# What are the problems with doing the Lord's Supper alone?



## shackleton (Feb 8, 2009)

I occasion a ministry in the city I live in and they have the LS out where anyone can take when they feel the urge so it got me to wondering what would be the problems associated with this? Is it just that it has to be given by an ordained minister of the church? And if so why is that?


----------



## Theognome (Feb 8, 2009)

If no one is 'fencing' the table, what's to stop someone from eating and drinking judgment upon themselves?

Theognome


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 8, 2009)

The biggest problem is that it misses the whole point of the Lord's Supper. It is for corporate worship, not the individual. The church celebrates it.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 8, 2009)

Well I can tell you one potential problem of solo communion. 

We knew a guy who was the only Christian (Protestant) on a navy ship and somebody walked in on him taking his own private communion...they were out to sea for many months. The somebody went and told everybody on ship that the guy was secretly a priest. Next thing he knew he had hordes of guilty Catholics coming to him asking to make confession. He had a real hard time convincing them he wasn't a priest. 

If you knew the guy it would be funnier...he was just so not RCC....


----------



## shackleton (Feb 8, 2009)

These people are "Christians." They pray before taking it and appear to take it as seriously as some do in the church service, the only difference is that there is not an ordained minister giving it.


----------



## KMK (Feb 8, 2009)

shackleton said:


> These people are "Christians." They pray before taking it and appear to take it as seriously as some do in the church service, the only difference is that there is not an ordained minister giving it.



Do you agree with this?



> WCF 29:3 The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.



If so, then the problem with leaving the LS 'out where anyone can take when they feel the urge' is obvious. In fact, it ceases to be the 'Lord's Supper' at all. If there is no word of institution declared to the people, if there is no prayer or blessing, if no one is 'giving' the elements to the communicants, then how is it the Lord's Supper? In fact, in my opinion, (and this is only my opinion) based on what you have described, this man is attempting to give the LS to those who 'are not then present in the congregation'.

Again, this is only my opinion based upon what you have said.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 9, 2009)

Sacraments are churchly, disciplinary acts. "Admission to" the table is just as much an act of discipline as "barring from" it. If you can have sacraments without the church, then discipline and membership and all the rest means nothing; the church is just a social club or gathering without any regulation.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 9, 2009)

I agree that it shouldn't be done alone, that it is to be done within the church. That is one reason why our persecuted brothers and sisters are in need of our prayers. Many times they don't get to participate in the sacraments especially the women's prisons. They are truly missing out on such needed tools of grace! I know God sustains them, but what joys they miss if there is not a pastor who can administer this to them. I think that's one reason why God commands us to visit those in prison. A pastor could go visit the woman's prison and give them the Lord's Supper...possibly.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 9, 2009)

sjonee said:


> I agree that it shouldn't be done alone, that it is to be done within the church. That is one reason why our persecuted brothers and sisters are in need of our prayers. Many times they don't get to participate in the sacraments especially the women's prisons. They are truly missing out on such needed tools of grace! I know God sustains them, but what joys they miss if there is not a pastor who can administer this to them. I think that's one reason why God commands us to visit those in prison. A pastor could go visit the woman's prison and give them the Lord's Supper...possibly.



This is a good point.

We do not do "private" communions in the PCA- one has to publish the occasion in advance of the Lord's Supper and invite others to participate.

How do we account for situations for people in prison, on the battlefield, on the "deathbed" etc.?


----------



## shackleton (Feb 9, 2009)

It is and it isn't a church, it is more of a ministry/bible school and the room that houses the elements is a prayer room, sort of like a chapel where prayer is _literally_ going on 24 hours a day. I don't know for sure if anyone has prayed over it or not but my guess is that they have. 

I am just wondering if since the LS is for the nourishing and refreshing of the soul, then does it have to be doe within the confines of a certain system in a certain building. Can't you have your soul refreshed wherever?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 9, 2009)

WCF XXIX



> III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; *but to none who are not then present in the congregation*.
> 
> IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all *contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ*.



*emphasis mine.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 9, 2009)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> WCF XXIX
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So this is saying that a pastor could not go and give the Lord's Supper to someone in prison? Am I reading that right? If I am, were is the Scriptural support for that? My pastor is a OPC pastor who adheres to the WCF and he stated that although it is very rare he would go to a nursing, for example, and give a member of the church who lives there and couldn't get to church anymore the Lord's Supper. Maybe I misunderstood him so I'll ask him again.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 9, 2009)

sjonee said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > WCF XXIX
> ...



Both sacraments are to be accompanied by the preaching of the Word, which is the primary means of grace. Luther called the sacraments "dumb signs", meaning that they do not "speak" by by themselves (that is without a Word of explanation and exhortation) unless accompanied by the preaching of God's Word.

Here are the Scripture proofs from the WCF:

ACT 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 1CO 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

1CO 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

MAR 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 1CO 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

MAT 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


----------



## TimV (Feb 9, 2009)

I don't think so, Sarah. The point of the WCF passage is that nothing magical is done at the ceremony that would allow any virtue to be passed on to the wine and bread, which could be sent out and with these "powers" by themselves pass on some benefit.

Remember the term Congregation doesn't mean just the members in the building; that's why Pastor Buchanan can have communion with a group of other Pastors from other congregations from around the country; he's in a congregation of Presbyters.

