Acts 20:7, and Christ's words.
Luke writes:
"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..."It seems the Apostolic church celebrated the Lord's Supper every Sunday. Hmm. (Some even argue that Communion was offered more than once a week.)
I find it odd that many churches only offer Holy Communion bi-monthly, monthly, quarterly, or worse yet, annually. I'd be willing to bet that many reading these words are members of a church that falls into such a category.
I'm curious. Do you feel comfortable attending a church that offers the Lord's Supper less than weekly? If you do feel comfortable, how do you justify such a practice?
In John chapter 6 Christ says:
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.It seems that His words, in the very least, reveal the importance of Holy Communion. If the Body and Blood of Christ is so important to salvation as Christ says, and if the Apostolic church practiced a weekly, if not more frequently, breaking of Bread, how do those churches explain prudence in a less frequent offering of the Lord's Supper?
I do not intend my words to incite angry debate. Rather my question is sincere. What are the reasons for limiting exposure to the Lord's Supper? Are the reasons satisfactory in light of biblical teaching?
I trust that there are some well intentioned and seemingly well-reasoned arguments for less-frequent Holy Communion. But are they sufficient reasons to limit the offering of Holy Communion?
God have mercy on us all.
Posted by at June 16, 2002 10:12 PMI attend a church that seems to have communion like, once a month. I don't know really, they may just do it whenever they feel like it.
Either way, I don't like it. I think I will mention this to the pastor.
Posted by: Rich Clark at June 18, 2002 08:23 PMI think it's best not to dwell on a passage like Acts 20 when we're talking about the Lord's Supper because while it can be used as anecdotal evidence, we ought to spend more time in the actual commands that Paul issues. In 1 Cor.11:20-34, Paul talks about the Lord's Supper, but only mentions the administration, not the frequency. Throughout Corinthians, it seems we find Paul issuing commands mixed with exhortations meaning that at times he tells them specifically what to do, and other times he merely points the way.
Since this is the case, I don't think one can be too dogmatic about the frequency.
I absolutly agree that the Lord's Supper is super important, and I wish my church would do it weekly. However, I certainly don't think "frequency" is a hill to die on, so to speak, because God's Word does not make it such.
Well, that's my take...
the biscuit
Rich, I think it's great you're going to talk with your pastor. May I ask, what church do you attend?
If it's not too much to ask, I would be very curious to hear what your pastor has to say on the topic.
I wish you well, and I hope to hear from you soon.
Posted by: jeremy at June 19, 2002 06:09 AMBiscuit writes:
I think it's best not to dwell on a passage like Acts 20 when we're talking about the Lord's Supper because while it can be used as anecdotal evidence...Anecdotal or not, it seems that the Apostles DID break bread EVERY Sunday. If the Apostles considered this a good practice, what good reason would your church have for doing otherwise?
Again, I'm not claiming necessarily that there are not good answers out there, but I am still waiting to hear one.
You said you believe the LS to be "super important." With this in mind I'd be curious to know WHEN you would start to think frequency was an issue. For instance, what do you think of a church that offers the LS annually? What about every six months? Every three months? Would those intervals trouble you?
It seems at some point, even with the notion that we're not bound to take the LS every Sunday, you are going to charge one view or another with some sort of "neglect" of the LS.
If my specualtion is correct, then I'd be interested to hear WHY that church (say the church that offered the LS each year) would be in error, if after all, the New Testament isn't prescriptive on the topic?
In closing, my point is not that the Lord's Supper every Sunday is in some way "a hill to die on," but rather to ask, IF a church is NOT practicing every Sunday, what is its reasons for doing such? Do these reasons warrant limiting the laity's opportunity to partake in the Body and Blood of Christ (John 6)?
The Orthodox church has offered the Lord's Supper every Sunday for some 1700 years; I believe this is the practice and tradition handed down by the Apostles (evidence being found in verses like Acts 20:7), and I believe the practice and traditions of the Apostles are important and ought to be followed to the best of our ability. What good reason do we have to do otherwise?
So much more can be said, but another post at another time.
Posted by: jeremy at June 19, 2002 06:31 AMJeremy, at the moment, I attend Parkview Baptist Church, which is southern baptist at it's very core. ;-)
Posted by: Rich Clark at June 19, 2002 06:46 AMYou say "It seems the Apostolic church celebrated the Lord's Supper every Sunday"; I would say "the Apostolic church has always, and still does, celebrate the Lord's Supper every Sunday". We confess our faith in the Apostolic Church in the Nicene creed; it bespeaks a Protestant mind-set to speak of it as something in the past.
As for Paul's commands in 1 Corinthians, I would note that the argument from silence is often dubious. Paul did not address the issue of frequency because it was simply not an issue. The tradition of gathering on the Lord's Day to offer the Eucharist was already well-established and unquestioned by the time this letter was written.
--Chris Jones
Posted by: Christopher Jones at June 19, 2002 08:07 AMChris,
Well said. I agree with your words 100%
You noticed that my dyed hair (Protestantism) still shows even though I am in the process of growing out my natural color (Orthodoxy). How's that for a metaphor? :-)
Posted by: jeremy at June 19, 2002 04:26 PMJeremy,
I must take issue with your questioning one’s choice of home church based on the frequency of that church’s celebration the Lord’s Supper. It certainly doesn’t seem like an issue to change churches over, especially if one has become a member. I don’t even think it was an issue in either the Great Schism or the Reformation. Although I would agree that any church member should know why they worship the way that they do.
I don’t agree that the example of the Apostles in Acts, or even Paul’s reference to weekly observance in 1 Cor. 11:17-20, is sufficient to mandate a weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper for all churches throughout time. Nor do I think the allusion to the Lord’s Supper in John 6 mandates this either. Then again, I as an individual would like to have it weekly, and there are those in the Reformed tradition that have argued for a weekly observance, namely Calvin in Institutes, book 4, in the chapter on the frequency of the Lord’s Supper.
You can’t make a theological argument based on the example of the Apostles listed in Acts. There seem to be several things that the Apostolic church did that we no longer do, and by Apostolic church I mean the specific churches of the Apostles in the first century; unless Christopher’s church still meets in homes, and sells their possessions to give to those in need, or still has time for up to three people to prophesy or speak in tongues with interpreters. We can only follow where directions are given in Scripture as how to worship. The only thing that the Apostles did that was infallible and inerrant was the writing their portions of the New Testament. We even have examples of Peter being in error in Acts with regard to Gentiles and circumcision, so we know they could be wrong at times.
In the passages that directly teach about the Lord's Supper in the Gospels, it’s only in Luke were we are even directed to repeat this meal "do this in remembrance of me", but no frequency is set forth. I guess you could say that if this is the sign of the "new covenant" replacing the Passover meal, which had a purpose of remembrance for the Jews, then it should be repeated at least once a year.
In terms of frequency, Paul adds a few more words, but not much more clarity, to what Jesus had said, in 1 Cor 11:25,
"In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
I agree with Christopher that "Paul did not address the issue of frequency because it was simply not an issue. The tradition of gathering on the Lord's Day to offer the Eucharist was already well-established and unquestioned by the time this letter was written." But isn’t Scripture also God’s words, would He be so shortsighted as to leave out vital directions, or was a strict, weekly observance not what He intended? God communicates his will for us and our lives and the life of our church through his Word, not the example of fallible men.
As for the passage in John you cite, it has little to do with the Lord’s Supper. Clearly the force of that whole passage is that Jesus in our only way of salvation. Though our Lord does use good continuity of symbols throughout his ministry, I have to agree with Calvin where he writes in his commentary:
"From these words, it plainly appears that the whole of this passage is improperly explained, as applied to the Lord’s Supper. For if it were true that all who present themselves at the holy table of the Lord are made partakers of his flesh and blood, all will, in like manner, obtain life; but we know that there are many who partake of it to their condemnation. And indeed it would have been foolish and unreasonable to discourse about the Lord’s Supper, before he had instituted it. It is certain, then, that he now speaks of the perpetual and ordinary manner of eating the flesh of Christ, which is done by faith only. And yet, at the same time, I acknowledge that there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented, and actually bestowed on believers, in the Lord’s Supper; and Christ even intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation of this sermon."
>From the passages set forth there isn’t a case to enforce weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The example of the Apostles tells us what they did, not what we should do, and the passage in John doesn’t speak to the frequency of the Lord’s Supper (nor does John anywhere in his Gospel) but declares Jesus to be the Bread of Life.
ButI still don’t think I"ve given you a "good" reason not to have the Lord’s Supper weekly, just that churches are not required to. I guess "good" reasons are subjective, and most answers I have heard are for practical purposes. To keep the worship service from going to long, or to try to preserve the “specialness” of the event, to keep it from becoming route and empty ritual. I don’t think you will accept those answers as "good", but in an area where the Scriptures give us liberty they will have to suffice. It seems to go back to your issues with the authority of tradition vs. the authority of Scripture.
John
Posted by: John Cordova at June 19, 2002 04:54 PMMy current church does it monthly and we use grape juice. We Elders have been talking about doing it twice monthly but they weren't interested in at least offering wine.
When I plant a church I'm planning on weekly Communion. With wine and grape juice offered. Why offer grape juice? Its a a cultural thing. May American Protestantism soon recover from fundimentalism. Please.
Also, I wouldn't appeal to Jn 6 in reference to Communion, that isn't what Jesus was talking about. He hadn't instituted it yet. He was capitalizing on the interest generated by His feeding the 5,000 not an as yet unknow sacrament. Read all of chapter 6 in one setting. It helps.
Posted by: Tim at June 19, 2002 11:36 PMI think it's necessary to say that the prima facie and most generous reading of John 6 is that it does in fact refer to the Lord's Supper, for the obvious connection in imagery is simply too strong to think otherwise. After all, if you were with Christ at the institution of the Lord's Supper, and Christ said to you, "This is my body.... this is my blood. Take, eat.... Take, drink...," what would be the first thing to come to your mind? John 6 perhaps? Consider, then, that we are going to need some pretty darn good reasons for why we ought to believe that John 6 does not refer to the sacrament of Holy Communion.
In light of the above it appears that there are three main reasons presented in this discussion for why John 6 cannot be referring to the eucharist:
1) The force of the passage is referring to Christ as the only way of salvation, not to communion
2) The sacrament had not been instituted yet
3) If all who partake of the sacrament are made partakers of Christ's flesh and blood, then all would see eternal life. All do not, however, attain to eternal life, therefore we know that John 6 does not refer to the Lord's Supper (Calvin)
In regards to (1), Christ being the only way of salvation and the sacrament of communion are not mutually exclusive in the sense that John 6 must be referring to either one or the other. The way I see it, Christ was referring to both, for when we partake of the elements of both bread and wine, are we not proclaiming that Christ indeed is the only Redeemer of mankind? When Christ said, "This is my body broken for you," and, "This is my blood of the New Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins," was He not also proclaiming the uniqueness of His status as the only Redeemer of men? With this in mind I don't see why Christ cannot be referring to his monopoly on salvation as well as the true essence of the sacrament which was to come.
As for (2), I have seen a couple of assertions that it would be strange and unreasonable for Christ to have spoken about a sacrament that he had not yet instituted, but I have yet to see any reasons for why this is so. So I ask, why is this unreasonable? Christ spoke of many things before they came to pass, for example, His death. Was it unreasonable for Christ to say that He would raise the temple 3 days after it had been destroyed, in which He referred to His coming death and resurrection? Or the cursing of the fig tree, in which He spoke of Israel's coming rejection because they did not bear fruit as was required of them? No, it is entirely reasonable for Christ to teach and prepare His followers for things to come. What I find strange is that anyone would think this to be unreasonable.
In regards to (3), I don't see why it cannot be the case that those who perish did in fact partake of Christ's flesh and blood, yet who by their lack of faith did so to their own destruction. The Scriptures are very clear that faith is the fountain of obedience and all that is pleasing to God.
Posted by: wayne at June 20, 2002 02:11 AMWayne,
I thought the flow of the conversation was the questioning of the proper frequency of a church’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I didn’t say that John 6 doesn’t refer at all to the Lord’s Supper, nor did Calvin, the last part of his quote, that you didn’t copy, reads:
“I acknowledge that there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented, and actually bestowed on believers, in the Lord’s Supper; and Christ even intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation of this sermon."
There is a connection but the Lord’s Supper is not the main subject of this discourse, nor is frequency of celebration determined by it.
I am really surprised by the third point in your response. Even if I concede points one and two, what are you saying in three? Where in John does he allow for one to partake in Christ’s flesh and blood and still perish?
John 6:27 “Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life”
John 6:35 “I am the bread of Life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
John 6:48-51 “I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that comes down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
John 6:54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
John 6:54 “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Jesus is not saying that those who eat the actual bread and wine on Sunday during the Lord’s Supper will be saved, but that those who eat and drink his body and blood by faith, by trusting in his once for all sacrifice of himself on the cross for their sins, will be saved. Surely one can partake in the Lord’s Supper, and do so to their own destruction, but certainly no one can, not in the sense Jesus is talking about, eat the bread of life and not receive eternal life. He is using eating and drinking as symbolic of placing one’s faith in His work on the cross. Both John 6 and the Lord’s Supper point to and are symbolic of Christ death and resurrection. John 6 does so in written form and the celebration of the Supper does so in a visible, physical form. And yes the Lord’s Supper is more than just a memorial, as you know the reformed teach, but it does not impart salvation.
Is there also a deeper issue to be discussed here? Didn’t you guy’s just leave the Reformed church? Is this disagreement just a symptom of the Eastern Orthodox view of the Lord’s Supper? You should be familiar with what I am saying, and even with Calvin, but I don’t know what the Eastern Orthodox believe? I’ve had a hard time finding any type of doctrinal statements that are not very cursory. I’m surprised we are actually having this discussion, am I missing something?
John
Posted by: John Cordova at June 20, 2002 12:33 PMHi John,
This is really longwinded, and perhaps a bit off topic, though certainly relevant to the discussion at hand. Hey, bear with me here :-).
I thought the flow of the conversation was the questioning of the proper frequency of a church’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
I am really surprised by the third point in your response. Even if I concede points one and two, what are you saying in three? Where in John does he allow for one to partake in Christ’s flesh and blood and still perish?
Jesus is not saying that those who eat the actual bread and wine on Sunday during the Lord’s Supper will be saved, but that those who eat and drink his body and blood by faith, by trusting in his once for all sacrifice of himself on the cross for their sins, will be saved. Surely one can partake in the Lord’s Supper, and do so to their own destruction, but certainly no one can, not in the sense Jesus is talking about, eat the bread of life and not receive eternal life. He is using eating and drinking as symbolic of placing one’s faith in His work on the cross.
And yes the Lord’s Supper is more than just a memorial, as you know the reformed teach, but it does not impart salvation.
From the Westminster Larger Catechism:
Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.
Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.
>From the Shorter Catechism:
Q. 88. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are, his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
And really this is all that the Orthodox are saying in regards to the eucharist, that through faith it is an effectual means of salvation. Indeed, in a special sense it is the chief means whereby man might commune with Christ and partake of His life in this world. Christ wholly and truly presents Himself to us under the elements of bread and wine, and in doing so we are able to partake of His life, and indeed eternal life itself. But does this mean that it is the reception of communion that saves me, upon which I must depend for eternal life? Not at all. It is Christ alone who saves, but as the Westminster Divines were so careful to point out, God does in fact use means to accomplish His will. We are saved by Christ alone, but it is through faith, repentance and the means that He has established through which that redemption - and much of His graces - is applied.
