Scriptural
Reference:
"Give
us today our daily bread."
Matthew 6:11
"For I received
from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night
he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke
it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance
of me."
1 Corinthians 11:23-24
Quotes:
"When Jesus wanted to explain to his disciples what his death was
all about, he didn't give them a theory, he gave them a meal."
N. T. Wright
"The 'means
of grace' are such as Bible reading, private prayer, and regularly worshiping
God in Church, wherein one hears the Word taught and participates in
the Lord's Supper"
J. C. Ryle
"There is
a communion of more than our bodies when bread is broken and wine drunk."
Martin Luther
"Hence, on
this day and evening we often give attention to the Lord's Supper, that
meal by which we continue to be connected to our Lord; receive his body,
blood, and blessing in and through the bread and wine; and share fellowship
with each other and, indeed, Christians of every time and age"
C.S. Lewis
Reflection:
When I first read the title of this article I confess to being somewhat
confused as to what it was saying. As well as why it mention "of both
kinds". These words created a range of possible meanings.
- The Cup of
the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts
of the
Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to
be ministered
to all Christian men alike.
Article 30 is
the third one that talks about the Lord's Supper. Article 28 rejects
the Roman Catholic belief in transubstantiation, which claims that the
bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of Jesus. Instead,
it emphasizes that these elements are just symbols that remind us of
Christ, not Him in a literal sense. Article 29 points out that people
who take part in the Lord's Supper without faith aren't truly connecting
with Christ and are actually putting themselves in a position of condemnation.
Article 30 outlines
how the Lord's Supper should be administered to the congregation. It
states that both elements, especially the cup, should be offered to
all Christian members present. This might sound a bit odd to us, as
we might not have considered that during the Lord's Supper, we could
be given just the bread and not the cup. Or that the cup is wine and
the individual is not able to drink it. That or the fact that the bread
may be gluten and the individual is gluten intolerant. In both cases
there are limitations. One set when those serving the Lords' Supper
withhold an element. I believe there's a second consideration is the
individual's inability to take the elements due to a lack of suitable
bread or wine substitute.
So, what made the
Reformers feel it was so important to emphasize this? Well, when Jesus
set up what we now call the Lord's Supper on the night before his crucifixion,
he definitely invited his disciples to partake in the bread and wine
to remember him (Matthew 26:26-30; Luke 22:19-22). The early church
kept this tradition alive by serving both elements. For instance, in
1 Corinthians 11, Paul gives guidance to the church on how to properly
celebrate the Lord's Supper, and it's pretty clear that the expectation
was for everyone to eat the bread and drink from the cup, connecting
the Corinthians' practice back to that significant night before Jesus
died (1 Corinthians 11:23-27).
By the medieval
period, things had shifted quite a bit in the church. The congregation
no longer received the cup; it was now just for the priest in charge.
There are a few theories about how this change came about, but the exact
reasons are a bit murky. One idea is that concerns over hygiene made
it seem inappropriate to share a cup. Another thought is that the elements
were considered so sacred that they needed to be protected from any
human touch. Instead of passing around the bread, it was placed directly
on the recipient's tongue, while the wine was kept away from the average
person.
The reasoning behind
allowing communion in just one form was that since our bodies contain
blood, receiving only the body of Jesus actually meant that people were
receiving both His body and blood. They didn't really need the cup,
and since the priest acted as a representative for the congregation
before God, he would drink from the cup on their behalf. This idea further
emphasized the priest's unique role, setting him apart as a mediator
between God and the congregation.
In the fifteenth
century, there was some pushback against the usual way of doing things
when the Hussite's in Bohemia decided to break away from Roman traditions.
They started giving communion in both bread and wine to their congregations,
which didn't sit well with the authorities. The Council of Constance
in 1415 condemned this practice, and their leader, Jan Huss, was executed
by burning for what they labelled as heresy.
The last meeting
of the Council of Trent, which was part of the counter-reformation in
the 1560s, upheld the decisions made by the Council of Constance and
established that:
- The Church
knew it had the power to manage the sacraments. While using both
bread
and wine has been common since the early days of Christianity, over
time, that practice
has changed quite a bit. For important and valid reasons, the Church
has decided to
support the practice of communion with just one element and has
made it a rule. This
rule can't just be dismissed or altered on a whim without the Church's
approval.
The history behind
this practice makes this article even weirder. On one hand, it feels
like a pretty small, maybe even nit-picky, topic. But for the reformers,
it really mattered. This article revolves around two key doctrines
- The first
of these is the Roman approach suggested there was someone else
acting
as a go-between for God and people, in addition to Christ. The Reformers
found
this idea pretty unacceptable (check out Hebrews 9:11-15). When
the priest kept the
cup from the congregation and drank the wine himself, he was essentially
taking their place.
- This brings
us to another key theological point: the Reformers' belief in the
priesthood
of all believers (see 1 Peter 2:5). This perspective suggests that
the church is made up
of a group of priests who offer God a "sacrifice of praise" (Hebrews
13:15). So, there's
no single person who acts as a go-between for the congregation and
God. We all have
the same access to God.
These days, getting
communion in both forms is becoming more common in the Roman Catholic
Church, but it's not everywhere yet. It's really important to keep this
practice alive for a couple of key reasons. First off, as the article
points out, it sticks to the tradition that Christ set up and aligns
with what the early church did, like it says in 1 Corinthians 11:28.
Secondly, it upholds the idea that everyone in the church shares in
the priesthood, which means there's no need for a priest or minister
to act as a go-between for God and the congregation. This sacrament
is meant for everyone, and everyone should receive the full experience.
Prayer: