Christians who believe a Priest is not necessary for the Lord's Supper

[MartinJordan]

Yes, physical. I reject any attempt to explain the Eucharist as a physical transformation of any kind, whether that be transusbstantiation, transignification, consubstantiation, or impanation.

I do believe Christ is present. Not bodily but by the Spirit, and I do believe that there is a tangible anointing that we receive by faith.

If the anointing of God can be transferred by handkerchiefs (Acts 19:11-12), it would make sense that it also be transferred through the Lord’s Supper.

Itwin I think you are not so far from orthodox Christianity teaching /thinking. The Faith coming from hearing.

Consider this :

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Regardless of what you say above from the onset, what do you think of the verse I’ve pointed out here from 1 cor 10: 1-5?

From there we will delve deeper

Peace be with you,

MJ

 

[Kliska]

I put forward a question in a thread that I’d like to give it’s own thread to. For Christians who believe there is no need for a ministerial Priesthood to validate and consecrate the Lord’s Supper, have you ever hosted or held the Lord’s Supper among fellow Christians? If not, would you feel comfortable doing so?

We had a baptism at my house in our pond, and we had communion; Matzah and red wine. Although it was my uncle, a baptist preacher, who lead it so maybe that’s not what you meant? I was taught by several non-denom pastors that it was fine to partake of communion in your own home, and I did so. I think it is a difference in believing in a formally ordained leadership vs. a true belief in the priesthood of all believers in a specific capacity. In other words; the difference is probably between those (like you hint at) that believe in formal ordination vs. those that don’t.

To me, the logical conclusion is that if there is no actual ordination that has power, then anyone should be able to handle and distribute the communion elements. Now I’m unsure so I haven’t partaken in a while.

 

[setarcos]

I put forward a question in a thread that I’d like to give it’s own thread to. For Christians who believe there is no need for a ministerial Priesthood to validate and consecrate the Lord’s Supper, have you ever hosted or held the Lord’s Supper among fellow Christians? If not, would you feel comfortable doing so?

Are you saying we need a priest to consecrate and validate the lords supper because no one else would be capable of hosting the memorial without be uncomfortable?

 

[ltwin]

Consider this :

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Regardless of what you say above from the onset, what do you think of the verse I’ve pointed out here from 1 cor 10: 1-5?

In the context of 1 Corinthians, this passage is an expansion on Paul’s arguments in chapters 8 and 9 challenging the Corinthian church to self-discipline. Paul is using Israel’s history as an example and warning.

Speaking of the Exodus and the Israelite’s miraculous passage through the Red Sea, Paul says they were “under the cloud.” This means they were under God’s guidance. That “they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” means they were initiated into union with God and also with Moses as divinely appointed leader.

While wondering through the desert, the nation was provided with food and drink (manna and water from the rock). Paul calls these “spiritual,” which would suggest these functioned as Old Covenant means of grace to God’s people. They were types of Christ, pointing forward to Him, the true bread and drink.

There is a Jewish tradition that the rock followed the Israelites during their journeys .As our rock, Christ is the source of life and spiritual provision. He is the living water that quenches our thirst and our daily bread. The Israelites were given spiritual provision in Christ-the source of all grace and spiritual nourishment.

Nevertheless, as verses 5 and 6 indicate, Paul warns the church that just as baptism into Moses and the spiritual food provided in the desert did not guarantee God’s pleasure with the Israelites, neither does baptism into Christ or participation in the Lord’s Supper, and what it signifies, mean that we can sin without consequence.

 

[Faithdancer]

Though if I’m ordained a deacon I may preside over a “Deacon’s Mass,” the bread and wine would be consecrated in advance by a priest. As far as “special” circumstances, would that include a short Communion service for a homebound / ill parishioner? I assisted at such a service just last week, with my pastor.

 

[MartinJordan]

In the context of 1 Corinthians, this passage is an expansion on Paul’s arguments in chapters 8 and 9 challenging the Corinthian church to self-discipline. Paul is using Israel’s history as an example and warning.