Furthermore, I feel the need to emphasize the point that the Orthodox very much believe in the necessity of faith in order for the eucharist to be an effectual means of salvation. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky wrote:
[O]ne should remember that the Eucharist offers these saving fruits only to those who approach it with faith and repentance; but an unworthy partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ brings all the more condemnation. "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's Body" (1 Cor. 11:29). [Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 286]
Is there also a deeper issue to be discussed here?
I agree with Christopher that "Paul did not address the issue of frequency because it was simply not an issue. The tradition of gathering on the Lord's Day to offer the Eucharist was already well-established and unquestioned by the time this letter was written." But isn’t Scripture also God’s words, would He be so shortsighted as to leave out vital directions, or was a strict, weekly observance not what He intended? God communicates his will for us and our lives and the life of our church through his Word, not the example of fallible men.
Wayne,
I am glad to read that you, or the Eastern Orthodox for that matter, don’t consider participation in the Lord’s Supper as a necessary condition for salvation, and that often Scripture teaches that faith and repentance are the responses to the Gospel that are required. I agree that, looking at the whole context of Scripture, Jesus had a singular message of bringing glory to God by reconciling man to God, by grace, through faith and repentance, and that he didn’t explicitly show how every facet of this great truth fits together every time he spoke. He often, even in the Gospel of John, conveys this truth in varying symbolic ways. In John 6, He is the Bread of life, later on John records Jesus calling Himself the Light of the World, the Truth, the Gate, the Good Shepherd, the Resurrection and the Life. In each of these instances a different perspective on our Savior is revealed but each time faith and repentance are the required response if one is to receive salvation.
The passages you copied from Westminster are good and instructive. My point from the beginning wasn’t that the Lord’s Supper is not important or even not a required and normal part of the Christian life, but that it is not a requirement to be saved. Earlier in the Catechism questions 57-59 already covered how one is saved.
Q. 57. What benefits hath Christ procured by his mediation?
A. Christ, by his mediation, hath procured redemption,[258] with all other benefits of the covenant of grace
Q. 58. How do we come to be made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath procured?
A. We are made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath procured, by the application of them unto us,[260] which is the work especially of God the Holy Ghost.
Q. 59. Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?
A. Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.
Clearly we are saved solely by the work and grace of God (which I know is a point that we are in agreement on). Then after our regeneration, our inward response is faith and repentance. As I’m sure you are familiar with the order of salvation, then we can be justified and adopted, sanctified and glorified. Partaking in the Lord’s Supper isn’t mentioned.
But, as the Westminster selections that you posted point out, the Lord’s Supper is an important and required part of the Christian Life. We certainly not only need’s God’s grace at the beginning of our salvation, but all throughout this life as well. The Lord’s Supper, in addition to Bible reading, prayer, baptism, fellowship, pertain to what Christians should do in obedience to Christ and fall under the requirements of working out our salvation and making our calling and election sure. They are means of grace given to us by our Lord, to help us persevere in our faith. To that end the “diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation” are required (WLC Q153). I don’t believe “diligent use” in regard to the Lord’s Supper meant, for the writers of the catechism, weekly use, as can be see from their own practice.
