The Lord's Supper, The Holy Eucharist, Holy Communion

[benedictine]

I have a couple of questions. First, I am Episcopalian, so please forgive any innacuracies on my part.

1- Why do you call Holy Communion "The Lord's Supper"?

2- Why do you not use wine, as Jesus did during the Last Supper?

3- Why do you not celebrate Communion on regular Sundays?

Thanks.

[kayanne]

I will give you the answers from my church's perspective (an independent Bible church similar to General Assoc of Regular Baptist)

1. Sometimes it is called The Lord's Supper or The Lord's Table, but most often it is called Communion. There is no particular name for it in Scripture, so I have honestly never gave much thought as to why we call it by those various names. Its "name" just doesn't seem that important I guess.
2. I have never heard an official answer about this, or really given it much thought either. I was raised United Methodist, and we used grape juice there also, so that just seems "normal" to me. I would guess that it might have something to do with the fact that children participate in Communion, and in our particular society, children do not generally drink alcohol (well, of course some kids do, but not legally). (not saying it's illegal for children to consume Communion wine--never thought about that either! Anyone know?) At Jesus' last supper with His disciples, they were all adults of course. Another possible reason is that a lot of people think the "wine" referred to in the Bible was really more like juice (I don't believe that, but many do).
3. The Bible does not specify how often Communion should be taken. I know that when I used to attend a church at which Communion was served every single service (Sun morning, Sun night, Wed night), *for me* it would start to become, oh....less significant I guess I could say. I mean, on Sun morning I would really search my heart, confess my sins, thank God for His gift of Jesus and for the blessings of that week.......and then at church on Sun night it would kinda be hard to think of much more to add to that since it was only about 7 or 8 hours since I'd had communion earlier in the day. Now that I participate in Communion only once every couple of months, it is something I can truly look forward to and it is very meaningful. Another thing our church does is that we only have Communion on Sunday evenings rather than Sunday mornings. This is just our pastor's preference, as he knows that Sun morning services generally have many guests and casual attenders. Sunday night tends to be pretty much the devoted church members. Pastor takes very seriously the scripture about not taking Communion unworthily, so he prefers not to serve Communion during the service with visitors, who may or may not be saved, but who may feel like they just need to "join in" and take Communion along with everyone else. (despite pastor's careful explanation about this every single time).

[jenptcfan]

I have a couple of questions. First, I am Episcopalian, so please forgive any innacuracies on my part.

1- Why do you call Holy Communion "The Lord's Supper"?

2- Why do you not use wine, as Jesus did during the Last Supper?

3- Why do you not celebrate Communion on regular Sundays?

Thanks.
Hi Benedictine,

We call it the Lord's Supper because it mirrors the last supper the Lord had with the disciples.

There are probably several reasons why wine isn't used, but one that comes to mind is that many Baptists typically view drinking alcohol as sin. We use unfermented grape juice instead.

I'm not sure what the official stance on why we don't observe this ordinance every Sunday is, but I would assume it's because we see it as being symbolic only and not necessary every Sunday.

[Rising_Suns]

Now that I participate in Communion only once every couple of months, it is something I can truly look forward to


hi :)
That is something I have been curious about, is the logic used above (and please forgive if I sound confrontational; that is definately not my intent) To Catholics, communion is an important Tradition that Christ handed down to us, one that is a profound act of love. So I just do not understand why this logic (sort of like; "absense makes the heart grow fonder") would apply to Holy Communion. If you love someone, you most likely would take every chance you can get to let them know. You wouldn't tell your spouse; "i'm only going to tell you i love you once a month because I want it to remain special". Does this make sense? That is just where I am getting confused on the Protestant persepctive.

The other thing that has confused me which is sort of in addition to the question above--and maybe my fellow Protestant brethren can help me on this-- is if the Apostles had communion daily (Acts 2:46), why do baptists and other protestants do it so litte?

Thank you for taking your time to answer my questions. I hope I did not sidetrack this thread too much.


Yours in Christ,
-Davide

[GreenEyedLady]

I have a couple of questions. First, I am Episcopalian, so please forgive any innacuracies on my part.

1- Why do you call Holy Communion "The Lord's Supper"?

2- Why do you not use wine, as Jesus did during the Last Supper?

3- Why do you not celebrate Communion on regular Sundays?

Thanks.
1. We call it the LORDS supper not the LAST supper because it was not the LAST supper Jesus had. When he rose again, he ate with the Apostles, also we will have a supper with HIM in heaven. That is why we tend to lean on the LORD's supper and not Holy Communion. I do agree with the other posters and there answers given.

2. We belive the Christ was the unspotted lamb. That Christ who was perfect, could not place anything that would be concidered harmful to his spirit or body. We believe that HE was a perfect sacrifice and never used a HIGHLY fermented wine to drink with at the suppers. Although there might be some fermentaion, the alchol content was not any where near what we drink today.
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. This is of course John the Baptist, however I think its important to note that he was totally sober.
Judges 13:7 But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his
death.
Jesus was of Nazerine and most likely we think, had taken the vow. Have you studied this in your OT about the Nazarite vows? Its the story of Sampson. Any Nazarite that took this vow, grew thier hair long......and could not do anything in the above verse.


