acolytes asking me what that meant. I said "Absolutely nothing as far as we are concerned." I went on to explain that it meant that it was blessed by a Jewish rabbi, but as far as Christianity, which is the true faith, is concerned, it means nothing.

[synger]

You mean it doesn't mean they cover the grapes with lots of coarse salt to get all the juice out? ;)

(referencing "kosher meat" in which it is heavily salted to draw out all the blood.. hence "kosher salt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_salt)" in the supermarket)

[PreachersWife2004]

I like the Kosher wine that we use at our church so much that I buy it for our house for weekly consumption with desserts. Only I buy blackberry rather than the grape that we use for communion.

[DaRev]

You mean it doesn't mean they cover the grapes with lots of coarse salt to get all the juice out? ;)

(referencing "kosher meat" in which it is heavily salted to draw out all the blood.. hence "kosher salt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_salt)" in the supermarket)

^_^ Salted wine?

It does also have to do with how it's made, but I don't really know the process. But I don't think it involves kosher salt. :P

[Tofferer]

Our pastor offers grape juice as an alternative for those who can not for either health or tolerance reasons drink wine. Hope can not stand the taste of alcohol, so she always opts for the grape juice. If wine was the only thing available, I don't think she'd ever take communion. To me, it doesn't matter as much as to whether or not it was derived from grapes. That is all that matters to me with regards to the wine. As for the bread, I honestly believe that it should be unleavened, whether from a loaf or a wafer. Again, this is because it was the feast of unleavened at which time Christ Jesus established the Lord's Supper.

[DaRev]

If I may ask...
Why do you insist on unleavened bread but not wine?
It seems that your reasoning for one doesn't match the other.

[Lupinus]

we know that it was unleavened bread and wine due to the fact they are a given.

It was a passover meal and wine was the drink not grape juice.

Does Jesus specifically say to use these? No, but they were the items used they are the items that should be used. In rare extremes it is ok to use something else, but if unleavened bread and wine are availible they should be used.

[Tofferer]

Should I tell my wife to stop taking communion then?

[PreachersWife2004]

Should I tell my wife to stop taking communion then?

Absolutely not.

This is where legalism gets us in trouble. No one should say that taking communion with grape juice rather than wine is wrong. If a member has a problem with the alcohol, whether it's an allergy or they don't like the taste, then they should be offered the next best thing: grape juice. It is still "fruit of the vine" - it is just missing the alcohol. This doesn't cheapen the Lord's Supper by any means. Nor does using leavened bread as opposed to unleavened bread cheapen the Lord's Supper.

The power that is at work in communion doesn't come from the bread and the wine - it comes from the words being spoken.

[DaRev]

It has nothing to do with "legalism". We use unleavened bread and wine because that's what Christ used to institute the supper. If we then have the ability to substitute the elements, then what's to stop some church from using pretzels and beer for communion? Why should we use something other than what Christ used?

Remember, we are talking about the blood of Christ. I know of no single case where someone had become an alcoholic by receiving the blood of Christ at communion.

There are other options if someone is absolutely opposed to receiving wine. One would be intincture, where they touch the host to the wine in the chalice. The other is to abstain from receiving the blood of Christ. No one is going to hell if they only receive communion in one kind.

We need to keep in mind that it's not about us and what we want, it's about Christ and what He gives.

[PreachersWife2004]

It's legalism when people start saying that it is wrong to receive grape juice or leavened bread instead of wine and unleavened bread.

I once attended a youth rally where they used grape juice instead of wine. Buying wine for 1500 people was not cost effective and would've drained the budget of the youth rally. That communion was no different than the communion I took last week with my husband.

[BigNorsk]

I have a question, is intincture drinking? The bible says to drink of the cup, I don't see dip and chew, but maybe my translation skills are weak.

And there were ways to preserve grape juice without fermentation. The most common would be in evaporating the juice through boiling to produce defrutum or sapa. The osmotic pressure prevents fermentation the same way the sugar in honey or jelly prevents fermentation. It was commonly mixed with wine to give the wine sweetness and used in cooking too as a sweatener. Before sugar was commonly available it was quite common and important for baking, but like I said also drank though usually in a mixture. If someone says the ancients had no way to preserve grape juice he hasn't done his homework.

Marv

[DaRev]

It's legalism when people start saying that it is wrong to receive grape juice or leavened bread instead of wine and unleavened bread.

I once attended a youth rally where they used grape juice instead of wine. Buying wine for 1500 people was not cost effective and would've drained the budget of the youth rally. That communion was no different than the communion I took last week with my husband.


It's not legalism. It's keeping the Sacrament as instituted by Christ. It's not about us, it's about Him.

[RadMan]

I think clearing the air about the essence of leaglism would help here. To me, legalists believe salvation comes by obedience to keeping commandments and by following certain rules or rituals of practice. Not those who believe every word of scripture and apply them in such a way that can be supported by scripture. The legalists are those who take certain passages of scripture to imply the Bible says something that really cannot be supported in its full light. Those who try to conform to the letter of the Law without having the Holy Spirit so that they are unable to apply the scriptures with any wisdom or understanding. Making it an obsession about every Law that is expressed in the Bible. Totally avoiding the grace and mercy of God. We sin daily and can't keep the Law in it's entirety so we are forgiven daily. Legalist often twist the truth on purpose to deceive. I don't see any legalism in DaRev's comment

That's my take.

[synger]

We can thank Dr. Welch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bramwell_Welch)for the pasteurization of grape juice, and the subsequent marketing of such to churches under the name "Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine." He was a Methodist, and a prohibitionist.

[PreachersWife2004]

It's not legalism. It's keeping the Sacrament as instituted by Christ. It's not about us, it's about Him.

But saying "fruit of the vine" can only be translated as wine is incorrect. Just because wine was the only way they had to preserve grapes doesn't necessarily mean that they were drinking wine. You can't possibly tell me that a communion with grape juice is any less than a communion with wine.

No one is advocating using beer and pretzels - that's a ridiculous argument. What I am saying is that using grape juice and/or leavened bread doesn't change the communion rite.

To say that those people who can't have alcohol for whatever reason should just refrain from communion is not fair. Communion was instituted for everyone, not just those who can tolerate alcohol.

Have you ever been an alcoholic Rev? My family has a good number of them. My grandpa was so bad that even smelling alcohol made him want a drink. He got a little better, but after talking it over with his pastor, they decided he would get grape juice for his communion rather than wine. He has done this ever since - he just has to call the pastor ahead of time so he knows to have the juice ready. And Synger, I think it's great that you mentioned the unfermented wine, because I'm pretty sure that's what his church has been using for the last couple of years now.

My point in all of this is that I don't think it's right to say that using grape juice or leavened bread is WRONG. To me, that's legalism. My husband would not deny someone communion because they asked for grape juice. They might have to wait and receive private communion (we don't keep grape juice stored except for Capri Sun for the kids), but they would still get it.

[DaRev]

We can thank Dr. Welch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bramwell_Welch)for the pasteurization of grape juice, and the subsequent marketing of such to churches under the name "Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine." He was a Methodist, and a prohibitionist.

Pastor Welch was also the inventor of the individual shot glasses that our congregations have been plagued with ever since.

[PreachersWife2004]

Pastor Welch was also the inventor of the individual shot glasses that our congregations have been plagued with ever since.

I miss common cup. My home church offered both, but hubby's church has done individual cup for as long as they can remember. Hubby isn't thrilled with common cup because he's afraid he's going to chip teeth. He only has 2-D vision, and he actually spilled a lot during his vicar year.

[DaRev]

But saying "fruit of the vine" can only be translated as wine is incorrect. Just because wine was the only way they had to preserve grapes doesn't necessarily mean that they were drinking wine. You can't possibly tell me that a communion with grape juice is any less than a communion with wine.

How do you know this for sure? I'm not certain of it. All I know is that Jesus used unleavened bread and wine ("oinon" in Greek) to institute His supper. I am not convinced that using anything else makes the Sacrament.

To say that those people who can't have alcohol for whatever reason should just refrain from communion is not fair. Communion was instituted for everyone, not just those who can tolerate alcohol.

I never said they should refrain from taking communion. If they cannot tolerate the alcohol, then only receive the host, or receive the blood of Christ by intincture. That's how it was done all those hundreds of years before Pastor Welch invented pasteurized grape juice.

Now, that being said, I do have to admit that there is one person here that receives grape juice at communion because of an alergy. It was a practice initiated by my predecessor. There have been times when the altar guild had substituted apple juice, thinking that it didn't matter. If they think the elements don't matter, then just what is their view of the Sacrament? If it had been up to me, I would not offer the juice, but instruct the recipient concerning our use of wine and the alternatives that are available. Again, it's not about us and what we want, it's about Christ and what He has given.

[PreachersWife2004]

I think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.

We don't know for sure that it was wine they drank that night. Yes, we can reasonably assume it was given the times. But it could've been grape juice too.

If we are going to be literal and say that it was indeed wine and that we should be taking wine, then we can hardly tell someone to take only the body, can we? Jesus used both, so we should use both.

I have seen the dipping method, and I know a couple of women with alcohol allergies who can take communion in this fashion without having a reaction.

I realize that communion is not necessary for salvation, but I know how I feel just missing a single communion service. I can't begin to imagine how it might feel to have to abstain completely from it

At any rate...didn't mean to make such a big deal out of it.

[DaRev]

We don't know for sure that it was wine they drank that night. Yes, we can reasonably assume it was given the times. But it could've been grape juice too.

We do know it was wine. "Oinon" means wine.

[PreachersWife2004]

We do know it was wine. "Oinon" means wine.

I'm quite certain they were drinking wine. But I don't think that means that grape juice wouldn't suffice as well. Grape juice is merely wine without the alcohol.

[DaSeminarian]

I think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.

We don't know for sure that it was wine they drank that night. Yes, we can reasonably assume it was given the times. But it could've been grape juice too.


Actually, we do know for sure that it was wine. As DaRev stated the greek word for wine was Oinon. The other evidence is that Jerusalem is in a desert climate and there was no refrigeration to stop the fermentation of the fruit. Henceforth it is wine in all it's glory.

Grape Juice as we know it today was developed in the late 19th century by Welch who discovered that refrigeration slows down and stops the fermentation. I believe he was Methodist. This also came along at the same time as many of the "revivalist" denominations began the Tolerance leagues and alcohol of any kind was prohibited by those who attended church.

If we are going to be literal and say that it was indeed wine and that we should be taking wine, then we can hardly tell someone to take only the body, can we? Jesus used both, so we should use both.

I have seen the dipping method, and I know a couple of women with alcohol allergies who can take communion in this fashion without having a reaction.

I realize that communion is not necessary for salvation, but I know how I feel just missing a single communion service. I can't begin to imagine how it might feel to have to abstain completely from it

At any rate...didn't mean to make such a big deal out of it.

You use the method known as Tincture. This method is used in Methodist churches and maybe a few others that share similar doctrines to the Methodists.

I have my educated opinion about it but at this time i will keep it to myself.

[PreachersWife2004]

Oh we don't use it, Scott. I've just seen it used for people who couldn't tolerate the alcohol.

Not sure how I would feel about it being used as a regular method. When I was dating a Catholic, that's how they did their communion at one of the churches we attended. Course, at the other one only the priest got the wine!!

Hubby was saying earlier that the translation for oinon was "Fruit of the vine", which is commonly known as wine. But I do wonder, how different might their wine have been from ours? Not that it matters, of course. Just some rambling thoughts.

My only thing here is that I don't think we can say communion with grape juice is any less than communion with wine. To me it's like saying that a non-immersion baptism is wrong because Jesus was immersed (was he actually? that seems to be the argument used by most people). Jesus went into a river to be baptized - shouldn't we all go "down to the river" then? Do you see the point I'm making? I'm trying not to muddy it up, but I am on cold medicine so who knows?

:hug:

[DaSeminarian]

Oh we don't use it, Scott. I've just seen it used for people who couldn't tolerate the alcohol.

Not sure how I would feel about it being used as a regular method. When I was dating a Catholic, that's how they did their communion at one of the churches we attended. Course, at the other one only the priest got the wine!!

Hubby was saying earlier that the translation for oinon was "Fruit of the vine", which is commonly known as wine. But I do wonder, how different might their wine have been from ours? Not that it matters, of course. Just some rambling thoughts.

My only thing here is that I don't think we can say communion with grape juice is any less than communion with wine. To me it's like saying that a non-immersion baptism is wrong because Jesus was immersed (was he actually? that seems to be the argument used by most people). Jesus went into a river to be baptized - shouldn't we all go "down to the river" then? Do you see the point I'm making? I'm trying not to muddy it up, but I am on cold medicine so who knows?

:hug:

Cold medicine can have you thinking some pretty strange things. I looked up the history of Grape Juice and I have to admit that I was wrong. Grape juice is made by pasteurizing the grapes and killing the yeast in the juice which causes fermentation. Had nothing to do with refrigeration. Welch developed it in 1869 and his son started the Grape Juice company 24 years later.

[Plutoniua]

Cold medicine can have you thinking some pretty strange things. I looked up the history of Grape Juice and I have to admit that I was wrong. Grape juice is made by pasteurizing the grapes and killing the yeast in the juice which causes fermentation. Had nothing to do with refrigeration. Welch developed it in 1869 and his son started the Grape Juice company 24 years later.
You know, some people still believe that Jesus turned water into grape juice and that the Last Supper Jesus and the disciples drank grape juice and not wine. :(
It usually originates from those who think alcohol is the drink of the devil.

[DaRev]

You know, some people still believe that Jesus turned water into grape juice.

That just proves that they haven't read all of John 2. :P

[jcj3803]

Who'd a thunk it? :D

Ok, seriously, I have a question. IF we must use unleavened bread, doesn't that rule out the wafers? Are they actually unleavened wheat bread? They seem more like little rice cakes to me or those translucent Japanese rice noodles. I'd think matzos should be used instead.

Not trying to stir the pot, I'm truly curious.

[DaRev]

Who'd a thunk it? :D

Ok, seriously, I have a question. IF we must use unleavened bread, doesn't that rule out the wafers? Are they actually unleavened wheat bread?

Yes, they are.

[synger]

Whenever I think of the various ways people look at the elements, I am reminded of a scene in the book Angela's Ashes. The grandmother is devout Catholic, and they venerate the elements. The boy has just had his first confession and first communion, and he is ill. He ends up vomiting in the back yard, and his grandmother gets all upset, sure that there must be a special way to clean it up, since it is God's body. When the priest says to clean it with water, she asks if she should use holy water.

I think it was the first time I'd really begun to understand how seriously some Catholics take the elements.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Whenever I think of the various ways people look at the elements, I am reminded of a scene in the book Angela's Ashes. The grandmother is devout Catholic, and they venerate the elements. The boy has just had his first confession and first communion, and he is ill. He ends up vomiting in the back yard, and his grandmother gets all upset, sure that there must be a special way to clean it up, since it is God's body. When the priest says to clean it with water, she asks if she should use holy water.

I think it was the first time I'd really begun to understand how seriously some Catholics take the elements.

Serious they are... This is a true story.

About 35 or 40 years ago St. Columban RC Church was in the process of doing some post Vatican II renovations. The Altar had been removed, and a temporary Tabernacle made of pine had been set up until the new one arrived. A poor starving "Church mouse" chewed a hole in the back of it and consumed some of the consecrated host. Since the mouse had consumed Christ's body it was decided that killing it would be out of the question. The Priest eventually caught the "Sanctified rodent" and kept it as a pet for some time. It eventually died, and was buried in consecrated ground in the parish cemetery.^_^ (I probably shouldn't laugh).

[NordicLutheran]

About 35 or 40 years ago St. Columban RC Church was in the process of doing some post Vatican II renovations. The Altar had been removed, and a temporary Tabernacle made of pine had been set up until the new one arrived. A poor starving "Church mouse" chewed a hole in the back of it and consumed some of the consecrated host. Since the mouse had consumed Christ's body it was decided that killing it would be out of the question. The Priest eventually caught the "Sanctified rodent" and kept it as a pet for some time. It eventually died, and was buried in consecrated ground in the parish cemetery.^_^ (I probably shouldn't laugh).
I laughed too, but aren't we supposed to view the Elements sort of like this too?

[PreachersWife2004]

I laughed too, but aren't we supposed to view the Elements sort of like this too?

Maybe not as much.

I mean...and I don't want to be gross, but...

We take communion, right? Then we go potty. We still flush the toilet, right? Get the idea?

Yes we take the elements seriously, but not so seriously that we end up sounding ridiculous. Up on the communion rail at my old church, my pastor likes to point out all the little spots where people have spilled their wine over the years. Come to think of it, I don't know why a good carpet cleaning doesn't take care of that, actually. But he uses it as an illustration in catechism class.

And, for the rat, I don't care if it did eat of the Host. I would've still smooshed it with a frying pan.