Speaking of the Exodus and the Israelite’s miraculous passage through the Red Sea, Paul says they were “under the cloud.” This means they were under God’s guidance. That **“they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” means they were initiated into union with God and also with Moses as divinely appointed leader. **

While wondering through the desert, the nation was provided with food and drink (manna and water from the rock). **Paul calls these “spiritual,” which would suggest these functioned as Old Covenant means of grace to God’s people. They were types of Christ, pointing forward to Him, the true bread and drink. **

There is a Jewish tradition that the rock followed the Israelites during their journeys . As our rock, Christ is the source of life and spiritual provision.** He is the living water that quenches our thirst and our daily bread. The Israelites were given spiritual provision in Christ-the source of all grace and spiritual nourishment. **

Nevertheless, as verses 5 and 6 indicate, Paul warns the church that just as baptism into Moses and the spiritual food provided in the desert did not guarantee God’s pleasure with the Israelites, neither does baptism into Christ or participation in the Lord’s Supper, and what it signifies, mean that we can sin without consequence.

If you don’t mind I highlighted in black some of your points.

This is fine and again speaking as a Catholic view this is very much in line to our teaching and Church fathers like St. Ambrose (4th Century), so I’d like to refer our great Saint as he goes deeper into these Spiritual aspects and even much further :

We have proved the sacraments of the Church to be the more ancient, now recognize that they are superio****r. In very truth it is a marvellous thing that God rained manna on the fathers, and fed them with daily food from heaven; so that it is said, “So man did eat angels’ food.” [Psalm 78:25] But yet all those who ate that food died in the wilderness, **but that food which you receive, that living Bread which came down from heaven, furnishes the substance of eternal life; and whosoever shall eat of this Bread shall never die, and it is the Body of Christ. **

Now consider whether the bread of angels be more excellent or the Flesh of Christ, which is indeed the body of life. That manna came from heaven, this is above the heavens; that was of heaven, this is of the Lord of the heavens; that was liable to corruption, if kept a second day,** this is far from all corruption, for whosoever shall taste it holily shall not be able to feel corruption.** For them water flowed from the rock,** for you Blood flowed from Christ; water satisfied them for a time, the Blood satiates you for eternity. **The Jew drinks and thirsts again, **you after drinking will be beyond the power of thirsting; that was in a shadow, this is in truth. **

If that which you so wonder at is but shadow, how great must that be whose very shadow you wonder at. See now what happened in the case of the fathers was shadow: “They drank, it is said, of that Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were done in a figure concerning us.” [1 Cor. 10:4] You recognize now which are the more excellent, for light is better than shadow, truth than a figure, the Body of its Giver than the manna from heaven.

Source: (Not a Catholic one so you can breathe easier ) sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/210/2100283.htm

Look forward to see your views regarding the highlighted blue parts (by yours truly).

Peace be with you and Easter wishes.

MJ

 

[rcwitness]

We had a baptism at my house in our pond, and we had communion; Matzah and red wine. Although it was my uncle, a baptist preacher, who lead it so maybe that’s not what you meant?

Thanks Kliska. Yes, it is different. That is relying on an ordained minister.

I was taught by several non-denom pastors that it was fine to partake of communion in your own home, and I did so. I think it is a difference in believing in a formally ordained leadership vs. a true belief in the priesthood of all believers in a specific capacity. In other words; the difference is probably between those (like you hint at) that believe in formal ordination vs. those that don’t.

Maybe so. You know we (Catholic faith) believe in the Priesthood of all believers. There is still a difference with “leaders” and their roles. The Lord’s Supper, for us, requires a Presbyter.

To me, the logical conclusion is that if there is no actual ordination that has power, then anyone should be able to handle and distribute the communion elements. Now I’m unsure so I haven’t partaken in a while.

Just to clarify… anyone can “handle and distribute” Catholic Communion. It just requires a Priest to consecrate.

What specifically are you unsure about? Are you not receiving Communion at all now? Or just among non ordained?