3. IT is a very special service that is closed in some churches and open in others, it really depends on the church. Baptist focas more on soul winning (leading people to Christ) invitations (allowing people to make the desision to accept Christ as thier savior), and baptisms rather than communion on Sundays. A couple times a year we do hold the Lord supper and I have to say that it is the most moving experience that I have ever had.

That is my 2 cents
GEL

[Crazy Liz]

2. We belive the Christ was the unspotted lamb. That Christ who was perfect, could not place anything that would be concidered harmful to his spirit or body. We believe that HE was a perfect sacrifice and never used a HIGHLY fermented wine to drink with at the suppers. Although there might be some fermentaion, the alchol content was not any where near what we drink today.
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. This is of course John the Baptist, however I think its important to note that he was totally sober.
Judges 13:7 But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his
death.
Jesus was of Nazerine and most likely we think, had taken the vow. Have you studied this in your OT about the Nazarite vows? Its the story of Sampson. Any Nazarite that took this vow, grew thier hair long......and could not do anything in the above verse.

Interesting. I didn't know about that belief. I thought the scriptures said otherwise:

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!'
"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."
--Matthew 11:18-19

"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon!'
"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
"Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children."
--Luke 7:33-35

My church uses grape juice also, but I simply was unaware of this as a reason.

[Crazy Liz]

I have a couple of questions. First, I am Episcopalian, so please forgive any innacuracies on my part.

1- Why do you call Holy Communion "The Lord's Supper"?

I don't think the scriptures refer to this practice by any name other than possibly "breaking of bread," so there does not seem to be a biblical name. The words used are traditional, so different words can be used, as well.

Free Church Protestants generally do not believe this practice is anything more than an "object lesson," or something we practice out of obedience to Christ, to remember Christ's death until he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)

Therefore, we tend to avoid words like "Mass" and "Eucharist" that have come to be associated with a meaning that goes beyond this.

2- Why do you not use wine, as Jesus did during the Last Supper?

Many of us have traditions of opposing the use of alcohol. the scriptures say "cup," not "wine," and Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18 refer to the "fruit of the vine." Therefore, a cup filled with the fruit of the vine is all scripture literally prescribes.

3- Why do you not celebrate Communion on regular Sundays?

There is no particular frequency pescribed in scripture, so we allow this to vary.

[theseed]

1- Why do you call Holy Communion "The Lord's Supper"?

communion means to share, and is related to communism. This is speculation on my part, but I think it may be more specific to say Lord's Supper.

2- Why do you not use wine, as Jesus did during the Last Supper?

We feel convicted about abstaining from alcohol.

3- Why do you not celebrate Communion on regular Sundays?
I don't know, however, it does seem that it was done weekly in the NT. There is no command to observe it weekly, but rather it should be done often.

[theseed]

You wouldn't tell your spouse; "i'm only going to tell you i love you once a month because I want it to remain special". Does this make sense? That is just where I am getting confused on the Protestant persepctive.
This is a straw man :sorry:

We always emphasize having a personal relationship with Christ, and The Lord's Supper is not needed for that. Many people in the OT had a personal relationship with Christ.

And if you don't have a personal relationship with Christ--you don't know Him and he does not know you, then you will not enter His Kingdom. And you can not have a personal relationship with His Church, His Bride, the body of Christ.

[theseed]

Jesus was of Nazerine and most likely we think, had taken the vow. Have you studied this in your OT about the Nazarite vows? Its the story of Sampson. Any Nazarite that took this vow, grew thier hair long......and could not do anything in the above verse.

Nazerine and Nazerite are not the same thing.

[theseed]

According to Charles C. Ryrie, a Baptist theologian, The Lord's Supper was probably done on a weekly basis (Acts 20.7)

However, Paul mere indicates "as oft" (1 Cor. 11.23-25)

[Rising_Suns]

We always emphasize having a personal relationship with Christ, and The Lord's Supper is not needed for that.
hi the seed,
thank you for your response. What you said makes sense, if you view the Eucharist to be symbolic. Also (and please forgive me if i sound like I am debating), could you answer my other question; why did the Apostles have Holy Communion every day, yet in today's society, it would be hard to find Church's who do it not even once a week?

[FreeinChrist]

Act 2:44 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;Act 2:45 and they {began} selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.Act 2:46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.Doesn't look to me that they observed communion everyday.


I don't see any particular instruction in scripture for how often to observe communion.

[Rising_Suns]

"Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking the bread in their homes"--acts 2:46 (NAB)

your translation (looks like NASB?) seems to be a little less clear on that paasage.

[FreeinChrist]

"Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking the bread in their homes"--acts 2:46 (NAB)

your translation (looks like NASB?) seems to be a little less clear on that paasage.
The NASB is a literal word for word translation, while the New American Bible has more paraphrasing (for lack of a better word).
So I like the NASB as a study bible much better.

Revised Standard Version:
Act 2:44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common;Act 2:45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.Act 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

KJV
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
I believe that what was expressed here was love for each other as Christians. If it included formal recognition of the Lord's supper is not clear. We do learn that later, the 'love feasts' became a problem in that they were abused.
I just don't see an command for how often we are to do it, but I see insturctions for the state of our hearts and minds when participating.

I believe Jesus is more concerned about the hearts and minds, our relationship with Him, and not how often it is observed.

[theseed]

"Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking the bread in their homes"--acts 2:46 (NAB)

your translation (looks like NASB?) seems to be a little less clear on that paasage.
Here is Youngs Literal Translation.

Acts 2
46 Daily also continuing with one accord in the temple, breaking also at every house bread, they were partaking of food in gladness and simplicity of heart,



Here is the English Greek comparison at Blue letter bible.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1085335507-6982.html#46

[theseed]

"Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking the bread in their homes"--acts 2:46 (NAB)

your translation (looks like NASB?) seems to be a little less clear on that paasage.
Here is the Douey Rehims version

ACTS 2:46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

[Rising_Suns]

whatever translation you use, it seems pretty clear that the Apostles broke bread on a regular basis (if not daily, atleast weekly). there is plenty other pasages in Acts to back this up as well.

So I would like to again ask you, why don't today's Church's keep with the same Tradition?

and again, please forgive if I sound confrontational. I do not want to start a debate; just trying to figure out why this practice has been watered down so much.

[theseed]

Hi Rising Suns, :wave:

Why did the Apostles have Holy Communion every day, yet in today's society, it would be hard to find Church's who do it not even once a week?

I assume you are refering to Acts 2.46, which would seem that they did observe the Lord's Supper everyday, however, there is no command that it must be observed with a specific freqency. As Pual indicates in 1 Cor. 11 with the phrase "as oft". Also, in a previous post here, I cited scipture from a Baptist professor that said it seemed to be done weekly.

I will add for comment, that 3/4 of churches do not immerse when they baptize--yet it was the practice of the NT church.

[kayanne]

whatever translation you use, it seems pretty clear that the Apostles broke bread on a regular basis (if not daily, atleast weekly). there is plenty other pasages in Acts to back this up as well.

So I would like to again ask you, why don't today's Church's keep with the same Tradition?

and again, please forgive if I sound confrontational. I do not want to start a debate; just trying to figure out why this practice has been watered down so much.

Act 2:44 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;Act 2:45 and they {began} selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.Act 2:46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Rising Sun, I have never thought of this verse as referring to Holy Communion, but just simply eating their meals with each other. Of course they had to eat everyday. But since you are looking at this verse and asking why do we not have Communion daily, I would say that we don't do the other things mentioned in these verses. This is just a narrative of how the apostles were living, not commands from the Lord. We do not sell our property and possessions to share with everyone, we do not (on a daily basis) take our meals together with other Christians. So even if "breaking bread" does refer to Communion rather than just the meal, and even if they did partake in Communion every day, it does not seem logical to use this verse as support for us to do so everyday (unless we are going to adopt the total lifestyle of selling and sharing, etc).

[GreenEyedLady]

I also want to add that many many NT churchs don't observe the sabbath and that is a weekly bread breaking ceremony also.
GEL

[theseed]

and again, please forgive if I sound confrontational. I do not want to start a debate; just trying to figure out why this practice has been watered down so much.

I don't feel that it has been water down--in fact, if I did it everyday or week I would not appreciate it has much.

[Rising_Suns]

But since you are looking at this verse and asking why do we not have Communion daily, I would say that we don't do the other things mentioned in these verses. This is just a narrative of how the apostles were living, not commands from the Lord. We do not sell our property and possessions to share with everyone, we do not (on a daily basis) take our meals together with other Christians.

hey kayanne, good to see you,
Yes I see your point, but perhaps we should. :)

in fact, if I did it everyday or week I would not appreciate it has much.

hi the seed,
I know for me personally, this has not been the case. Ever since I started going to Mass every day, I have found a deeper reverence for the sacrament of Holy Communion. Sometimes when I miss Mass, I almost feel like my day was never complete.

You will find this to be the case with many Catholics as well.

[FreeinChrist]

whatever translation you use, it seems pretty clear that the Apostles broke bread on a regular basis (if not daily, atleast weekly). there is plenty other pasages in Acts to back this up as well.

So I would like to again ask you, why don't today's Church's keep with the same Tradition?
Acts 2:46 is referring to the the immediate months following the Day of Pentecost. I believe that was a rather unique time. There is evidence that the love feasts were abused and were discontinued in the Apostles day. The wording does not clearly state they observed communion everyday, just that they ate everyday.

There is no indication that Paul celebrated communion with every meal, or every day. Or that he taught it must be done everyday.

Now if you are feeling spiritually rewarded by attending mass everyday, that is great. Is it the communion or is it the prayer and time you spend considering the Lord? I suspect it is the later.

I do not beleive that scripture teaches that communion must be everyday....but that we are to live for Christ everyday. That we are to pray alot, everyday. Wherever we are. I beleive it is the relationship that is significant, not how much we do communion.

[FreeinChrist]

I don't feel that it has been water down--in fact, if I did it everyday or week I would not appreciate it has much.
I don't believe it is watered down either. Our church does it monthly, and it is always a very reverant, reflective time.

[Lynn73]

About the grape juice instead of wine, here is something I heard. Wine is grape juice that has fermented or "decayed." Therefore we shouldn't be using something in which decay or rot has taken place to represent Jesus' blood. What they used in Jesus' time probably was what they called new wine and had very little fermentation as someone pointed out.

Our church takes communion every week and I don't take it lightly nor does it become old. Jesus said as often eat this bread and drink this cup, you're showing the Lord's death until He comes.

[Rising_Suns]

Now if you are feeling spiritually rewarded by attending mass everyday, that is great. Is it the communion or is it the prayer and time you spend considering the Lord? I suspect it is the later.

The Mass as a whole is structured in such a way that we exeprience many sides to the heart of Jesus; repentance as we humbly ask for mercy, thankfulness as we turn to God for strength, praise as we glorify His name, and charity as we pray for the world. And all this revolves around our profound union with Christ through the Eucharist. So to answer your question, yes I feel spiritually rewarded when I go to Mass, but it is after the moment when I partake in the Eucharist that I feel most in union with our Lord. I cannot explain how or why it happes, but I am now convinced that this sacament nourishes our soul in profound ways.

[FreeinChrist]

I am glad you feel in union with Christ from participating in Mass.

I have found that prayer, with or without Bible study, bring me into union with Christ. I beleive that when I was saved, I received the indwelling of the Holy spirit...and He is with me all the time. :)

[sobresaliente]

hi :)
That is something I have been curious about, is the logic used above (and please forgive if I sound confrontational; that is definately not my intent) To Catholics, communion is an important Tradition that Christ handed down to us, one that is a profound act of love. So I just do not understand why this logic (sort of like; "absense makes the heart grow fonder") would apply to Holy Communion. If you love someone, you most likely would take every chance you can get to let them know. You wouldn't tell your spouse; "i'm only going to tell you i love you once a month because I want it to remain special". Does this make sense? That is just where I am getting confused on the Protestant persepctive.
Baptists do not believe the eucharist is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is only symbolic, the RC idea of communion is seen as canibalistic and idolatrous in baptist circles. It is not rational, nor is it seen as biblical, I think if more baptist's knew about adoration there would be more of an uproar. This is the main reason why we do not celebrate communion as often as Roman Catholics. When communion is taken it is a reminder of what Christ has done on the cross, and we contemplate these things while taking communion(It is remembering what Christ did on the cross, communion is an act of remembrance of the act of love you speak of). Communion is not another sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, only bloodless. Christ died for our sins on the cross ONCE AND FOR ALL. It can never be repeated, it has already been done. As Jesus Christ my Savior said on the cross,"It is finished"

Sobresaliente

[Rising_Suns]

Baptists do not believe the eucharist is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is only symbolic, the RC idea of communion is seen as canibalistic and idolatrous in baptist circles. It is not rational, nor is it seen as biblical, I think if more baptist's knew about adoration there would be more of an uproar. This is the main reason why we do not celebrate communion as often as Roman Catholics. When communion is taken it is a reminder of what Christ has done on the cross, and we contemplate these things while taking communion(It is remembering what Christ did on the cross, communion is an act of remembrance of the act of love you speak of). Communion is not another sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, only bloodless. Christ died for our sins on the cross ONCE AND FOR ALL. It can never be repeated, it has already been done. As Jesus Christ my Savior said on the cross,"It is finished"

Sobresalientehi sobresaliente,
I do not want to get into a debate here, so I would like to invite you to OBOB where you are welcomed to post any questions/concerns you have about the Catholic faith. Perhaps we can clear up some of these issues you have.

[BBAS 64]

I have a couple of questions. First, I am Episcopalian, so please forgive any innacuracies on my part. .
Good Day, Benadictine

1- Why do you call Holy Communion "The Lord's Supper"?
Never quite thought of this, the last supper was the Lord's supper in that the eternal "lamb" was sacrifed. The last supper attended was the passover sadder.

2- Why do you not use wine, as Jesus did during the Last Supper?.
The third Sadder cup was the cup of redemtion and Jesus brought redemton to his people, it was not about it's contents, by the 6000 year history of the "cup".

3- Why do you not celebrate Communion on regular Sundays?.
How often was the sadder meal served in the history of the Jewish people?

Thanks.[/QUOTE]
You are welcome.

For His Glory Alone! :clap:

Bill

[Crazy Liz]

About the grape juice instead of wine, here is something I heard. Wine is grape juice that has fermented or "decayed." Therefore we shouldn't be using something in which decay or rot has taken place to represent Jesus' blood. What they used in Jesus' time probably was what they called new wine and had very little fermentation as someone pointed out.

Our church takes communion every week and I don't take it lightly nor does it become old. Jesus said as often eat this bread and drink this cup, you're showing the Lord's death until He comes.

Well, that's a common tradition among Baptists, but the part about what Jesus actually used is not really valid. Note that in Acts 2, the disciples were accused of being "drunk with new wine." Since my family used to own vineyards and make wine, I can tell you that by springtime (when the Passover is held) there is no wine "with very little fermentation." The very last grape harvest would be completed by October or November. (BTW, the last grapes harvested would be very high in sugar, so the wine made from them would be the highest in alcohol.) Without refrigeration or other modern methods of food preservation, the main fermentation would certainly be complete by the time 4-7 months had gone by since the grape harvest.

Now, we can choose to use fermented or unfermented grape juice for reasons of convenience or for theological reasons, just as we can use leavened (fermented) or unleavened bread for reasons of convenience or for theological reasons. [Want to see a fight? Try starting a discussion between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox about which kind of bread should be used for the Eucharist! ^_^

... no ... really ... on second thought, don't. :o Proverbs 6:19]

[kayanne]

Baptists do not believe the eucharist is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is only symbolic,....

This much I would say is accurate.

... the RC idea of communion is seen as canibalistic and idolatrous in baptist circles.

This may be the opinion of some baptists, but I would not want any catholics to think that is official baptist teaching or absolute baptist beliefs.

It is not rational, nor is it seen as biblical,

For me it does not line up with my personal understanding of scriptures. But while I disagree with the cath interpretation of the literal "This is my body," I do respect their interpretation of various scriptures to come to the conclusion they hold as true.

I think if more baptist's knew about adoration there would be more of an uproar. This is the main reason why we do not celebrate communion as often as Roman Catholics.

What does catholic adoration have to do with how often baptists celebrate communion? :scratch:

When communion is taken it is a reminder of what Christ has done on the cross, and we contemplate these things while taking communion(It is remembering what Christ did on the cross, communion is an act of remembrance of the act of love you speak of). Communion is not another sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, only bloodless. Christ died for our sins on the cross ONCE AND FOR ALL. It can never be repeated, it has already been done. As Jesus Christ my Savior said on the cross,"It is finished"

Sobresaliente

I would agree with these last statements. But overall I think you go too far in attempting to speak for all baptists.

[Carrye]

This may be the opinion of some baptists, but I would not want any catholics to think that is official baptist teaching or absolute baptist beliefs.
Thank you for your charity, Kayanne.

Communion is not another sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, only bloodless. Christ died for our sins on the cross ONCE AND FOR ALL. It can never be repeated, it has already been done. As Jesus Christ my Savior said on the cross,"It is finished"

Just to clarify Catholic belief (and not to argue Baptist), as it is misrepresented/misunderstood here: the sacrifice of the Mass is not a repetition of Christ's act on Calvary, for as you say, it cannot be repeated. The Catholic understanding is that God is above the human limitations of space and time, and so the Mass is not a re-sacrifice, but a re-presentation of the same sacrifice - it is Christ's sacrifice that Friday on Calvary.

CCC [original emphasis]
1366 (javascript:openWindow('cr/1366.htm');) The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:


[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189 1367 (javascript:openWindow('cr/1367.htm');) The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

[Sinai]

I have a couple of questions. First, I am Episcopalian, so please forgive any innacuracies on my part.

1- Why do you call Holy Communion "The Lord's Supper"?Since the two terms are largely interchangable, you will find both terms used by various churches, commentators and other writers. I suspect that the principal reason most Baptists tend to use the term Lord's Supper is probably because that was the preferred term used in the New Testament, though it was also called the Lord's table.

2- Why do you not use wine, as Jesus did during the Last Supper?Although we know that Jesus and his disciples were criticized for drinking wine on other occasions, and we know that Paul criticized the Corrinthian church for using the Lord's supper as an excuse to get drunk, we do not know from the scriptures whether Jesus used fermented wine during the Last Supper. The scriptural accounts appear to almost go out of their way to avoid telling us whether the "fruit of the vine" was fermented. Instead, we are instructed that we are to take the cup in remembrance of the blood Christ shed for our redemption. Similarly, this is not generally a part of Baptist doctrine; instead, each autonomous Baptist church is usually free to use whatever fruit of the vine it determines is most appropriate to helping the believers remember Jesus' sacrifice.

3- Why do you not celebrate Communion on regular Sundays?This is also a matter left to each autonomous local church. I have been in some Baptist churches that do observe the Lord's supper each Sunday, but most choose not to do so--generally for the reasons already discussed in this thread.

[BBAS 64]

Baptists do not believe the eucharist is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is only symbolic, the RC idea of communion is seen as canibalistic and idolatrous in baptist circles. It is not rational, nor is it seen as biblical, I think if more baptist's knew about adoration there would be more of an uproar. This is the main reason why we do not celebrate communion as often as Roman Catholics. When communion is taken it is a reminder of what Christ has done on the cross, and we contemplate these things while taking communion(It is remembering what Christ did on the cross, communion is an act of remembrance of the act of love you speak of). Communion is not another sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, only bloodless. Christ died for our sins on the cross ONCE AND FOR ALL. It can never be repeated, it has already been done. As Jesus Christ my Savior said on the cross,"It is finished"

Sobresaliente
Good Day, Sobresaliente

Great post, :cool:

For your edification:

Eusebius:
"And then 'He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,' and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 1:10)

Peace tou,

Bill

[P_G]

First off a Big Tip of the Hat to BBAS 64!

Let me expound a bit if I may

What was this meal?
Well this was the meal taken of the first night of Pesach or Pasover
It would have been on Tuesday based on custom and law. It was a
celebratory meal much the same as we Americans celebrate Thanksgiving
and it would have many of the same kind of reasons for celebrating it.
Religious freedom, A new nation, Removal from bondage. It was and still
is a great celebration looked forward to all year long by the Jewish people.

What was this bread?
The bread refrenced was a specific piece of a specific type of matzoh. Now
most know that matzoh is a cracker like bread but matzoh which is made to be kosher for the passover is specially cooked. It is and must be very hard, pierced through so and striped. The peircing is to ensure that absolutly no mosture can be found in it this would allow for the natural formation of kushrach or leveaning. This is not allowed durring the passover. Also the stripes as a reminder of the beatings suffered at the hands of the Egyptians. It is known as the bread of afliction.

