Common cup for The Lord's Supper.

[JOwen]

When Chalmers got rid of the table, did they pass the common cup up and down the pews or did multiple cups come in then? I think perhaps there were always more than one goblet in Scottish practice; I recall the reference in the Directory to "large cups," large being a reference to size or to "many" if used in the old use. I'm not clear which now.

The single cup remained with Chalmers. The singularity of the cup has been maintained in larger congregations in symbol, though two cups bight be passed down either side. During the Black Plague, multiple cups were permitted, but it was done by families, until such a time as the plague had passed. Interesting!

 

[Peairtach]

Chris

When Chalmers got rid of the table, did they pass the common cup up and down the pews or did multiple cups come in then? I think perhaps there were always more than one goblet in Scottish practice; I recall the reference in the Directory to "large cups," large being a reference to size or to "many" if used in the old use. I'm not clear which now.

Some churches in Scotland still have a table up front and there is a division in the congregation. The Free Presbyterian church does this and probably some Free Church congregations. I would prefer to have this in Knox Free in Perth.

All the communions I've been to in the above mentioned denominations pass one, or two or three chalices of wine around.

I think I've used the little individual glasses only once at an interdenominational conference. They may have been accepted more quickly in the CofS. I've never seen them in the FC, FPC, FC (cont) or APC.

I don't know what the United Free Church of Scotland does, another mixed denomination like the CofS, but smaller, or what the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland does - it has just four congregations.

Ian Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church also has a few congregations in Scotland, but I don't know if they use a common cup or not.

The little individual glasses don't seem to be popular at all in conservative Presbyterian churches in Scotland.

 

[JOwen]

Some churches in Scotland still have a table up front and there is a division in the congregation. The Free Presbyterian church does this and probably some Free Church congregations. I would prefer to have this in Knox Free in Perth. .

This was my experiance on Lewis in the APC when I did a Communion Season there. It was very nice.

 

[wsmeathers]

The “yuck factor” is not new to the Church. It has always been with us. Should we then use it to erase all biblical doctrines on this subject and 2000 years of Church tradition? Are we wiser than our fathers? Are we wiser than God?[/INDENT]

No. Thanks for the perpetually needed rebuke; however, if I take what you say about the single cup to heart, what do I do about it? Should I now refuse to partake unless there’s a common cup provided, or quit going to any church that refuses to use a common cup? Wouldn’t those actions serve only to defeat the biblical purpose behind the common cup?

How decisive an issue do you consider this to be and to what extent would you go in trying to sway church leadership?

 

[JOwen]

The “yuck factor” is not new to the Church. It has always been with us. Should we then use it to erase all biblical doctrines on this subject and 2000 years of Church tradition? Are we wiser than our fathers? Are we wiser than God?[/INDENT]

No. Thanks for the perpetually needed rebuke; however, if I take what you say about the single cup to heart, what do I do about it? Should I now refuse to partake unless there’s a common cup provided, or quit going to any church that refuses to use a common cup? Wouldn’t those actions serve only to defeat the biblical purpose behind the common cup?

How decisive an issue do you consider this to be and to what extent would you go in trying to sway church leadership?

As far as I see it, using individual cups does not mean the Lord's Supper is not administered. It means that it is not being administered as precisely as it could be according to the Word of God and secondarily, the historic Reformed tradition. The Lord is gracious, I believe, and because the unity of the Church trumps form, I would tread lightly on the subject. I have administered the Lord's Supper in congregations that use individual cups, a single cup, and combination of both. For me, the issue is not first or even second on the list of needed reforms in the church, but I'd say it makes the top 10 list. But then again, the issue of conscience comes in to play on a subject, which needs to be obeyed as it is informed. Having said that, I have never met anyone who would not partake because individual cups are used. I have met many who would like to see reform on it, and have or are working gently to see it come to pass.

As far as swaying church leadership goes, I think the only way to deal with it is to make it a matter of prayer, speak lovingly on the subject should the subject ever come up, and leave it with the consciences of those the Lord has placed in authority in the Church. There has to be a spiritual appetite for such a reform, and it should never be lofted above its place in the life of the Church. Education, prayer, love, and a submissive spirit are the key ingredients In my humble opinion. As far as I see it, it is not a reason to leave a good, gospel preaching Church, nor is it a reason to split it. As Rutherford once said, "Schism is making a tear in the garment where there is only a hole." I think this falls into that camp.

I'm very thankful that in my own congregation, the common cup is used and loved by all who are able to attend.

Every blessing,

 

[crimsonleaf]

We break of pieces of bread and consume them. Then we receive little cups but withhold the drinking of the wine until everyone has one. The drinking is then done corporately. It seems a fully inclusive method and speaks to the unity of the act.

When I used to take wine from one cup in the Anglican Church, the rim was always wiped with a cloth before being passed to the next communicant. Unfortunately it was wiped with the same part of the same cloth each time, which made me a little twitchy. Now all I have to put up with is other people's fingerprints in the loaf as it's passed round. Hey-ho.

 

[Andres]

As far as I see it, using individual cups does not mean the Lord's Supper is not administered. It means that it is not being administered as precisely as it could be according to the Word of God and secondarily, the historic Reformed tradition.

 

[yeutter]

As far as I see it, using individual cups does not mean the Lord's Supper is not administered. It means that it is not being administered as precisely as it could be according to the Word of God and secondarily, the historic Reformed tradition. The Lord is gracious, I believe, and because the unity of the Church trumps form, I would tread lightly on the subject. I have administered the Lord's Supper in congregations that use individual cups, a single cup, and combination of both. For me, the issue is not first or even second on the list of needed reforms in the church, but I'd say it makes the top 10 list. But then again, the issue of conscience comes in to play on a subject, which needs to be obeyed as it is informed. Having said that, I have never met anyone who would not partake because individual cups are used. I have met many who would like to see reform on it, and have or are working gently to see it come to pass.

As far as swaying church leadership goes, I think the only way to deal with it is to make it a matter of prayer, speak lovingly on the subject should the subject ever come up, and leave it with the consciences of those the Lord has placed in authority in the Church. There has to be a spiritual appetite for such a reform, and it should never be lofted above its place in the life of the Church. Education, prayer, love, and a submissive spirit are the key ingredients In my humble opinion. As far as I see it, it is not a reason to leave a good, gospel preaching Church, nor is it a reason to split it. As Rutherford once said, "Schism is making a tear in the garment where there is only a hole." I think this falls into that camp.

I'm very thankful that in my own congregation, the common cup is used and loved by all who are able to attend.

Every blessing,

I view the use of multiple individual cups as a concession to modernity. It is irregular; but not necessarily invalid. In recent years I have seen Lutheran congregations split over the issue by some who were more strongly committed to the use of a common cup then I am. I read in the Standardbearer about a group of Reformed Congregations in Namibia who were hardcore in their staand for the common cup.

 

[Pergamum]

I have folks with active TB in my church. Is it a sin if I elbow Mr Slobbers out of the way and go first?

 

[JOwen]

I have folks with active TB in my church. Is it a sin if I elbow Mr Slobbers out of the way and go first?

Probably

---------- Post added at 06:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 AM ----------

I have folks with active TB in my church. Is it a sin if I elbow Mr Slobbers out of the way and go first?

Probably

 

[a mere housewife]

Rev. Lewis, thanks much for your kind response -- and for your consideration of those who have scruples like my own.

Please know that I certainly did not intend to accuse anyone of superstition, simply to remark generally that it seems like those two principles of our reformed heritage are brought to bear on each aspect of our worship -- as with other aspects of the Lord's table (posture, etc, as Mr. Coldwell referenced). Alred Edersheim speaks of the postures having some significance in 'The Temple, Its Ministry and Services'; and indicates that the cup of blessing was understood in Paschal feast tradition rather differently -- with four cups of wine throughout the supper, at various points -- the third 'cup of blessing' being associated by the Lord with the institution of his own feast. It would seem that even the poorest in Israel were to procure these four cups for themselves, which would not indicate a communal cup so much as a communal drinking? This is not put forward for argument: I am not knowledgeable on the subject so much as curious - I was wondering if you could refer me to where Calvin defends drinking from a single cup? (In what I was able to find, he is more concerned to speak about communion in both kinds, and transubstantiation.) I do remember that when it came to headcoverings, he had no view that the symbol ought to be practiced in such a way as to cross health concerns. (He seems to have removed his own hat as a token of respect, and then replaced it, to keep warm while he preached.)

In fact I have no yuck factor. I was raised eating and drinking very much in common with my siblings, and am probably one who would feel how wonderful it was to behave so much like family. It's more a matter of principles of love, over against feelings, in my own case.

 

[JOwen]

Dear sister in Christ,

From The Form Of Prayers And Ministration Of The Sacraments as practiced in Geneva (1556), approved by both John Calvin and John Knox. It should be observed how the singualrty of divinsion of the same cup among the communicants is used in the following lnaguage.