Likewise, your Pastor could visit a nursing home, or a battlefield, or a prison, and administer the Sacraments to those of his flock.

There's another point as well. I brought up the 1979 PCA GA ruling some months ago when it came to having women administer the sacraments, and the quoted section of the WCF shows that clearly.


----------



## shackleton (Feb 9, 2009)

What does it mean to eat and drink unworthily?


----------



## Zenas (Feb 9, 2009)

It defies the model set forth by Christ.


----------



## shackleton (Feb 9, 2009)

But the texts do not say anything about ministers or prayer or bible reading it just speaks of it being more of a memorial of what Jesus had done, just like the Passover was a memorial of what God had done in Egypt. 

It does seem to say that it is to be done in a community (communion), and it almost seems like it could be a meal rather than a small wafer the size of a fingernail and a spoonful of grape juice.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 9, 2009)

Addressing a few of the issues raised:

1) I understand that an OPC church would basically have a "mini-worship service" at the nursing home or prison, or wherever; perhaps just for the one person in the bed, but that's OK. You should (if at all possible) have another elder present, so that the "session" is represented (not just a minister). And you must preach the Word. Sing and pray. The Sacrament should not be simply dolled out like it has "grace" in it.

2) "Eating and drinking unworthily" -- "Worthy" participation would be a faithful, cognizant (discerning) participation in the body and blood of the Lord. It can't be ignorant or a mockery of the union of the church with Christ in his death (which was the central act of salvation) in which the Christian participates. But because it is a common meal, it doesn't have the true character of the meal if it is individualistic.

What, is my religion "Jesus and ME; I'm that important," or is it "Jesus and WE; I'm an invitee, no more important than any other."

3) If anyone can make himself this meal, then there's no meaningful "barring," is there? If you are separated from the body for any reason, discipline or otherwise, then you just assert yourself. Nevermind that sin or Providence has separated you from the church; refuse to submit to that circumstance. Serve yourself.

No, but the whole point of the church serving the meal is that the people come and are *served* by Christ (as the disciples were), though mediated now through those same disciples (that is, by the ministry that they first represented). So, when Joe decides to "serve himself," and denies that the church is absolutely necessary for the service, he is saying something about the value of the church--he doesn't need it for his well-being.

4) I don't mind giving "larger portions" than we typically see, but I see concern over the "portion" as the same sort of misguided concern for the "amount" of the Lord's Supper, as the "amount" of water needed for a baptism. The issue is not "how much of Christ do I have, and 'more' must be better?" but "Do I have Christ at all?"

Paul's rebuke in 1Cor.11, though it is primarily concerned with gluttony at the associated fellowship-meal (love-feast), it also holds true if at the Lord's Supper itself people are grabbing for that which will fill their bellies, rather than concentrating on the symbolism of the elements.

Let's not ignore the fact that this meal is a _ritual._ That's the point of it. A wafer and a thimble are _enough_ to fill up my whole body. There's a fine line between appreciating the elements (but aren't they "plain"?) in the mouth and in the stomach, and having too much of that, turning the mind away from the *meaning* of the meal.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 9, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Addressing a few of the issues raised:
> 
> 1) I understand that an OPC church would basically have a "mini-worship service" at the nursing home or prison, or wherever; perhaps just for the one person in the bed, but that's OK. You should (if at all possible) have another elder present, so that the "session" is represented (not just a minister). And you must preach the Word. Sing and pray. The Sacrament should not be simply dolled out like it has "grace" in it.



This is exactly what I was thinking would happen. Thank you for pointing this out and I'm glad that you agree that it can be done.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Feb 9, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Addressing a few of the issues raised:
> 
> 1) I understand that an OPC church would basically have a "mini-worship service" at the nursing home or prison, or wherever; perhaps just for the one person in the bed, but that's OK. You should (if at all possible) have another elder present, so that the "session" is represented (not just a minister). And you must preach the Word. Sing and pray. The Sacrament should not be simply dolled out like it has "grace" in it.



This is what Tim does as well when visiting the sick/shut-in.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 20, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Addressing a few of the issues raised:
> 
> 1) I understand that an OPC church would basically have a "mini-worship service" at the nursing home or prison, or wherever; perhaps just for the one person in the bed, but that's OK. You should (if at all possible) have another elder present, so that the "session" is represented (not just a minister). And you must preach the Word. Sing and pray. The Sacrament should not be simply dolled out like it has "grace" in it.




It has been a *long* time since my first wife left this age so my memory is a little shaky on the details. She died of cancer and was hospitalized for a long while before she died with no time out (constant terrible pain kept her hospitalized). I believe I remember there being a time when the congregation was asked to be present at the hospital so she could participate in the LS. I remember several times when many from the church came to the hospital after Sunday services to be there and sing, pray and worship in her room.

The regulation for the sacrament is such that it must be done in the context of the church. It is not something one does alone as if it were a talisman that has power or grace locked up in the doing of it. Both baptism and the Lord’s Supper are functions of the body, and one person does not the body make. Too often, we take the LS as if it were private … it is a corporate act and we should not only examine ourselves, but we should also be cognizant of the whole body taking a common communion as a body. It is true the communion is with Christ in the supper, but it is also a communion with each other.


----------



## etexas (Feb 20, 2009)

No altar, no priest or Bishop....no count! (Just the Anglican side though).


----------

