Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper

[MaxPC]

5. This question is for all Christians that practice Communion - even myself, so I am struggling with this one:
…
d. And I don't understand practicing Communion every week, as Passover and Unleavened Bread were yearly memorials.

Thanks,

John

I was sent this link to an excellent explanation of the Epiklesis and Consecration portions of the Mass. It is part of a teaching series called "The Mass in Slow Motion." Hopefully it helps with the questions regarding Roman Catholic Church teachings and usage regarding Holy Communion.
Personal notes:

• I found turning on the CC function helped me to understand his speech better.
• When he uses the phrase "there is a lot of 'inside baseball'" he is referring to the theological debates that are an ongoing part of Church history.
• This priest also prays the Byzantine Mass liturgy at his parish.

John, hopefully this video gives an idea of the reason we find it important to emphasise weekly communion. Of course we understand that your customs may vary.

[Josh]

MaxPC, weekly communion wasn’t instituted until fairly recently, mostly due to pressure from Protestants doing it. I believe Pope Leo made the change in the early 1900s.

[MaxPC]

MaxPC, weekly communion wasn’t instituted until fairly recently, mostly due to pressure from Protestants doing it. I believe Pope Leo made the change in the early 1900s.

The obligation to attend Sunday Mass and take Holy Communion weekly became Church law in the 4th century.

[Judas Maccabeus]

MaxPC, weekly communion wasn’t instituted until fairly recently, mostly due to pressure from Protestants doing it. I believe Pope Leo made the change in the early 1900s.

My understanding was that one was only required to take communion, following confession of course, once within the period between Easter and Pentecost, one’s so called “Easter Duty.”

If I remember correctly, since the Mass is a “sacrifice” one cannot have a Mass without communion.

Mennonites, or course, would totally reject that notion, as it is throughly unbiblical.

[Coifi]

MaxPC, weekly communion wasn’t instituted until fairly recently, mostly due to pressure from Protestants doing it. I believe Pope Leo made the change in the early 1900s.

My understanding was that one was only required to take communion, following confession of course, once within the period between Easter and Pentecost, one’s so called “Easter Duty.”

If I remember correctly, since the Mass is a “sacrifice” one cannot have a Mass without communion.

Mennonites, or course, would totally reject that notion, as it is throughly unbiblical.

Wait, which part is unbiblical? The Eucharist as a sacrifice or that you cannot have Mass (service?) without communion. I would assume you mean the former, but I'm curious as to why you and other Mennonites would view it that way. Would you care to elaborate?

[Josh]

MaxPC, weekly communion wasn’t instituted until fairly recently, mostly due to pressure from Protestants doing it. I believe Pope Leo made the change in the early 1900s.

My understanding was that one was only required to take communion, following confession of course, once within the period between Easter and Pentecost, one’s so called “Easter Duty.”

If I remember correctly, since the Mass is a “sacrifice” one cannot have a Mass without communion.

Mennonites, or course, would totally reject that notion, as it is throughly unbiblical.

Wait, which part is unbiblical? The Eucharist as a sacrifice or that you cannot have Mass (service?) without communion. I would assume you mean the former, but I'm curious as to why you and other Mennonites would view it that way. Would you care to elaborate?

Mennonites don't believe in "mass" at all (something not found in the Bible). We do believe Christians should regularly gather for worship. The Bible teaches that it's fine for different people to have different ideas about what holy days are. Communion is something we think should be well-prepared for; in my church it takes over a week of intense preparation.

[Heirbyadoption]

If I remember correctly, since the Mass is a “sacrifice” one cannot have a Mass without communion. Mennonites, or course, would totally reject that notion, as it is throughly unbiblical.

Wait, which part is unbiblical? The Eucharist as a sacrifice or that you cannot have Mass (service?) without communion. I would assume you mean the former, but I'm curious as to why you and other Mennonites would view it that way. Would you care to elaborate?

Judas can elaborate if he meant something different, but from our very inception, Anabaptists have historically and rather passionately rejected the practice of the Mass as a repeated/ongoing sacrifice as unBiblical, especially when done with the claim of transubstantiation.

[Judas Maccabeus]

If I remember correctly, since the Mass is a “sacrifice” one cannot have a Mass without communion. Mennonites, or course, would totally reject that notion, as it is throughly unbiblical.

Wait, which part is unbiblical? The Eucharist as a sacrifice or that you cannot have Mass (service?) without communion. I would assume you mean the former, but I'm curious as to why you and other Mennonites would view it that way. Would you care to elaborate?

Judas can elaborate if he meant something different, but from our very inception, Anabaptists have historically and rather passionately rejected the practice of the Mass as a repeated/ongoing sacrifice as unBiblical, especially when done with the claim of transubstantiation.

I can agree with both of the above. Josh understands me well enough to know what I am likely to say, and he has more keyboard time than I so. Largely I have two objections here, and they are the historic objections of Anabaptists to the "mass" as an institution.

1. Transubstantion. It actually was the first issue that Menno had doubts about. The idea that Jesus was saying that the elements before Him at the last supper were miraculously transformed into His body and blood is a forced understanding of this passage. If this was the case, how could the elements transform into body and blood, when the ACTUAL body and blood were standing before them, and not yet "given for you" as Luke 22:19 clearly states. This necessitates a symbolic understanding of the elements, and indeed the last supper. Any other understanding is highly forced, and can only be arrived at by a highly forced understanding of the relevant passage, no doubt driven by some church tradition or law that has only a thin Biblical basis.

2. The mass as a "sacrifice." This understand it without any Biblical support that I have been offered. The "sacrifice" was the death of Jesus on the cross. Not something that can be repeated every week, sometimes multiple times a day. The sacrifice of Jesus is once for all time, it cannot be repeated in any form.:

Romans 6:10 "For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God."

Hebrews 7:27. "who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. "

1 Peter 3:18. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:"

Those who sin after receiving grace are condemned for exactly what the mass purports to do, "repeat" the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.:

Hebrews 6:5+6 and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

"repeating the sacrifice of Christ is there referred to a "open shame."

I will note it is the first doubt that Menno has. I do not have time to type this all in, so I will borrow the quote from another:

“It occurred to me, as often as I handled the bread and wine in the mass, that they were not the flesh and blood of the Lord.” (Kindle Locations 5887-5894, )

It was the first doubt I had as well.

I regard the mass as the second greatest, and perhaps the most disgusting error of Papism. Last time I was taken by a neighbor to eear a speaker from EWTM, actually he had some good points that I may sometime borrow in the future. They that had an "adoration of the host." They put the death cookie into a fancy solid gold thing, and everyone present bowed down and worshiped it. I was sick to my stomach, so see such rank idolatry, right in front of me.

The first, and greatest error of Papism is infant baptism. I avoid these, and go to the party afterwards, as I would likely do a George Blaurock, and rightly so. It is false hope, projected by an institution that has a sordid history, and an equally sordid present.

[Heirbyadoption]

Wait, which part is unbiblical? The Eucharist as a sacrifice or that you cannot have Mass (service?) without communion. I would assume you mean the former, but I'm curious as to why you and other Mennonites would view it that way. Would you care to elaborate?

Judas can elaborate if he meant something different, but from our very inception, Anabaptists have historically and rather passionately rejected the practice of the Mass as a repeated/ongoing sacrifice as unBiblical, especially when done with the claim of transubstantiation.

I can agree with both of the above. Josh understands me well enough to know what I am likely to say, and he has more keyboard time than I so. Largely I have two objections here, and they are the historic objections of Anabaptists to the "mass" as an institution.

1. Transubstantion. It actually was the first issue that Menno had doubts about. The idea that Jesus was saying that the elements before Him at the last supper were miraculously transformed into His body and blood is a forced understanding of this passage. If this was the case, how could the elements transform into body and blood, when the ACTUAL body and blood were standing before them, and not yet "given for you" as Luke 22:19 clearly states. This necessitates a symbolic understanding of the elements, and indeed the last supper. Any other understanding is highly forced, and can only be arrived at by a highly forced understanding of the relevant passage, no doubt driven by some church tradition or law that has only a thin Biblical basis.

2. The mass as a "sacrifice." This understand it without any Biblical support that I have been offered. The "sacrifice" was the death of Jesus on the cross. Not something that can be repeated every week, sometimes multiple times a day. The sacrifice of Jesus is once for all time, it cannot be repeated in any form.:

Romans 6:10 "For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God."

Hebrews 7:27. "who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. "

1 Peter 3:18. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:"

Those who sin after receiving grace are condemned for exactly what the mass purports to do, "repeat" the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.:

Hebrews 6:5+6 and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

"repeating the sacrifice of Christ is there referred to a "open shame."

I will note it is the first doubt that Menno has. I do not have time to type this all in, so I will borrow the quote from another:

“It occurred to me, as often as I handled the bread and wine in the mass, that they were not the flesh and blood of the Lord.” (Kindle Locations 5887-5894, )

It was the first doubt I had as well.

I regard the mass as the second greatest, and perhaps the most disgusting error of Papism. Last time I was taken by a neighbor to eear a speaker from EWTM, actually he had some good points that I may sometime borrow in the future. They that had an "adoration of the host." They put the death cookie into a fancy solid gold thing, and everyone present bowed down and worshiped it. I was sick to my stomach, so see such rank idolatry, right in front of me.

The first, and greatest error of Papism is infant baptism. I avoid these, and go to the party afterwards, as I would likely do a George Blaurock, and rightly so. It is false hope, projected by an institution that has a sordid history, and an equally sordid present.

Thank you for expanding on that more clearly. For all of our civility (usually) here on MN, this elucidates very well some of the most fundamental ongoing and utterly irreconcilable theological differences between RCC and Anabaptist understandings (and subsequent applications) of the Scriptures.

[MaxPC]

My understanding was that one was only required to take communion, following confession of course, once within the period between Easter and Pentecost, one’s so called “Easter Duty.”

If I remember correctly, since the Mass is a “sacrifice” one cannot have a Mass without communion.

Since the 4th century weekly Mass has been an obligation. There have been periods when that was relaxed due to availability, pandemics, and other rationales. But the obligation itself was never abrogated.