 

[Faithdancer]

We had a baptism at my house in our pond, and we had communion; Matzah and red wine. Although it was my uncle, a baptist preacher, who lead it so maybe that’s not what you meant? I was taught by several non-denom pastors that it was fine to partake of communion in your own home, and I did so. I think it is a difference in believing in a formally ordained leadership vs. a true belief in the priesthood of all believers in a specific capacity. In other words; the difference is probably between those (like you hint at) that believe in formal ordination vs. those that don’t.

To me, the logical conclusion is that if there is no actual ordination that has power, then anyone should be able to handle and distribute the communion elements. Now I’m unsure so I haven’t partaken in a while.

I attended a baptism like that, in a large pond or lake. And I’ve seen video of a baptism in a cattle trough on a pickup bed. They were trinitarian baptisms so, legit.

 

[Kliska]

Maybe so. You know we (Catholic faith) believe in the Priesthood of all believers. There is still a difference with “leaders” and their roles. The Lord’s Supper, for us, requires a Presbyter.

Yes, it requires an ordained priest. I was taught in my belief system that anyone can handle, distribute, pray over, bless, etc… the elements. So everyone in my family has done so before.

What specifically are you unsure about? Are you not receiving Communion at all now? Or just among non ordained?

Haven’t received in awhile as a personal choice as I don’t want to misrepresent my beliefs by partaking in a church that I’m not sure agrees with the truth… or what that truth actually is in regards to the Lord’s Supper.

I attended a baptism like that, in a large pond or lake. And I’ve seen video of a baptism in a cattle trough on a pickup bed. They were trinitarian baptisms so, legit.

Yes, my uncle the baptist preacher performed that baptism… also performed my believer’s baptism as a child. It was in the middle of nowhere and I was immersed in a creek along with several others. We had a traveling gospel choir stop out of nowhere with us and sing while it happened. It was pretty nifty. My grandmother was baptized by my uncle shortly before she died in a swimming pool. All of them followed the formulas.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, it requires an ordained priest. I was taught in my belief system that anyone can handle, distribute, pray over, bless, etc… the elements. So everyone in my family has done so before.

To me, I think it diminishes the Lord’s Supper to remove observance to a universal leadership. If leaders of a Christian congregation are not in Communion with the “whole body”, then the Lord’s Supper (one Loaf) has lost its meaning and strength.

Haven’t received in awhile as a personal choice as I don’t want to misrepresent my beliefs by partaking in a church that I’m not sure agrees with the truth… or what that truth actually is in regards to the Lord’s Supper.

I appreciate your discernment and desire to seek truth. But isn’t it a shame that mature, genuine, and educated Christians such as yourself are still trying to understand how to receive the Lord’s Supper?

 

[Wannano]

To me, I think it diminishes the Lord’s Supper to remove observance to a universal leadership. If leaders of a Christian congregation are not in Communion with the “whole body”, then the Lord’s Supper (one Loaf) has lost its meaning and strength.

I appreciate your discernment and desire to seek truth. But isn’t it a shame that mature, genuine, and educated Christians such as yourself are still trying to understand how to receive the Lord’s Supper?

Hi rc, I have a few concerns with your reply here. Are you claiming that the “whole body” is the Catholic Church? I thought that the CC now understands the whole body is comprised of all Christians?

I respect Kliska as you also do for her desire to seek truth. I do not see her position as a shame at all. She is trying to discern truth. What I see as a shame is that (I have read this here at caf) approx. 60% of Catholics who partake of the Mass do so believing it to be symbolic, not really believing in Transubstantiation. That is the real shame if in fact the CC has the only truth.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc, I have a few concerns with your reply here. Are you claiming that the “whole body” is the Catholic Church? I thought that the CC now understands the whole body is comprised of all Christians?

Yes, visible non-Catholic Christian members, who accept the Catholic initiation of belief and valid Baptism, are also part of the body of Christ (the Church). But Communion with the “whole body” is not dependant on every individual’s beliefs, but that of the “leadership”. So I was referring to the one leadership who is not opposed to one another.

I respect Kliska as you also do for her desire to seek truth. I do not see her position as a shame at all. She is trying to discern truth. What I see as a shame is that (I have read this here at caf) approx. 60% of Catholics who partake of the Mass do so believing it to be symbolic, not really believing in Transubstantiation. That is the real shame if in fact the CC has the only truth.