It seems to me that the Eastern Orthodox instance on weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper is more an evidence of their different focus in worship then that of Protestants. For them the Lord’s Supper is the main event of their worship service while for us it’s the reading of and preaching from the Word of God, and I believe rightly so. For it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1), the holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2Tim 3:15), Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16)…
I also think, from what I have read in your posts, that the Eastern Orthodox must have a different understanding of what actually occurs during the Lord’s Supper. I don’t think I understood this before, if I am even correct now. You say “I know from other places in Scripture that faith - as well as repentance - is a necessary condition for salvation, therefore one may perish if he partakes of the body and blood of Christ without faith”. It’s my understanding that if one partakes of the Lord’s Supper, without faith i.e. an unbeliever, all they partake of is bread and wine. During the Lord’s Supper the bread and wine are symbols of the divine reality of flesh and blood which can only be eaten in faith by a believer. Therefore a spiritual union between the believer and Christ occurs, not a physical one, since Jesus is not physically present in the elements of bread and wine. The symbolism is clear that as bread and wine nourish our physical bodies, our souls are fed by Christ. As we confirm that our Lord’s body was once for all sacrificed and offered for our salvation, we have in the Sacrament a physical presentation and reminder of the Gospel. And I think that is related to why Protestants emphasize the gospel over the sacraments. The sacraments are dependent on the Gospel. You couldn’t perform the Lord’s Supper with out the Gospel and understand it, while in the Scriptures we have the Gospel fully laid out for us and for the Holy Spirit to apply to our hearts.
The Lord’s Supper is a blessed sacrament and very important to the Christian life, but not something we need to do every time we come together as a church for worship. Again, I too have written a lot, thank you for your patience. Commenting on blogs maybe isn’t the best way to discuss weighty issues. I’ll see you tomorrow.
John
Posted by: John Cordova at June 21, 2002 12:47 PMHere's something everyone needs to face:
If we must have a positive New Testament command for everything we do in Sunday worship, we'll become minimalists to the nth degree. The New Testament gives us no positive command to sing every week. It gives us no positive command to pray every week. It gives us no positive command to have a sermon every week. (How many Christians would argue that therefore we are at liberty to dispense with music, prayer, and sermons for months at a time?) For that matter, the New Testament nowhere positively commands us to get together every week for worship on Sunday.
But that Christians from the earliest days did precisely those things -- and, at the center of it all, partook of a special meal of bread and wine -- seems to me beyond doubt. And so I take St. Paul to mean, "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup [i.e., every week, at least], you show the Lord's death."
If communion is what all of us, presumably, say it is -- that is, *communion* indeed -- why on earth would we want to fast from it week in and week out? Perhaps the case for taking the meal every week depends less on ferreting out evidence of "frequency" in the New Testament than on simply taking its reality seriously.
Posted by: Paul at June 25, 2002 11:36 AMPaul and all,
It's not an either or scenario. Since there aren't many "positive" commands, that doesn't mean that we must make each example the norm. As John posted below, that would mean we would all be required to live in communs and worship in houses. So let's be fair.
As to the issue of frequency, I think the Orthodox makes some fine points. I'd even say, "I wish my church would follow that weekly example." However, the issue I take up is with leaving a church over the matter. Is this alone a valid reason?
I would like to thank each one of you for your well written, thoughtful, and insightful posts on this most important topic.
I have benefited from your words, and I trust that other unspoken readers have as well.
Biscuit writes:
As to the issue of frequency, I think the Orthodox makes some fine points. I'd even say, "I wish my church would follow that weekly example." However, the issue I take up is with leaving a church over the matter. Is this alone a valid reason?Two things by way of response. First, the diverging views concerning the Holy Supper are symptoms of bigger issues. These bigger issues boil down to one HUGE issue: Authority, i.e., whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative, the Church's or individual churches?
My second point is to say that the question for me is not "is this issue sufficient to warrant leaving a church" but rather the question is: is being a part of a church the same as being a part of the Church?
I did not break from Protestantism merely because the Lord's Supper wasn't offered every Sunday. I broke from Protestantism because Protestantism broke from the Apostolic Church that survives to this day.
Posted by: jeremy at June 27, 2002 08:55 PMThere is certainly a great deal of depth of rhetoric presented here in favor of the Orthodox church. But I'm amazed at an alternation between an appeal to the New Testament apostolic pattern of things and defense of practices and traditions that had no place at all in the NT.
Certainly, authority is a huge issue. Where is the authority is the Orthodox church? Who are the keepers of the tradition?
Posted by: Dave Nat at July 1, 2002 08:40 PMWhat "amazes" you as a Protestant (I presume) is not an issue for an Orthodox. There is no conflict in Orthodoxy between Scripture and Tradition, because Scripture itself is a product of, and the normative expression of, Apostolic Tradition. When an Orthodox reader looks at the NT depiction of the life of the Church, he recognizes it as identical to the life of the Orthodox Church today. When Luke says "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread...", the Orthodox reader says: Yes, of course they gathered every Sunday to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, as the Church has always done and as the Church still does. When Paul refers to "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs", the Orthodox reader can hear the chanting of the Psalter during Matins, and the singing of the rich and theologically charged hymns of the liturgy. When we read the descriptions of heavenly worship in the Apocalypse, we can smell the incense from our own Churches.
>> Where is the authority in the Orthodox Church? Who are the keepers of the tradition?
It is the particular ministry of the Bishop in the Orthodox Church to teach, but it is the responsibility of every Christian, ordained or not, to "guard the deposit". In the early centuries, the bishops gathered in synods or councils to decide questions of faith (which they could, in principle, still do today). But they did not define new doctrines. They bore witness to the true faith of the Church, and they condemned and excluded false ideas which had arisen in the Church. It was the bishops' responsibility to be faithful to the tradition that they had received, to teach it, and to pass it on to the next generation. Such is the responsibility of every Christian, and of the Church as a whole: faithfully to pass on what we have received from our fathers in the faith, that is the fulness of the faith.
Remember that the Christian faith is not just propositional knowledge, which one could learn from a book. It is life in Christ, which one must receive from those who have it. It is out of that life in Christ that the New Testament was written, and it is in the context of that life in Christ that it can be read, understood, applied, and lived. Tradition is not the invention of men apart from Scripture, it is the handing over from the existing Christian community to each new Christian that life in Christ which is the very content of the Scriptures. It is not abstract knowledge about God, it is the experience of God Himself, and the way to union with Him, that we receive by Tradition.
Posted by: Christopher Jones at July 2, 2002 09:22 AMStudy without thinking, and you are blind; think without studying, and you are in danger.
Posted by: Landolf Matt at January 9, 2004 05:44 PMhighest quality replica jewelry Rolex watch, wrist watch, Replica Watch purchase your affordable realistic Rolex replica watch today at http://www.pro-rolex-replica-watches.com
Posted by: Rolex Replica at November 7, 2004 07:53 AMproffesional quality replica jewelry Rolex watch, wrist watch, Replica Watch purchase your affordable realistic Rolex replica watch today at http://www.pro-rolex-replica-watches.com
Posted by: Rolex Replica at November 7, 2004 11:06 AMIt is the historic practice of the Lutheran Church to celebrate the sacrament of Christ's very body and blood every Sunday and on festival days and many Lutherans are returning back to this as they recover from Pietism and Rationalism. The Lutheran confessional document, the Defense of the Augsburg Confession states clearly (Article XXIV):
Article XXIV (XII): Of the Mass.
At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we 1] do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things.
2] The adversaries have a long declamation concerning the use of the Latin language in the Mass, in which they absurdly trifle as to how it profits [what a great merit is achieved by] an unlearned hearer to hear in the faith of the Church a Mass which he does not understand. They evidently imagine that the mere work of hearing is a service, that it profits without being understood. 3] We are unwilling to malignantly pursue these things, but we leave them to the judgment of the reader. We mention them only for the purpose of stating, in passing, that also among us the Latin lessons and prayers are retained.
Since ceremonies, however, ought to be observed both to teach men Scripture, and that those admonished by the Word may conceive faith and fear [of God, and obtain comfort], and thus also may pray (for these are the designs of ceremonies), we retain the Latin language on account of those who are learning and understand Latin, and we mingle with it German hymns, in order that the people also may have something to learn, and by which faith and fear 4] may be called forth.