A memorialist can be just as concerned about aiming to obey the Lord’s command as someone who isn’t a memorialist. But people all along the Eucharistic-view spectrum can have different opinions on when food is or isn’t “bread which is recognizable as such.” (I’ve regularly questioned whether Communion wafers are recognizably bread; they don’t resemble the bread we encounter anywhere else.)
It does matter what you count as 'bread', and admittedly wafers are at one end of the spectrum. But they are practically convenient, . . . .
They are practically convenient, but personally, I think they’re off the spectrum of anything recognizable as “bread.”
I also think that they’re subject to the same criticism often made about wee cuppies—they’re individual, not sharing in one loaf (or cup).
I can hardly think that Jesus is very tolerant of pharisaical nit-picking about this and similar issues.
I’m sure about gluten-free bread as bread, but not about non-wine. Fortunately He is definitely present if one only takes one of the forms.
(Googling)
Aha! There is a non-alcoholic option accepted by the RC Church, which is arguably up there in terms of being strict about these things. It’s not just juice though:
They are practically convenient, but personally, I think they’re off the spectrum of anything recognizable as “bread.”
I also think that they’re subject to the same criticism often made about wee cuppies—they’re individual, not sharing in one loaf (or cup).
They're no more different from Tesco's best sliced white than matzos or naan are. Of course individual wafers are as bad as wee cuppies, but large wafers that break into 24 or more pieces are readily available.
I do think there is a powerful meaning in using wine: alcohol can cause sorrow and heartache, but it can also bring joy and happiness (or at least can be a sign of the latter). Christ came to take our flawed reality and transform it into divine and transfigured reality. Although I acknowledge that this might be too fanciful a concept for someone whose life or family has been damaged by alcohol. And maybe there needs to be some leeway.
They are practically convenient, but personally, I think they’re off the spectrum of anything recognizable as “bread.”
I also think that they’re subject to the same criticism often made about wee cuppies—they’re individual, not sharing in one loaf (or cup).
They're no more different from Tesco's best sliced white than matzos or naan are. Of course individual wafers are as bad as wee cuppies, but large wafers that break into 24 or more pieces are readily available.
I don’t know about Tesco’s best sliced—I’ll imagine it’s like American white breads—but culture is very much at play here, I think. The easy rule of thumb might be would you find it in the bread aisle at the local grocery store or at a typical local bakery. Another rule of thumb might be whether it would be served as bread during a meal.
To be honest, I doubt many people where I live would call matzos “bread,” unless they’re familiar with Passover and know that it’s considered bread for Passover. I suspect most people would call it a cracker, which is generally not considered bread—a different aisle at the store, and not typically found at a bakery. (Yes, I’ve heard people, including Jewish people, basically say “it’s really a cracker, not bread.”)
Flatbreads, on the other hand, are common here, and are sold where breads are sold. Breads like pita and naan and arepas aren’t unusual at all. I’ve known a number of churches that use pita for Communion. They’re not like anything that would be eaten as part of a meal.
Meanwhile, Communion wafers bear no resemblance to anything that might be considered bread here. Indeed, I can’t think of any actual food they’d be thought of as resembling. They’re something that where I am is encountered only in (some) churches, and only in the Eucharist.
I do think there is a powerful meaning in using wine: alcohol can cause sorrow and heartache, but it can also bring joy and happiness (or at least can be a sign of the latter). Christ came to take our flawed reality and transform it into divine and transfigured reality. Although I acknowledge that this might be too fanciful a concept for someone whose life or family has been damaged by alcohol. And maybe there needs to be some leeway.
It’s a concept I quite agree with, actually, and it’s a case I’ve made more than once. I’ve made a similar case with regard to using leavened bread.
But yes, there does indeed need to be some leeway, I think. And pastoral judgment and sensitivity. And forbearance.
I’m sure about gluten-free bread as bread, but not about non-wine. Fortunately He is definitely present if one only takes one of the forms.
That’s an understanding that some Christian traditions operate with. Other traditions, including some with a sacramental view, think Jesus’s directive “drink ye all of it” is relevant when circumstances within our control make it impossible for all to drink of the cup.
I was once forced to receive in one kind only (bread) as the conference I was at ran out of wine before they reached the last 50 or so of us. I figured the Lord would cope with it just fine, though I wouldn't willingly choose to do things that way. (To make things funnier, it was a pastor's conference, and some random hotel servant ran into the room swinging a wine bottle over his head, in full "I'll rescue you!" mode, just as they were saying the benediction!)
