8yr old girl denied Holy Communion

Well, I suppose the corresponding tradition for us would be someone who could not, for medical reasons, be immersed in water and yet wished to join our church. What would WE do in such a case?

One big difference, of course, is that we would in no way suggest the member's spiritual state was in any way impaired; baptism being purely a symbolic act. But will we hold back church membership in this case? Forbid the partaking of communion because the believer is unbaptized?

 

Actually this is more of a problem for Lutherans and Primitive Baptists who take seriously Jesus words, "This do", than for Roman Catholics who ignore the Lord's command. Roman Catholics allow communicants to receive the cup in lieu of the host; whereas, Lutherans and Baptists believe communicants should receive both the bread and the cup. Since there is strong evidence that Christ used unleavened wheat bread and grape wine at the first supper, pastors should also use these elements.

 

Seems rather obvious, she will have to drink the wine instead of eating the bread.

 

Since Christ is in both the wine and the bread, it should be no problem at all.

It's puzzling why the girl's mother hasn't realized this.

 

I can only speculate. Perhaps, the mother doesn't want her child to receive the tiny semblence of alcohol in a sip of the blood of Christ or she doesn't fully understand or accept her church's doctrine of concomittance.

 

This I copied from another board. I'm not commenting on it.

I'm Catholic and I had no idea this rule existed. I'm sure it's there so that churches have to use some form of bread as communion, and can't do whatever zany promotional stunt they want:

"The popcorn of Christ..." "Amen."
"The crab dip of Christ..." "Amen."
"The Almond Joy of Christ..." "Amen."

 

There is a great deal of disagreement within the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican 2 when it was infected with ecumenicism, masons and other non believers.

Mioque's communique is illustrative of such. Please note I am not having a go at Mioque for this report, it is endemic of the RCC as seen by many.

It represents the systematic abuses within the church and is deeply offensive to Catholics who hold with the Holy Mass prior to vatican 2.The Communion is never accepted by the laity in the hand nor is there ever a circumstance where communion is received as two matters. It mocks the sacrament of the Eucharist, it is a foul mockery!

For Baptists it is as offensive as if the Bible was written on waste paper or the place of worship was despoiled. It is all one!

 

I don't agree with either 1. the symbolism of the Primitive Baptists or 2. the transubstantiation of the Latin Rite Roman Catholics. Nevertheless, I believe both denominations are doing the right thing by insisting that the same elements that Jesus used in the first supper be used whenever the Lord's Supper is celebrated. It is, after all, the Lord's Supper not our snack.

 

double post

 

"I guess my peeve is that some fundamental churches insist that ONLY unleavened bread and grapejuice properly represent the body and blood of Christ."
''
The ultimate irony here is that a couple of churches that have the age the wildest Landmark churches claim for themselves in their wildest dreams, believe that the Last Supper was not a Pesachmeal and deliberately use leavened bread for the Communion.

 

Ps104_33,

It is not the bread and wine but Christ's word alone that causes His body and blood to be present in the Supper; however, when He says, "This do", we should do as He did and not create doubt by using elements that He did not use.

Historically most Christian churches have used unleavened wheat bread and fermented grape wine. Research has shown that these elements were almost certainly the ones used by Jesus. For example, from the Primitive Baptist FAQ website: