The breaking of bread and drinking the wine

[michel]

One of the vicars who preaches at our local church (which is a small one, and therefore we have to make "do" with whomsoever is free each week), gave what I thought was a remarkable sermon recently.

One of the points he made was the one that Christ (at the last supper)made....see:-
BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 corinthians 11:23-11:26

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain
http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=34 http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=24 http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=2



23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

The point being that (to him) we need not be in a church to break bread and drink wine; there is nothing "wrong" with doing this at home (or, wherever one may be)............

Can you all accept this? - or not? Please expain if "no".

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I can accept this whole heartedly. As a matter of fact, it would mean more to me if it was at someone's house because of the intimacy that a house provides. I've always liked house church because it is a discussion that all the people can take part of, which gives the participants a chance to share what's on their minds concerning the topic at hand. This also allows the people to build relationships with one another, which is one of the founding principles of Christianity.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Michel,
Though am not a Christian have studied in a CAtholic school and also seen priests visiting houses conducting special masses.Besides agree with friend Jeremy MAson that comfort is most imporatnt for everyone to open up and so one's own house is the best besides Jesus's last supper was not in a church? must have been someone's dinning table.Love & rgds

 

[methylatedghosts]

So, I'm definately not Christian now, but I went to a Catholic school, and we were taught that a "church" is simply a gathering of people, and that this small ritual could be performed anywhere at any time - the meaning is in the thought behind it, not the ritual itself.

 

[sandandfoam]

There is a tradition of having Mass said in houses in Ireland called 'the Stations'. I think it's a great tradition.
Diocese Of Cork And Ross, Ireland - News, History, Mass Times

 

[Master Vigil]

Mass can definitely be said anywhere. There is a cool story of Pope JP11 as a young priest saying mass to on top of his canoe while camping. That's just awesome.

 

[FFH]

I work 7 days a week and about 10 to 12 hours a day and don't attend church. I've taken the Lord's sacrament at home and at work. It has really blessed me.

 

[Charity]

When we go to a church it is only a building, where we go to assemble as a group of believers. We are the church, our body is considered a Holy temple for God. We ourselves are a living sacrifice to Him.
Although it is good to have the fellowship of the church and to conduct this ceremony as a church body, I think it is a beautiful and meaningful devotion when we make God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit the center of our home and use it as worship. I can praise God and have the same closeness in the middle of a field, by a lake or sitting on a hillside. God is still God

 

[Dunemeister]

The church is the assembly of God's people. It is in that context that the sacraments ought to be taken. This doesn't confine it to church buildings, as others have already said. But it would be presumptuous to take the sacraments on your own, apart from the Christian community.

 

[Charity]

The church is the assembly of God's people. It is in that context that the sacraments ought to be taken. This doesn't confine it to church buildings, as others have already said. But it would be presumptuous to take the sacraments on your own, apart from the Christian community.

What if it is for the military when their out in the field? What about the people who are sick or disabled and can't get to a church. Say a family that doesn't get to see each other often and it is a Holiday or family reunion and it isn't a day when their is a Church service, would you find that to be presumptuous? What about a family member who would like to participate but had to work and you had a service at home? Jesus said where two or three are gathered I am in the midst. What about a patient who is dying and desires to receive the sacrament, should we tell them we can't do it because it is not in a church.....We are the church.....Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty.....

 

[Dunemeister]

What if it is for the military when their out in the field? What about the people who are sick or disabled and can't get to a church. Say a family that doesn't get to see each other often and it is a Holiday or family reunion and it isn't a day when their is a Church service, would you find that to be presumptuous? What about a family member who would like to participate but had to work and you had a service at home? Jesus said where two or three are gathered I am in the midst. What about a patient who is dying and desires to receive the sacrament, should we tell them we can't do it because it is not in a church.....We are the church.....Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty.....

In my previous post, you'll notice that I agree with you that the church is the community, not the building. So you already know whether I think the sacraments should be distributed only in a church.

However, we should take it as normative that the Christian community is to gather at a designated place (these days, that typically means a church or other building used for the purpse) to celebrate Mass. Provision is to be made for those who cannot participate at those designated times (the sick, the elderly, the incarcerated, the soldier -- although I have serious issues with Christians participating in large-scale organized killing, but that's a subject for another thread). I don't think we should make provision for those who are inconvenienced a little bit, but that's just my pet peeve.

Presumption, for me, comes into play when a person remains isolated from the Christian community and serves themselves the sacraments. It's presumptuous to serve the sacraments when you have not been ordained to do so. I don't think rank and file Christians are authorized, on their own, to administer the sacraments. Although Jesus said "where two or three are gathered, I am with them" it does not follow that just anyone can administer the Eucharistic rite whenever they want to in whatever manner they want to. It's presumptuous to think that you can.

 

[Charity]

Dunemeister, I agree with you about the assembling together for this sacrament. But the disciples had no credentials by an organized religion and Jesus told them "do this in remembrance of me". They attended no organized religious schools after they were called but Jesus told them to go into the world and tell the good news. It is man that set down all the rules......Those whom God calls, He qualifies. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be taught religion , theology and all the necessary education in order to gain the knowledge to preach and even teach, but to me the knowledge of God's grace and love is the first qualification for any believer......After all it is man who hands out credentials to another man to qualify them, It isn't God signing the credentials......

I'm not saying this as trying to be argumentive, I'm just wondering if things would be handled different if God was the one in charge of appointing his clergy instead of an earthly organized group of men making the choice.....My point is God is the only one who should be able to call and place His anointing on His pastors, not man.... I'm not against the formal education, my husband was an evangelist, so I definitely am not against the education............

 

[Katzpur]

Presumption, for me, comes into play when a person remains isolated from the Christian community and serves themselves the sacraments. It's presumptuous to serve the sacraments when you have not been ordained to do so. I don't think rank and file Christians are authorized, on their own, to administer the sacraments. Although Jesus said "where two or three are gathered, I am with them" it does not follow that just anyone can administer the Eucharistic rite whenever they want to in whatever manner they want to. It's presumptuous to think that you can.

I agree. I totally believe that it's presumptuous for an unordained person to administer the Eucharist/the Lord's Supper/Communion/the Sacrament.

Dunemeister, I agree with you about the assembling together for this sacrament. But the disciples had no credentials by an organized religion and Jesus told them "do this in remembrance of me". They attended no organized religious schools after they were called but Jesus told them to go into the world and tell the good news. It is man that set down all the rules......Those whom God calls, He qualifies. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be taught religion , theology and all the necessary education in order to gain the knowledge to preach and even teach, but to me the knowledge of God's grace and love is the first qualification for any believer......After all it is man who hands out credentials to another man to qualify them, It isn't God signing the credentials......

I'm not saying this as trying to be argumentive, I'm just wondering if things would be handled different if God was the one in charge of appointing his clergy instead of an earthly organized group of men making the choice.....My point is God is the only one who should be able to call and place His anointing on His pastors, not man.... I'm not against the formal education, my husband was an evangelist, so I definitely am not against the education............

I agree.

Okay, now that I've agreed with both of you, I'll throw out one other thought, and I'm sure you'll both agree with each other that I'm wrong. It is for the reason I'm about to elaborate on that people (mostly other Christians) have such issues with Mormonism. As Charity pointed out, Jesus' Apostles never attended theological seminaries or earned divinity degrees. They were, however, appointed by Jesus Christ himself. He chose them and He ordained them. He gave them the power and authority to perform sacred ordinances such as the one we're discussing. They didn't volunteer for the position; they accepted it when the call was extended to them.

We believe -- and here's where I'm probably going to offend both of you (I apologize in advance) -- that the power and authority to act in God's name can only be given by Jesus Christ. When it is man handing out the "credentials," those credentials are not binding or valid. It doesn't matter who has ordained a person, if the person doing the ordaining cannot trace his authority back to Jesus Christ himself, he doesn't have authority to ordain or anything else.

We believe that God has restored the same authority held by Jesus' Apostles, and that He has "placed the call." Every LDS man who holds the Priesthood today (and we have a lay priesthood, so there are many, many men who do), can trace his authority back to Joseph Smith, who can trace his authority back to Peter, James, and John, who can trace their authority back to Jesus Christ. It goes without saying that I wouldn't expect either of you to believe that Joseph Smith was personally ordained by the three resurrected Apostles I named. If Joseph Smith made the whole thing up and never was ordained by actual representatives of Jesus Christ, then no one after him has any more authority than any minister or pastor of any other Christian Church. On the other hand, if he was telling the truth, then both of you are right -- but so am I.

 

[Charity]

Katz, I think we all can say we all are winners here.....I believe that there has to be a divine "call" on a pastor's life. In other words someone can't just jump up and say I'm going to be a preacher, you have to be "called", "chosen", maybe anointed should be used here also...You can choose to be a doctor, a fireman, a scholar but you have to be called to be a pastor......I guess the difference between you and I is that I believe that it is a divine call that a person gets from God that you just know in your heart and mind that you are called......Something that you feel in your Spirit. I'm not disagreeing with you on your belief Katz, I'm just saying that is how I definitely know what my calling is.......A person knows if you are walking in the will of God. I'm speaking of His perfect will for our lives........Scriptures tell us that Many are called but few are chosen, probably because they don't respond to His call.
Katz basically we agree just a few minor differences in beliefs....
Peace and Love
Charity

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I don't think rank and file Christians are authorized, on their own, to administer the sacraments.

My friends and I have done this and we will do it again and again.

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunemeister, I agree with you about the assembling together for this sacrament. But the disciples had no credentials by an organized religion and Jesus told them "do this in remembrance of me". They attended no organized religious schools after they were called but Jesus told them to go into the world and tell the good news. It is man that set down all the rules......Those whom God calls, He qualifies. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be taught religion , theology and all the necessary education in order to gain the knowledge to preach and even teach, but to me the knowledge of God's grace and love is the first qualification for any believer......After all it is man who hands out credentials to another man to qualify them, It isn't God signing the credentials......

I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding about what was going on in Jesus' ministry. If Jesus wasn't training his disciples for their eventual work, what was he doing with them for three years? Was he some sort of Galilean tour guide? Of course not! The disciples were at school with him. He was ORDERING and ORGANIZING the communities that would follow after him by TRAINING the leaders of those communities.

The phrase "whom God calls he qualifies" simply means that faith is all that's required to be counted as a member of the people of God, not that all and sundry are permitted to administer the sacrament. You see, I'm not talking about qualification to receive communion or to be a believer. I'm talking about qualification to DISTRIBUTE or ADMINISTER communion. And THAT authority rested with the apostles and those to whom they invested that authority, namely presbyters (priests/pastors/ministers), deacons, and bishops (overseers).

I'm not saying this as trying to be argumentive, I'm just wondering if things would be handled different if God was the one in charge of appointing his clergy instead of an earthly organized group of men making the choice.....My point is God is the only one who should be able to call and place His anointing on His pastors, not man.... I'm not against the formal education, my husband was an evangelist, so I definitely am not against the education............

It's not either/or. It's both/and. God works THROUGH his creation, not AROUND it. Thus the group of men (and women) acknowledge and encourage the teaching and/or authoritative office of the man or woman in the power of the Spirit. God calls and anoints leaders, and the church acknowledges and encourages that calling by the laying on of hand and the provision of training and accountability.

But it seems as though we've diverted ourselves from the main point (as is usual with me, I'm afraid). The issue is the Eucharist. I've said that it is presumptuous for someone not specifically called to the role to administer the Eucharist. How a person CALLED to the role eventually gets to FULFILL that role is a matter of debate. Most denominations have some process for acknowledging, training, and keeping account over leaders. However that's done, it's only those people who have been so called AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE COMMUNITY IN THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT to undertake that role who have the authority to administer the sacraments. So if persons who have not been so called and recognized by the community as leaders take it upon themselves to administer communion, especially when they have opportunity to take community under the authority of a priest (or equivalent), they are acting in a disorderly way. They are presumptuously sinning with respect to communion just as much as were the Corinthians. Everything must be done decently and in order.

 

[Dunemeister]

My friends and I have done this and we will do it again and again.

This is consistent with a low view of the Eucharist and an inordinately high view of the self compared with it.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

This is consistent with a low view of the Eucharist and an inordinately high view of the self compared with it.

I guess that makes you the judge...:sarcastic At Thanks Giving, Christmas and Easter my friends and I pray, break bread and pass the wine in remembrance of Jesus and what he gave us. Something tells me that Jesus isn't the bit upset. Why do we need some big holy roller to validate our love for God?

 

[blackout]

So, I'm definately not Christian now, but I went to a Catholic school, and we were taught that a "church" is simply a gathering of people, and that this small ritual could be performed anywhere at any time - the meaning is in the thought behind it, not the ritual itself.

Don't know what kind of catholic school you went to love, lol,
but you definately cannot have (Roman Catholic) communion without a priest.

It is possible to have a communion service without a priest present,
but the communion wafers used must FIRST have been"consecrated"
by a catholic priest. Otherwise, it is not considered communion.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Don't know what kind of catholic school you went to love, lol,

A New Zealand one

John Paul College, Rotorua. Mixed-gender school which comes from the Edmund Rice college (boys) and the Mary Mackillop(sp?) College for girls.

but you definately cannot have (Roman Catholic) communion without a priest.

It is possible to have a communion service without a priest present,
but the communion wafers used must FIRST have been"consecrated"
by a catholic priest. Otherwise, it is not considered communion.

And we most definately were taught that it doesn't matter if you can't get to church and that it's ok to do it at home if you needed to. After all, I figured God would be just as present at church as he is in my toilet at home!!