The specific piece that Jesus (Y'shua) would have held is known as the "afikomen" It is broken towards the begining part of the meal. It is then hidden away or actually burried in a sort of shrowd. This afikomen is unveiled toward the end of the meal time. It "arises" from its grave. And is consumed then.

(Lets see we have a piece of bread called the bread of afliction which is striped, pierced and burried that was later risen from it's burrial shroud are you seeing a connection here?)

Now as for this cup. This is the third of 4 cups of sweet wine consumed durring the meal or what is known as "new wine" it had little if any alcohol in it. The name of this cup translated is "the cup of redemption" The cup of redemption was what Y'shua told us was his blood. In fact his blood was our cup of redemption. Interestingly enough he did not drink from the 4th cup. Hence this cup is the one he mentions when he says I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine till I come again in glory.

And we will at the wedding feast of the lamb.


So why would we not do this more often?

Well my more messianic brothers would tell you that this meal should only be commerated once a year. I would tell you that the rememberence goes for EVERY meal you have. But as a group let it show more restraint more reverence. The meals Paul refers to are "love feasts" this is that "every meal" that I allude to.

Why do many protestant denominiations not use alcohol (wine) as part of the communion service? Well for many of us myself included we come from a background of alcoholism. The least bit of wine would set off this disease. So we do not use it at all.

I pray this answers some questions

And raises others!

Blessings

Pastor George :wave:

[BBAS 64]

Thank you, Pastor George

I tip my hat to you also brother.


Peace to u,

Bill

[Sinai]

What was this meal?
Well this was the meal taken of the first night of Pesach or Pasover
It would have been on Tuesday based on custom and law. Don't you mean Thursday?

[P_G]

Don't you mean Thursday?
[/font]


Nope I meant Tuesday evening or the begining of the first day of Pesach.


Some time we will discuss why Y'shua could not have been crucified on a Friday and holidays being refered to as Sabbath days in Hebrew lexicon.

Don't stumble over this ok?

Blessings

Pastor George
:wave:

[Iollain]

Pastor George thanks for that information. I find it amazing when a Messianic person answers questions, i've been to a few Messianic online-chat bible studies and am always blessed from it.

[BBAS 64]

Pastor George thanks for that information. I find it amazing when a Messianic person answers questions, i've been to a few Messianic online-chat bible studies and am always blessed from it.
Amen sister,:clap:

Mj's rock.:angel:

Bill

[P_G]

Pastor George thanks for that information. I find it amazing when a Messianic person answers questions, i've been to a few Messianic online-chat bible studies and am always blessed from it.
Here is where I hijack the thread and put on my college prof. hat.

Biblical hermanuitics 101

Anything taken out of context is a pretext!
We can usually spot this right away when some one does it
They take a single scripture out of the contextural environment and
make a doctrine out of it. The snake handlers come right to mind with this
taking Mark 16 as doctrine.

Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Most would agree that there is plenty enough scriptural evidence that says not to tempt the L-rd.

So what is the true context of the scripture? The true context is that it is comming from a Jewish culture. Jewish customs, Jewish mories, Jewish law and Jewish sensitivities. Even those things written to and for the gentile were written by Jewish writers.

Why am I saying this here in the Baptist / Anabaptist fora? And as an Anabaptist? So that we all will look at the scripture and see the fullness of it. Just like the striped and pierced afikomen it starts to really make a LOT of sense.

And as people who seek the truth of the scriptures in their purest sense I think we more than anyone would want to see what the Lord had written for us with out preconcieved man made notions added on later.

Read out of scripture not into it.

When I read out of scripture it talks to me and changes me
When I read into it I force the scripture to say what I want it to say because "I" know better than ------- G-d?


Blessings

Pastor George :wave:

[GreenEyedLady]

I completley agree with this.
My pastor had given a sermon about how people "reason" with the scriptures.
What that really means is that they put scriptures in "their" standards, not God's which the creates a differant authority, thier own mind. In a way, this could be creating yourself or your mind (what you think) as an idol. What you "think" could be more important that what GOD said.
Anyway, that is a good point!
GEL

[Lynn73]

Baptists do not believe the eucharist is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is only symbolic, the RC idea of communion is seen as canibalistic and idolatrous in baptist circles. It is not rational, nor is it seen as biblical.

Amen, thanks for speaking up about this. I'm not a Baptist but I agree with you about communion. The Catholic view is also seen as unbiblical in a lot of other circles besides the Baptist.

[Rising_Suns]

So what is the true context of the scripture? The true context is that it is comming from a Jewish culture. Jewish customs, Jewish mories, Jewish law and Jewish sensitivities. Even those things written to and for the gentile were written by Jewish writers.

That is a very good point. And not just taking into account the culture of the time, but the overall historical context and evidence as well. Too many Christians today blindly ready the Bible without any knolwedge of history; without any knowledge of the early Church, what the very first Christians believed. The writings of the early Church fathers for example provide insight as to how the Bible was first interpretted, and many of these people were appointed by the apostles themsevles; considering that, they are certainly more qualified than any unbased private interpretations 2,000 years later.