Meanwhile, Communion wafers bear no resemblance to anything that might be considered bread here. Indeed, I can’t think of any actual food they’d be thought of as resembling. They’re something that where I am is encountered only in (some) churches, and only in the Eucharist.
The closest thing I can think of are these little old-fashioned things that were shaped like flying saucers…
OMG, I looked them up just now, and they were originally made by a factory that made Communion wafers!
I’m sure about gluten-free bread as bread, but not about non-wine. Fortunately He is definitely present if one only takes one of the forms.
That’s an understanding that some Christian traditions operate with. Other traditions, including some with a sacramental view, think Jesus’s directive “drink ye all of it” is relevant when circumstances within our control make it impossible for all to drink of the cup.
Yes, this is my understanding of it, which may not necessarily align with other denominations’ beliefs. My apologies for being unclear about that, so:
“Fortunately, as I understand it, He is definitely present if one only takes one of the forms.”
In defense of the wafers that so many dislike, I have a disorder (Schatsky's ring, which sounds like a great name for a pub!), that makes it difficult to swallow things like the big, chewy pieces of bread torn from a larger loaf, without choking. The little dissolvable wafers make it easier for me to receive Communion without having to rush back to my pew and down a big swig of water. (I'd gladly wash it down with a big swig of wine from the Cup, but more than a sip is usually frowned upon!)
An interesting point - and I'm not sure if anyone's yet mentioned the fact that wafers can be kept for quite long periods without *going off*, if the Sacrament is reserved e.g. for the purposes of Home Communions (which may well be conducted by lay persons).
Perhaps the best answer, then, is that the reason Jesus chose bread to be the Symbol of His Body, is that it is so flexible and adaptable to so many different cultures, and in so many different forms - like Himself!
Perhaps the best answer, then, is that the reason Jesus chose bread to be the Symbol of His Body, is that it is so flexible and adaptable to so many different cultures, and in so many different forms - like Himself!
Possibly. Or perhaps bread and wine were already symbolic/archetypal in ways we don’t necessarily understand…
Perhaps the best answer, then, is that the reason Jesus chose bread to be the Symbol of His Body, is that it is so flexible and adaptable to so many different cultures, and in so many different forms - like Himself!
@ChastMastr and @KarlLB, where I am, “flying saucer” as a food is a reasonably-sized flat pastry, akin to an elephant ear. I’ve never encountered the candy, and I’d say the closest thing to Communion wafers in my experience are Necco Wafers. But I’m guessing we’d all agree that candy, whether Flying Saucers or Necco Wafers, are not bread of any sort.
Perhaps the best answer, then, is that the reason Jesus chose bread to be the Symbol of His Body, is that it is so flexible and adaptable to so many different cultures, and in so many different forms - like Himself!
Perhaps the best answer, then, is that the reason Jesus chose bread to be the Symbol of His Body, is that it is so flexible and adaptable to so many different cultures, and in so many different forms - like Himself!
Possibly. Or perhaps bread and wine were already symbolic/archetypal in ways we don’t necessarily understand…
An interesting point - and I'm not sure if anyone's yet mentioned the fact that wafers can be kept for quite long periods without *going off*, if the Sacrament is reserved e.g. for the purposes of Home Communions (which may well be conducted by lay persons).
In the Orthodox tradition, where we use leavened bread, reservation is normally done only once a year (on Holy Thursday, at the commemoration of the Last Supper). The consecrated bread is cut into small pices, sprinled with the consecrated wine, and then dried before being placed in the tabernacle. Properly dried it keeps without problems. Before using for communion of the sick one piece is soaked in hot water before adding wine, with the bread and wine administered together in a spoon as usual.
In defense of the wafers that so many dislike, I have a disorder (Schatsky's ring, which sounds like a great name for a pub!), that makes it difficult to swallow things like the big, chewy pieces of bread torn from a larger loaf, without choking. The little dissolvable wafers make it easier for me to receive Communion without having to rush back to my pew and down a big swig of water. (I'd gladly wash it down with a big swig of wine from the Cup, but more than a sip is usually frowned upon!)
In the Orthodox tradition the leavened consecrated bread is cut into suitably small pieces, so this situation should not arise.
@ChastMastr and @KarlLB, where I am, “flying saucer” as a food is a reasonably-sized flat pastry, akin to an elephant ear. I’ve never encountered the candy, and I’d say the closest thing to Communion wafers in my experience are Necco Wafers. But I’m guessing we’d all agree that candy, whether Flying Saucers or Necco Wafers, are not bread of any sort.
Perhaps the best answer, then, is that the reason Jesus chose bread to be the Symbol of His Body, is that it is so flexible and adaptable to so many different cultures, and in so many different forms - like Himself!
Perhaps the best answer, then, is that the reason Jesus chose bread to be the Symbol of His Body, is that it is so flexible and adaptable to so many different cultures, and in so many different forms - like Himself!
Possibly. Or perhaps bread and wine were already symbolic/archetypal in ways we don’t necessarily understand…
An interesting point - and I'm not sure if anyone's yet mentioned the fact that wafers can be kept for quite long periods without *going off*, if the Sacrament is reserved e.g. for the purposes of Home Communions (which may well be conducted by lay persons).
In the Orthodox tradition, where we use leavened bread, reservation is normally done only once a year (on Holy Thursday, at the commemoration of the Last Supper). The consecrated bread is cut into small pices, sprinled with the consecrated wine, and then dried before being placed in the tabernacle. Properly dried it keeps without problems. Before using for communion of the sick one piece is soaked in hot water before adding wine, with the bread and wine administered together in a spoon as usual.
I’ve got to ask—do they use the same spoon for everyone? I’ve wondered… I can’t imagine they use dozens of them every service.
Possibly. Or perhaps bread and wine were already symbolic/archetypal in ways we don’t necessarily understand…
For symbolic and archetypal, one could hardly do better than a eucharistic practice from people in the Far North.
Having been converted to Christianity, they wished to celebrate Holy Communion, but had long since run out of bread and wine initially brought by missionaries. Bread and wine being hundreds of impassable miles away, they had to use what was available locally.
They used pieces of raw seal heart. It seemed to be the most appropriate symbol of Jesus giving his own life, his very heart, for his disciples.
(I have this on good authority from a former Warden of St John's College, a researcher of indigenous Christianity.)
Perhaps it should be considered again, raw bloody seal heart containing neither gluten nor alcohol.
I’ve got to ask—do they use the same spoon for everyone? I’ve wondered… I can’t imagine they use dozens of them every service.
Yes. One metal spoon, which is rinsed after the service (with the Deacon [or Priest, if there is no Deacon] consuming the rinsing water). See https://www.istok.net/Communion-spoon-5.html for a typical example.
Perhaps it should be considered again, raw bloody seal heart containing neither gluten nor alcohol.
Perhaps this isn't the place... I have considered this for a while, hence me resurrecting in some sense, this thread. I realise I can be prickly, and I do not mean to be.
May I be clear. I am not judging. In no way. This is merely me being curious as to traditions other than my own.
Given Jesus used bread and wine, at what point do we depart from that? Again: I am not judging. I am just curious as to the thinking that we will adjust this to local circumstances -- which, in other things, I am rather open to. Not sure why this looms large in my head particularly; perhaps given my view of the Eucharist which I aware not all share.
WindsOfChange wrote similarly, and Nick Tamen agreed. So I am aware my view is not universal. Is it, well, Jesus was in First Century Israel and we are not?
Possibly. Or perhaps bread and wine were already symbolic/archetypal in ways we don’t necessarily understand…
For symbolic and archetypal, one could hardly do better than a eucharistic practice from people in the Far North.
Having been converted to Christianity, they wished to celebrate Holy Communion, but had long since run out of bread and wine initially brought by missionaries. Bread and wine being hundreds of impassable miles away, they had to use what was available locally.
They used pieces of raw seal heart. It seemed to be the most appropriate symbol of Jesus giving his own life, his very heart, for his disciples.
(I have this on good authority from a former Warden of St John's College, a researcher of indigenous Christianity.)
Perhaps it should be considered again, raw bloody seal heart containing neither gluten nor alcohol.
Episcopalian legend, meanwhile, has it that a clan chief was given the last rites after Culloden with the elements being oatcakes and whisky.
In defense of the wafers that so many dislike, I have a disorder (Schatsky's ring, which sounds like a great name for a pub!), that makes it difficult to swallow things like the big, chewy pieces of bread torn from a larger loaf, without choking. The little dissolvable wafers make it easier for me to receive Communion without having to rush back to my pew and down a big swig of water. (I'd gladly wash it down with a big swig of wine from the Cup, but more than a sip is usually frowned upon!)
In the Orthodox tradition the leavened consecrated bread is cut into suitably small pieces, so this situation should not arise.
A point of convergence there between the Orthodox and the Kirk!
I would think that the people who should make those decisions (about changes to the elements) are the ones who are on the spot, in an emergency that absolutely rules out any more traditional choices. If the Spirit is going to speak to anyone on the subject, I think it would be them. The rest of us probably ought to keep silent and thank God it's not us...
Given Jesus used bread and wine, at what point do we depart from that? Again: I am not judging. I am just curious as to the thinking that we will adjust this to local circumstances -- which, in other things, I am rather open to. Not sure why this looms large in my head particularly; perhaps given my view of the Eucharist which I aware not all share.
WindsOfChange wrote similarly, and Nick Tamen agreed. So I am aware my view is not universal. Is it, well, Jesus was in First Century Israel and we are not?
Just to be clear, where I fall, and what I think I was agreeing with @windsofchange about, is a sense that if what a community uses can reasonably, within the cultural context of that community, be called “bread” and “wine” or “the fruit of the vine,” then that community is being faithful to Christ’s institution of the Eucharist.
And like @Lamb Chopped, I think that if someone in an unusual and perhaps emergency-type situation does the best they can with what available, the rest of us should keep our mouths shut.
I would think that the people who should make those decisions (about changes to the elements) are the ones who are on the spot, in an emergency that absolutely rules out any more traditional choices. If the Spirit is going to speak to anyone on the subject, I think it would be them. The rest of us probably ought to keep silent and thank God it's not us...
I agree, though I think that doesn't let whoever chose cranberry and raspberry juice drink for our last two communion Sundays off the hook!
I once spent time with a people who did not have any bread in their diet. This was in Irian Jaya, the Indonesian part of New Guinea, where the diet was heavily sweet potato based. They also had no wine. For communion it was sweet potato and a red berry juice. The sweet potato worked well. “I am the sweet potato of life” is a good translation if that is your staple food as bread was for Jesus. The juice was less good as they didn’t drink it normally, so it became a holy drink, not something from everyday in which Jesus is remembered.
This echoes the dilemma in Bible translation, highlighted by the Bible Society and Wycliffe Bible Translators. Do you go for the "exact translation", which may mean introducing a word from another language that may be incomprehensible; or do you go for "dynamic equivalence"? (The classic case is translating Isaiah 1:18 “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" in a country where snow is unknown).
So: does one insist on bread and wine "because that's what Jesus said and the Jews used"; or for sweet potato and berry juice "because they're the common stuff of life and that's what Jesus might well have used if he'd been there"). In any case, the bread that was used at the Last Supper was hardly Sliced White, Hovis or - dare I say it? - Communion wafer.
We're dealing with symbols here (or even symbols of symbols!). Which speak most powerfully with the real-life context?
Even for those of us who don’t think it symbolic, we can take into account the character of our Lord and not expect impossible things of them (like obtaining wheat bread and wine in certain places).
Even for those of us who don’t think it symbolic, we can take into account the character of our Lord and not expect impossible things of them (like obtaining wheat bread and wine in certain places).
Would it be naughty to suggest that God is more than capable of first turning the substitute elements into bread and wine if that is a prerequisite for turning them into Christ's body and blood?
Just sharing a time when our local synod council met for the first time after we were coming out of the pandemic. During the pandemic our bishop had allowed for local congregations to use little sealed cuppies that had a piece of bread on one end, and a little wine on the other end for communion. They had been distributed by a Roman Catholic outlet.
Since this was at the end of the lockdown and things were returning to the regular method of distribution, the church where we were meeting at had a box of these cuppies left over, so we were using them. Turns out the wine had turned to vinegar, a taste most foul. It was after communion we looked at the box. On it were the instructions to keep the box refrigerated. It had been kept in a storeroom instead.
Keeping that experience for a sermon illustration.
In practical terms, the choice of bread as symbolic of Christ at the Last Supper had to reflect the foods served at the seder. Bread seems quite reasonable compared to, say, bitter herbs.
In practical terms, the choice of bread as symbolic of Christ at the Last Supper had to reflect the foods served at the seder. Bread seems quite reasonable compared to, say, bitter herbs.
I don’t think bitter herbs were part of the Seder at the time of Jesus. They and a number of other things we associate with Seders came later.
I once spent time with a people who did not have any bread in their diet. This was in Irian Jaya, the Indonesian part of New Guinea, where the diet was heavily sweet potato based. They also had no wine. For communion it was sweet potato and a red berry juice. The sweet potato worked well. “I am the sweet potato of life” is a good translation if that is your staple food as bread was for Jesus. The juice was less good as they didn’t drink it normally, so it became a holy drink, not something from everyday in which Jesus is remembered.
In practical terms, the choice of bread as symbolic of Christ at the Last Supper had to reflect the foods served at the seder. Bread seems quite reasonable compared to, say, bitter herbs.
The Greek term for unleavened bread is άζυμο ψωμί. Regular, common bread is ψωμί. There is no modifier in the gospels for the unleavened bread. Paul does not even refer to unleavened bread in his rendition of the meal. It seems the church had decided very early on that people could use common bread in the meal.
The last supper is an act of hospitality. It is not hospitable only to offer people food which is bad for them. Therefore, it makes zero sense to force coeliacs into eating wheat - especially the supersensitive ones, for whom even "gluten free" wheat is poisonous - or alcoholics wine. His primary concern was for his disciples, not for the meal - why does the church become so obsessive? Oh, apart from its centuries-long history of controlling people as a means of maintaining its power.
That goes back to the times of Constantine when factions sought to be the greatest in the earthly kingdom rather than being the servants of all, quite contrary to teachings found in the NT. And the various expressions of Christianity are often still following this worldliness.
That goes back to the times of Constantine when factions sought to be the greatest in the earthly kingdom rather than being the servants of all, quite contrary to teachings found in the NT. And the various expressions of Christianity are often still following this worldliness.
Maybe, and @ThunderBunk does well to remind us that the Eucharist is indeed an act of hospitality. Hospitality on the part of Jesus himself, and therefore something to be passed on hospitably to everyone partaking.
Comments
They are practically convenient, but personally, I think they’re off the spectrum of anything recognizable as “bread.”
I also think that they’re subject to the same criticism often made about wee cuppies—they’re individual, not sharing in one loaf (or cup).
I completely agree.
(Googling)
Aha! There is a non-alcoholic option accepted by the RC Church, which is arguably up there in terms of being strict about these things. It’s not just juice though:
https://catholicreview.org/question-corner-is-non-alcoholic-church-wine-valid-for-consecration/#:~:text=But there is one acceptable,level of normal table wine.
They're no more different from Tesco's best sliced white than matzos or naan are. Of course individual wafers are as bad as wee cuppies, but large wafers that break into 24 or more pieces are readily available.
I do think there is a powerful meaning in using wine: alcohol can cause sorrow and heartache, but it can also bring joy and happiness (or at least can be a sign of the latter). Christ came to take our flawed reality and transform it into divine and transfigured reality. Although I acknowledge that this might be too fanciful a concept for someone whose life or family has been damaged by alcohol. And maybe there needs to be some leeway.
To be honest, I doubt many people where I live would call matzos “bread,” unless they’re familiar with Passover and know that it’s considered bread for Passover. I suspect most people would call it a cracker, which is generally not considered bread—a different aisle at the store, and not typically found at a bakery. (Yes, I’ve heard people, including Jewish people, basically say “it’s really a cracker, not bread.”)
Flatbreads, on the other hand, are common here, and are sold where breads are sold. Breads like pita and naan and arepas aren’t unusual at all. I’ve known a number of churches that use pita for Communion. They’re not like anything that would be eaten as part of a meal.
Meanwhile, Communion wafers bear no resemblance to anything that might be considered bread here. Indeed, I can’t think of any actual food they’d be thought of as resembling. They’re something that where I am is encountered only in (some) churches, and only in the Eucharist.
It’s a concept I quite agree with, actually, and it’s a case I’ve made more than once. I’ve made a similar case with regard to using leavened bread.
But yes, there does indeed need to be some leeway, I think. And pastoral judgment and sensitivity. And forbearance.
Or He is present where two or three meet in His name - which I don't think means reciting a (magic) formula.
I mean present in the Eucharist, specifically, in the way that we are eating and drinking His Body and Blood.
And yes, it is magic—the whitest magic in the world, or up there, certainly. Magic beyond mere “ordinary” supernatural magic.
@Nick Tamen said
The closest thing I can think of are these little old-fashioned things that were shaped like flying saucers…
OMG, I looked them up just now, and they were originally made by a factory that made Communion wafers!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer_(confectionery)
Yes, this is my understanding of it, which may not necessarily align with other denominations’ beliefs. My apologies for being unclear about that, so:
“Fortunately, as I understand it, He is definitely present if one only takes one of the forms.”
Possibly. Or perhaps bread and wine were already symbolic/archetypal in ways we don’t necessarily understand…
That is a really good thought!
I can definitely be on board with that!
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
In the Orthodox tradition, where we use leavened bread, reservation is normally done only once a year (on Holy Thursday, at the commemoration of the Last Supper). The consecrated bread is cut into small pices, sprinled with the consecrated wine, and then dried before being placed in the tabernacle. Properly dried it keeps without problems. Before using for communion of the sick one piece is soaked in hot water before adding wine, with the bread and wine administered together in a spoon as usual.
In the Orthodox tradition the leavened consecrated bread is cut into suitably small pieces, so this situation should not arise.
Agreed!
I’ve got to ask—do they use the same spoon for everyone? I’ve wondered… I can’t imagine they use dozens of them every service.
For symbolic and archetypal, one could hardly do better than a eucharistic practice from people in the Far North.
Having been converted to Christianity, they wished to celebrate Holy Communion, but had long since run out of bread and wine initially brought by missionaries. Bread and wine being hundreds of impassable miles away, they had to use what was available locally.
They used pieces of raw seal heart. It seemed to be the most appropriate symbol of Jesus giving his own life, his very heart, for his disciples.
(I have this on good authority from a former Warden of St John's College, a researcher of indigenous Christianity.)
Perhaps it should be considered again, raw bloody seal heart containing neither gluten nor alcohol.
Yes. One metal spoon, which is rinsed after the service (with the Deacon [or Priest, if there is no Deacon] consuming the rinsing water). See https://www.istok.net/Communion-spoon-5.html for a typical example.
May I be clear. I am not judging. In no way. This is merely me being curious as to traditions other than my own.
Given Jesus used bread and wine, at what point do we depart from that? Again: I am not judging. I am just curious as to the thinking that we will adjust this to local circumstances -- which, in other things, I am rather open to. Not sure why this looms large in my head particularly; perhaps given my view of the Eucharist which I aware not all share.
WindsOfChange wrote similarly, and Nick Tamen agreed. So I am aware my view is not universal. Is it, well, Jesus was in First Century Israel and we are not?
Episcopalian legend, meanwhile, has it that a clan chief was given the last rites after Culloden with the elements being oatcakes and whisky.
A point of convergence there between the Orthodox and the Kirk!
And like @Lamb Chopped, I think that if someone in an unusual and perhaps emergency-type situation does the best they can with what available, the rest of us should keep our mouths shut.
I think the principle behind that applies here.
I agree, though I think that doesn't let whoever chose cranberry and raspberry juice drink for our last two communion Sundays off the hook!
So: does one insist on bread and wine "because that's what Jesus said and the Jews used"; or for sweet potato and berry juice "because they're the common stuff of life and that's what Jesus might well have used if he'd been there"). In any case, the bread that was used at the Last Supper was hardly Sliced White, Hovis or - dare I say it? - Communion wafer.
We're dealing with symbols here (or even symbols of symbols!). Which speak most powerfully with the real-life context?
Would it be naughty to suggest that God is more than capable of first turning the substitute elements into bread and wine if that is a prerequisite for turning them into Christ's body and blood?
Since this was at the end of the lockdown and things were returning to the regular method of distribution, the church where we were meeting at had a box of these cuppies left over, so we were using them. Turns out the wine had turned to vinegar, a taste most foul. It was after communion we looked at the box. On it were the instructions to keep the box refrigerated. It had been kept in a storeroom instead.
Keeping that experience for a sermon illustration.
I am reminded of Andrew Fowler’s hymn, “The Rice of Life.”
The Greek term for unleavened bread is άζυμο ψωμί. Regular, common bread is ψωμί. There is no modifier in the gospels for the unleavened bread. Paul does not even refer to unleavened bread in his rendition of the meal. It seems the church had decided very early on that people could use common bread in the meal.
Maybe, and @ThunderBunk does well to remind us that the Eucharist is indeed an act of hospitality. Hospitality on the part of Jesus himself, and therefore something to be passed on hospitably to everyone partaking.
Exactly, and this needs to be borne in mind by the churches, especially those who tie themselves in knots with Rules...