http://findthechurch.com

[zeek]

.

[B.H.]

But a duck is a duck, not an odd bird at all.

[Lev]

Don't want to risk going to hell because someone took a bit of cracker and grape juice on a Sunday night while you just sat there and did nothing...

I never understood why, in the COC, the entire church doesn't just do the Lord's supper again on Sunday night. I asked this once in a Bible class and was shot down as quickly as when I asked why "we" forbid all consumption of alcohol on the grounds that it could lead to drunkenness but don't forbid all accrual of wealth beyond the necessary means of subsistence because it might lead to the love of money. Still, it makes sense to me that if the COC is going to add a second worship service to Sundays (something that, as far as I can see has no "scriptural authority"*) they might as well add all five of the so-called (and completely arbitrary) acts of worship to that second service. Why is it OK, for example, to hear two sermons but it's not OK to take two Lord's suppers?

Lev

*Whether or not there's any mention in the NT of what we know as a "worship service" at all is a topic for another thread.

[KLP]

I think if the evening service was a full-blown 5acts service then there would be even more pressure to attend...and some of the wealthy/favored ones got a pass on missing now and then. Also it would be a lot more work for the ladies having to prep and clean (just kidding, but it is more work and you need the pall bearers).

And then there is the notion of whether it is a second offering or whether it is a continuation. Some would say "the Lord Supper has been left prepared" but that really upset some because it was saying they were serving "left overs". Yes there is always some way to make yourself appear more pious and make others feel shamed. So we had something else to argue about. So if it was not "still being served" but a new offering then how could anyone not partake as Lev has pointed out? What is the scriptural basis for opting out?

The "lay by in store on the first day of the week" is easy from a grammar POV to see as something that is done once a week. No such exact phrasing for LS.

[agricola]

There's a very good argument to be made that some kind of 'LS' OUGHT to be performed every single time two or more folks gather together at all. So the Catholics do it 'right' by having communion every day, instead of once a week (or once a month, or once a quarter, as some denominations do it).

[KLP]

There's a very good argument to be made that some kind of 'LS' OUGHT to be performed every single time two or more folks gather together at all. So the Catholics do it 'right' by having communion every day, instead of once a week (or once a month, or once a quarter, as some denominations do it).

ok, so what is this "ought" argument of which you speak? I don't see any reference to daily/continual offerings in the epistles or Acts once congregations were being established all over the place. BTW, Catholics do not do it every time 2 or more folks meet up.

[williamray123]

There's a very good argument to be made that some kind of 'LS' OUGHT to be performed every single time two or more folks gather together at all. So the Catholics do it 'right' by having communion every day, instead of once a week (or once a month, or once a quarter, as some denominations do it).

ok, so what is this "ought" argument of which you speak? I don't see any reference to daily/continual offerings in the epistles or Acts once congregations were being established all over the place. BTW, Catholics do not do it every time 2 or more folks meet up.

I believe the NT is rather ambiguous on when and how often to do the LS. There is an example of gathering to break bread, but it is indeed ambiguous on whether or not this was a meal or the LS.

[agricola]

That's an interesting question - most Christians push all the gospel stories together into one story - but if you look at them individually :

Matthew (26: 26-29) has Jesus breaking bread and passing around the wine jar ('took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them') and saying 'this is my body' and 'this is my blood' BUT there is no mention at all of having them do it AGAIN.

Mark (14:22-25) uses almost exactly the same language as Matthew.

Luke (22:15-20) is longer but still the same story EXCEPT he adds 'this do in remembrance of me', which is the first time that shows up.

John - well, in John, Jesus is talking so much, the food must have congealed. Pages of speeches.

In other words, the 'commandment' to break bread/drink wine 'in remembrance' is NOT PRESENT in the earliest gospels, but only shows up later on, when the Christian movement had already moved into the Greek world, and had already established some kind of regular practice.

Nevertheless, the usual understanding is 'whenever you are gathered together' and 'as a remembrance', so it is a ritual performance designed to bring members together and remind them - plus you have Acts, which also applies because it occasionally refers to a Christian practice. But deciding that one must do that particular thing ONCE A WEEK, as opposed to daily, is an interpretation without much basis in NT writings. It was not, in fact, the practice of the first (or second) century church to restrict communion to Sundays.

[KLP]

ok, so now you are saying there is or isn't a good Ought argument to be made for constant and continual observance? Again, I see no reference to Paul or others (especially after Acts 6 ) taking LS daily or even daily breaking bread together.

[agricola]

If the 'do in remembrance' part applies, then perhaps it should be done ONCE A YEAR, on the anniversary of the meal 'before the Passover'.

If the example is from Acts (I think it's Acts), then 'on the first day of the week' MIGHT apply, and you'd do it either Saturday night, or anytime (daytime) on Sunday.

OR if you follow the interpretation which says that 'first day of the week' was only because Paul happened to be there then, you might do it whenever you had a visiting preacher!

Or you could follow the known practice of the early church (2nd-4th centuries) in which case you'd have communion every single day - but it would just be AVAILABLE every day, and not mandatory. The RCC offers it daily, but it is only taken when the individual feels worthy of it, which would include someone who has gone to confession and did their whatever contrition required, and was in a fit state to be partaking.

In other words, the NT is not at ALL clear about when or how often, and the earliest Christian practice that is known, is daily availability, and periodic partaking.