"This done, the Minister breaketh the bread, and delivereth it to the people, who distribute and divide the same amongst themselves, according to our Savior Christ’s commandment, and in likewise giveth the cup (Works of John Knox, [Bannatyne Club: Edinburgh] 1855, 4:196, emphases added).

"Our Lord having commanded his disciples to eat the bread sanctified in his body, when he comes to the cup, does not say simply, “drink,” but he adds expressly, that all are to drink. Would we have any thing clearer than this? He says that we are to eat the bread without using an universal term. He says that we are all to drink of the cup."

Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels. Here he is speaking to the subject of the Passover (and His participation in Holy Supper, or not), but the singularity of a common cup still remains. Note,

"As Luke mentions that the cup was twice presented by Christ, we must inquire, in the first place, if it be a repetition, (as the Evangelists are wont frequently to say the same thing twice,) or if Christ, after having tasted the cup, repeated the same thing a second time. This latter conjecture appears to me to be probable; for we know that the holy fathers, during sacrifices, observed the solemn rite of tasting the cup; and hence the words of the Psalmist, ‘I will take the cup of salvation, and will call on the name of the Lord,’ (Ps. 116:13.) I have no doubt, therefore, that Christ, according to the ancient custom, tasted the cup in the holy feast, which otherwise could not have been correctly observed; and Luke expressly mentions this, before coming to give an account of the new mystery, which was a totally different institution from the paschal lamb".

Calvin's Vomments on 1 Cor 11:25,

"The cup, when he had supped The Apostle seems to intimate, that there was some interval of time between the distribution of the bread and that of the cup, and it does not quite appear from the Evangelists whether the whole of the transaction was continuous. This, however, is of no great moment, for it may be that the Lord delivered in the meantime some address, after distributing the bread, and before giving the cup. As, however, he did or said nothing that was not in harmony with the sacrament, we need not say that the administration of it was disturbed or interrupted. I would not, however, render it as Erasmus does — supper, being ended, for, in a matter of so great importance, ambiguity ought to be avoided".

That Calvin employed the use of the Common Cup has never been disputed.

Kindly,

 

[a mere housewife]

I will not be the first to dispute Calvin's practice! (I don't question the historical prevalence of the practice: I can well believe that even just for matters of convenience and lack of modern ideas about hygiene, the practice would have largely held throughout history, except where it crossed people's understanding of disease, as in the plague) -- I was simply wondering if there were anywhere in his writings that you could point me to where he specifically addresses using a common cup as on the same level of institution with communion in both kinds? (For some of the quotes you provided seem more directed at communion in both kinds? And I notice Calvin speaks of 'the cup' as a metonymy for the wine in the cup in his Harmony as well? As he also cites ancient customs, would Edersheim not throw some light on various senses in which our own understanding of 'the cup' might legitimately be taken?) Again, I'm afraid the questions will sound impertinent when I would like to better understand the exact grounds of this position. Thank you sincerely.

 

[JOwen]

The short answer to your question is no.

The longer answer is ,I think the evidence for what you are asking for is impossible to find (In Calvin's writings), due to the universality of the practice itself. But the universality points to the exegetical framework from which it rises. There was no need for polemics on the subject of the common cup because the practice was without question. And this should not go without notice; for when the Lord instituted the Lord's Supper, He knew full well of the potential of germ transmission. A subtle change in phraseology would have rendered the mode moot if He wold have pointed to the wine and not the cup in the institution. Because the Holy Spirit unequivocally uses the word cup (as opposed to just the wine in the cup, which is surely represents), we have little reason to question mode. This leaves only one exegetical conclusion resting on perspicuity; that the Lord intended the meal to consist of a communal cup. I would say that newly discovered circumstances can not be the tool by which exegetical establishment is removed.

Hope this helps.
Your thinking process is commendable!

Kind regards,

 

[Constantlyreforming]

When did this modern innovation of individual cups start?

History of Plastic Cups | eHow.com

 

[a mere housewife]

Rev. Lewis, you've been so kind and patient with me. Thank you. I'm afraid I'm a perpetual elephant child and have yet more, always more, questions but will leave it with those; certainly my thinking process can only reflect the small understanding of a curious housewife. I pray God will bless you and your church.

 

[Beau Michel]

I prefer the common cup.I believe it is more faithful to idea of communion as opposed to the individualism that has saturated the culture (and in many cases the modern Evangelical church.)Beau Michel-Taylor Mi.1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

 

[Beau Michel]

While I prefer the common cup,it is certainly not a basis for splitting a church.