I don’t think Kliska is a shame, but the situation she is in. It is a shame that mature Christians constantly feel the need to “reinvent the wheel” so to speak. This is what the reformation has caused. It wasn’t just negative, since reform of abuses and affirmation of doctrine was long due. Yet division among congregations have perpetually played out from the notions and concepts of the reformers. This is what is a shame, because it is fundamentally opposed to His Eucharist.

 

[Wannano]

Yes, visible non-Catholic members, who accept the Catholic initiation of belief and valid Baptism, are also part of the body of Christmas (the Church). But Communion with the “whole body” is not dependant on every individual’s beliefs, but that of the “leadership”. So I was referring to the one leadership who is not opposed to one another.

I don’t think Kliska is a shame, but the situation she is in. It is a shame that mature Christians constantly feel the need to “reinvent the wheel” so to speak. This is what the reformation has caused. It wasn’t just negative, since reform of abuses and affirmation of doctrine was long due. Yet division among congregations have perpetually played out from the notions and concepts of the reformers. This is what is a shame, because it is fundamentally opposed to His Eucharist.

What is the Catholic initiation of belief? Which visible non-Catholic church has leadership that is not “opposed” to the leadership of the CC?

I find it interesting that the ignorance and complacency found in adherents of the Catholic faith is due to the Reformation.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

What is the Catholic initiation of belief? Which visible non-Catholic church has leadership that is not “opposed” to the leadership of the CC?

I find it interesting that the ignorance and complacency found in adherents of the Catholic faith is due to the Reformation.

Hi Wann

You don’t think it’s shameful that every house of worship that Kliska walks into makes her uncomfortable to the point where she doesn’t want to accept their communion? Even doctrinal statements on websites often do not tell the full story. I went to a Methodist Church once that appeared to be fairly Orthodox on the surface, then the pastor starts promoting Yoga and saying the 3 wise men were pagans with a heart for God, so essentially it’s ok to be a pagan, etc. Couldn’t believe my ears.

 

[rcwitness]

What is the Catholic initiation of belief?

Belief in Jesus as who the Church claims Him to be and receiving His Baptism.

Which visible non-Catholic church has leadership that is not “opposed” to the leadership of the CC?

I knew I was not articulating that well. I meant all Christians who believe in the Gospel and seek it’s Baptism are joined to the Church in an initiatory way. They have begun to live by faith. Not all of these members are visible members of the Church who possesses His Eucharist. The Eastern Orthodox lacks very little to contain full unity of doctrine and profession.

I find it interesting that the ignorance and complacency found in adherents of the Catholic faith is due to the Reformation.

I’m not sure what you mean. You would have to explain this statement. I do think ignorance exists with or without denominations or full membership with the Church. It’s a struggle that will always exist within us. That’s why we should always grow.

 

[Wannano]

Hi Wann

You don’t think it’s shameful that every house of worship that Kliska walks into makes her uncomfortable to the point where she doesn’t want to accept their communion? Even doctrinal statements on websites often do not tell the full story. I went to a Methodist Church once that appeared to be fairly Orthodox on the surface, then the pastor starts promoting Yoga and saying the 3 wise men were pagans with a heart for God, so essentially it’s ok to be a pagan, etc. Couldn’t believe my ears.

I don’t know if that describes her actual experience or not. Maybe she will enlighten us with more detail. I just want to say I respect her for wanting truth. I want the truth.

I totally agree with you about what you will find in churches today. I am turned off by what I have seen many times as well. However, I hope I can explain something to you without being razed by anyone that I am anti-Catholic or that I have an uncharitable agenda as has happened often here. I have occasion to frequent Catholic Mass often and I have yet to experience a feeling of comfortableness to the point where I can accept the Catholic Eucharist. Is that also somehow shameful? I think we need to be careful.

 

[Kliska]

To me, I think it diminishes the Lord’s Supper to remove observance to a universal leadership. If leaders of a Christian congregation are not in Communion with the “whole body”, then the Lord’s Supper (one Loaf) has lost its meaning and strength.

On the other hand I think it may be a dangerous thing to split the body by closed communion (as perhaps giving communion to non-Christians). I understand the argument for it, but I also think this might be the very thing Paul warns against. Who is splitting who is all a matter of perspective. Also, from a certain protestant perspective it is splitting the body of Christ by having “ordination” in and of itself, the belief being that particular hierarchical split was done away with by Christ. Again, it’s a matter of perspective and because of that, I have to do what I think is right and back off of what I have done in the past and research further, and pray a lot more.

I appreciate your discernment and desire to seek truth. But isn’t it a shame that mature, genuine, and educated Christians such as yourself are still trying to understand how to receive the Lord’s Supper?

I don’t think that the lack is solely amongst protestants, however. And, I think it is incumbent that all Christians examine their beliefs and hold fast to what is true. Meaning, I hope that cultural Catholics are doing the same thing in order to firmly “prove” what they believe. There are aspects of our faith that are “simple” and there are aspects that are not, and that is purposeful I think.

The fact that I may not take communion in certain denoms has more to do with the whole of the situation in the Church (again as a whole across “denominations”) right now. As Lenten ashes points to, there are some really wayward teachings out there from congregation to congregation, so the whole thing at this point is unsettling. I’m not concerned with reinventing the wheel, but as most Christians, I’m concerned with following the original wheel, which is what we all argue about.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have occasion to frequent Catholic Mass often and I have yet to experience a feeling of comfortableness to the point where I can accept the Catholic Eucharist. Is that also somehow shameful? I think we need to be careful.

Hi Wann.

No, not shameful.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. (Hebrews 11:6) doesn’t any anything about understanding being required to please Him.

 

[Wannano]

Belief in Jesus as who the Church claims Him to be and receiving His Baptism.

I knew I was not articulating that well. I meant all Christians who believe in the Gospel and seek it’s Baptism are joined to the Church in an initiatory way. They have begun to live by faith. Not all of these members are visible members of the Church who possesses His Eucharist. The Eastern Orthodox lacks very little to contain full unity of doctrine and profession.

I’m not sure what you mean. You would have to explain this statement. I do think ignorance exists with or without denominations or full membership with the Church. It’s a struggle that will always exist within us. That’s why we should always grow.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

On the other hand I think it may be a dangerous thing to split the body by closed communion (as perhaps giving communion to non-Christians). I understand the argument for it, but I also think this might be the very thing Paul warns against. Who is splitting who is all a matter of perspective. Also, from a certain protestant perspective it is splitting the body of Christ by having “ordination” in and of itself, the belief being that particular hierarchical split was done away with by Christ. Again, it’s a matter of perspective and because of that, I have to do what I think is right and back off of what I have done in the past and research further, and pray a lot more.

I don’t think that the lack is solely amongst protestants, however. And, I think it is incumbent that all Christians examine their beliefs and hold fast to what is true. Meaning, I hope that cultural Catholics are doing the same thing in order to firmly “prove” what they believe. There are aspects of our faith that are “simple” and there are aspects that are not, and that is purposeful I think.

The fact that I may not take communion in certain denoms has more to do with the whole of the situation in the Church (again as a whole across “denominations”) right now. As Lenten ashes points to, there are some really wayward teachings out there from congregation to congregation, so the whole thing at this point is unsettling. I’m not concerned with reinventing the wheel, but as most Christians, I’m concerned with following the original wheel, which is what we all argue about.

I actually liked the protestant Churches who practiced closed Communion. So if there is any awkwardness about taking or not taking it, it ceases as the decision is no longer left up to the individual/new comer.

And I must say it is easier for a non Catholic to ‘accidentally’ receive Communion in our Churches than it is in say, a Lutheran/ LCMS church. Because with the LCMS Church, they are very upfront during the service that you need a meeting with the pastor before receiving. Well, all we have is this little briefing in our missalette for non Catholics. And this is often not sufficient as people just don’t read much in this society we live in…