In Christ,
-Davide

[FreeinChrist]

That is a very good point. And not just taking into account the culture of the time, but the overall historical context and evidence as well. Too many Christians today blindly ready the Bible without any knolwedge of history; without any knowledge of the early Church, what the very first Christians believed. The writings of the early Church fathers for example provide insight as to how the Bible was first interpretted, and many of these people were appointed by the apostles themsevles; considering that, they are certainly more qualified than any unbased private interpretations 2,000 years later.
There were differences in iopinion in the early church fathers....AND those that did not agree with what the RCC later developed as doctrine often had their work changed posthumously or it was destroyed. Papias was millennarian...his work destroyed. Eusibius and Jerome refer to Victorinous as a millennarian..and his work was changed to be anti-millenniarian. Justin Martyr was amillennarian (about 120 AD). That was left untouched, possibly because too many copies existed.

So it is scripture that is the authority, which is inspirted by God, over the efforts of man.

And you speak as if the private opinions of people now are brand new...when much was expressed in the early church that is held now by Protestants. Luther was not 2000 years later, nor was Calvin, nor was Papias or Victorinus. Victorinus even wrote, way back in 300 AD that the church was founded on the Rock - JESUS CHRIST.

[GreenEyedLady]

I see why Baptists attack us so much; they've been brought up with all these misconceptions about our Church. When will the slander ever stop?
This is not a misconception. Are no one is slandering anyone.
I also want to point out that Baptist don't ATTACK anyone.
We base everything on God's word, not mans word.
We are not the bad guy........we are just servants of God spreading the Gospel truth.
GEL

[Rising_Suns]

This is not a misconception. Are no one is slandering anyone.I see. so you are confirming sobresaliente's and Lynn73's comment that Baptists see us as cannibals then. Forgive me if I can't help but get offended.

I also want to point out that Baptist don't ATTACK anyone.
We base everything on God's word, not mans word.
We are not the bad guy........we are just servants of God spreading the Gospel truth.
GELI believe you are painting with a faily large brush. Tell that to those who call the Catholic Church the "mother of all abominations of the earth", or the "whore of babylon". Do you think those people are "servants of God spreading the Gospel of truth"?

*I should say that some of my friend's are Baptists, and they can be very nice people, perhaps the nicest of Protestants. But the issue is what was said in this thread. I'm sorry, but I cannot stand by while my faith is attacked.

[ShirChadash]

What I always find very interesting in these kinds of discussions (hence, I stick my nosey-nose in to read them :blush: ) is that Catholics rarely fail to characterize anyone who disagrees with and denounces RCC practices/doctrines/dogmae, as being
uninformed, misinformed, having seen the RCC doctrines etc. presented to them unfaithfully so that misconceptions abound... the idea that seems to be behind such comments and thoughts is that if non-RCC folks would only know the truth of what the RCC teaches and what Catholics really believe... and that ~if only~ the non-RCC folks "got it" as to what is really the church practices/doctrines/dogmae etc. on a given issue, then those non-RCC folks would have little problem seeing the validity, inerrancy I dare say, and absolute truth of the RCC doctrines/practices/beliefs. Yet what I have found, since leaving the RCC some nearly 10 years ago, is that by and large most protestants I have run into actually know decently-well what the RCC teaches regarding many issues of faith, and have at least some idea of the church's teachings on SOME things, though perhaps not every issue (most Catholics do not know what the church teaches on every issue, anyway.) What I find to be the case, far more often, is that non-Catholic Christians often know the ins and outs of the RCC stance on an issue such as Communion, and many reasonably understand the doctrine behind it, but view and interpret the actual actions and the RCC's doctrines entirely differently than the RCC does -- and not invalidly... simply differently.

*ramble ramble... I had a point... really, I did...*

PS, I should say I hadn't read Rising Suns' post just above when I wrote this out... so this is not in response to that post though it may immediately follow that post, anyway.

[FreeinChrist]

I see. so you are confirming sobresaliente's and Lynn73's comment that Baptists see us as cannibals then. Forgive me if I can't help but get offended.
I beleive the phrase used was "viewed as cannibalistic" - you weren't referred to as cannibals. Let's try to stay accurate here.
We don't beleive in transubstantiation, so as we don't beleive you are actually eating blood and flesh of Jesus, you aren't a cannibal in our eyes. We simply find the doctrine of transubstantiation as "cannibalistic" - though most would refrain from using that word. I would have prefered to explain it as inconsistent with the OT picture of Christ and covenant.

I believe you are painting with a faily large brush. Tell that to those who call the Catholic Church the "mother of all abominations of the earth", or the "whore of babylon". Do you think those people are "servants of God spreading the Gospel of truth"?

Shall we bring up all the things Protestants have been called over the centuries ? Yikes.
(FYI _ I do not beleive the RCC is the ___ of Babylon or that the papacy is the AC. Just clarifying).

*I should say that some of my friend's are Baptists, and they can be very nice people, perhaps the nicest of Protestants. But the issue is what was said in this thread. I'm sorry, but I cannot stand by while my faith is attacked.
This is the Anabaptist/Baptist forum. If I would go to the OBOB and defend my beliefs, I will get a pm from a moderator. I know. I recently mistakenly posted a view thinking I was in the nondenom forum...and got dinged. It was not anti-RCC in the least. It just disagreed with the idea that the Ark of the Covenant was a picture of Mary and I explained what was in the Holy Place as a picture of the Trinity.

A common theme I have seen from our RCC bretheren is that if we disagree with you, we are "attacking". Yet, you feel free to disagree with our faith, correct? So if you disagree with me, are you actually attacking me and my faith?

In fact, I was recently reading a post in the OBOB where the poster said that if the RCC is criticized ( i.e. disagreed with), she took it as a personal attack against her. Sad. That is the thinking of those who would burn people at the stake - even if it was just mentally (regardless if RCC, Protestant, or Orthodox).

[Rising_Suns]

you aren't a cannibal in our eyes. We simply find the doctrine of transubstantiation as "cannibalistic"

I am sorry, but I fail to see the difference.

[Rising_Suns]

A common theme I have seen from our RCC bretheren is that if we disagree with you, we are "attacking". Yet, you feel free to disagree with our faith, correct? So if you disagree with me, are you actually attacking me and my faith?

There is a difference between respectfully disagreeing, and attacking. When you call our doctrine cannibalistic, you are calling us cannibals. There is no separation from us and our beliefs; we are the Catholic Church.


Please forgive me for derailing this thread. I am going to leave it be now.

May God's peace be forever with you.

[GreenEyedLady]

There is a difference between respectfully disagreeing, and attacking. When you call our doctrine cannibalistic, you are calling us cannibals. There is no separation from us and our beliefs; we are the Catholic Church.


Please forgive me for derailing this thread. I am going to leave it be now.

May God's peace be forever with you.
I have noticed that this is not the ONLY thread that you have derailed.
I think there should be a common respect here on this board for those of us who are bible believing Christians and those who believe the bible and another authority.
I think that respect is given on the OBOB board, should we expect the same respect, or just sit here and keep debating and defending God's word?
GEL

[Lynn73]

This is not a misconception. Are no one is slandering anyone.
I also want to point out that Baptist don't ATTACK anyone.
We base everything on God's word, not mans word.
We are not the bad guy........we are just servants of God spreading the Gospel truth.
GEL
Well said. God's word, not man's word. I wasn't attacking anyone, just diasgreeing with a doctrine. Many of us go by the Bible alone and we believe transusbstatiation is unscriptural. I don't think that constitutes a personal attack on anyone.

[FreeinChrist]

There is a difference between respectfully disagreeing, and attacking. When you call our doctrine cannibalistic, you are calling us cannibals. There is no separation from us and our beliefs; we are the Catholic Church.



I am sorry that you chose to beleive that you are being called a cannibal when, in fact, you are not. But I see it as your choice to believe you are being called that. I already explained that we beleive you are not, for we do not believe in transubstantiation. oh well

And we are of the church of Jesus Christ. I suppose when Catholics refer to a doctrine of a Protestant as heredoxical or heresy, you are calling us heretics and questioning our salvation. And when you criticize our doctrines, you are, then, attacking us personally. We are our faith. Then we can all get angry ....not too constructive though, IMHO..

[Rising_Suns]

I suppose when Catholics refer to a doctrine of a Protestant as heredoxical or heresy, you are calling us heretics and questioning our salvation.

Just a point of clarification, heresy is not techincally a deragatory term. One who is a heretic simply means the denial of an infallible Catholic teaching.

I do not use the word however, and hope that my Catholic brethren would not use the word when speaking about Protestants. If they have, then I apologize. The Catechsim is very clear how we should view Protestants; as part of the same body of Christ.


To the rest of what you said, I do not desire to pursue. I already made my point and there is no need to further take us off track. God bless you.

[Iollain]

That is a very good point. And not just taking into account the culture of the time, but the overall historical context and evidence as well. Too many Christians today blindly ready the Bible without any knolwedge of history; without any knowledge of the early Church, what the very first Christians believed. The writings of the early Church fathers for example provide insight as to how the Bible was first interpretted, and many of these people were appointed by the apostles themsevles; considering that, they are certainly more qualified than any unbased private interpretations 2,000 years later.
David, not everyone has time to read everything all the time, i also learn a lot from my Baptist Pastor, believe it or not, he has made it his business to study and read and learn and pray etc. as his lifes work. People are at different levels in their spiritual life, we are not as ignorant as you might think.

[Rising_Suns]

David, not everyone has time to read everything all the time, i also learn a lot from my Baptist Pastor, believe it or not, he has made it his business to study and read and learn and pray etc. as his lifes work. People are at different levels in their spiritual life, we are not as ignorant as you might think.Hi Iollain
I want to apologize to you, and to everyone here. Upon reading my previous comment, I can see how my fellow Protestants could take that to be directed at them, and that was not my intent. I was really speaking of Christians in general, as I know many Catholics who are unaware of history, and even much Catholic doctrine itself. I am writing a book on this very subject, one that is targetted to Catholics to help inform them of the truth of the Catholic faith, both in doctrine and historical context.

So I apologize if I have offended anyone, and I also apologize for getting offended so easily for those other comments. Yesturday was a strange day for me, so please know that it was not my usual character.

In Christ,
-Davide

[FreeinChrist]

We all have bad days. :)

[Iollain]

:) :cool: