The wafers and the plonk.

[Gordon]

Have to say this blind adherence to recent prescriptions on what constitutes proper 'bread and wine' cheered me up no end.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/09/church-of-england-gluten-free-wafers-non-alcoholic-wine-communion

I'm just wondering if the 'bread and wine' at the original (alleged) 'last supper' would have conformed to current CofE requirements.

[Nearly Sane]

Have to say this blind adherence to recent prescriptions on what constitutes proper 'bread and wine' cheered me up no end.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/09/church-of-england-gluten-free-wafers-non-alcoholic-wine-communion

I'm just wondering if the 'bread and wine' at the original (alleged) 'last supper' would have conformed to current CofE requirements.

57 varieties of angels can dance on the head of a pin. Kill the blasphemers

[Steve H]

My church gives you a choice of wine or grape juice. I don't know about gluten-free wafers, but  I'm sure we'd accommodate anyone who needed them. Mind you, we're a CofE/Baptist/URC ecumenical partnership, not a straight CofE church.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

57 varieties of angels can dance on the head of a pin. Kill the blasphemers

I think you'll find it's 57 varieties of Heinz and it's grill the blasphemers not kill.

[jeremyp]

I'm just wondering if the 'bread and wine' at the original (alleged) 'last supper' would have conformed to current CofE requirements.

Any reason why they wouldn't?

I'd be more concerned about whether modern wafers and communion wine would have conformed to Jesus' standards. Communion wine is generally not nice and the wafers do not really look like proper bread at all.

[Steve H]

Facebook post by my vicar...

[Sassy]

11:27
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.”

Because the Supper encapsulates the gospel, the substitutionary death of Christ.


The  fact is that Christ drank wine and both grape juice and wine made from the grape.
To participate in communion us essential for the believer.

[Steve H]

The  fact is that Christ drank wine and both grape juice and wine made from the grape.
To participate in communion us essential for the believer.

Quakers and Salvationists don't.

[jeremyp]

Quakers and Salvationists don't.

Ah, but no true Christian....

[Sassy]

Quakers and Salvationists don't.

What say you, Steve?
What is the communion about?

[Alan Burns]

Have to say this blind adherence to recent prescriptions on what constitutes proper 'bread and wine' cheered me up no end.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/09/church-of-england-gluten-free-wafers-non-alcoholic-wine-communion

I'm just wondering if the 'bread and wine' at the original (alleged) 'last supper' would have conformed to current CofE requirements.

The specific ingredients of the bread and wine are irrelevant to the true meaning of what they are.

The most important thing is that they are consecrated on the alter at the high point of the Catholic Mass to transform them into the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ.  This process, known as transubstantiation, is absolutely central to our Roman Catholic faith.  There are some, such as the Gorkum Martyrs, who have been tortured and put to death for refusing to renege on this belief.

[Gordon]

The specific ingredients of the bread and wine are irrelevant to the true meaning of what they are.

The most important thing is that they are consecrated on the alter at the high point of the Catholic Mass to transform them into the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ.  This process, known as transubstantiation, is absolutely central to our Roman Catholic faith. 

But their physical state doesn't actually change, does it? They aren't physically 'transformed' at all- you guys just like to think so.

There are some, such as the Gorkum Martyrs, who have been tortured and put to death for refusing to renege on this belief.

Then, and no matter how sincere they were, the deaths were for nothing more than a flawed belief. Poor judgement on their part.

[ProfessorDavey]

The specific ingredients of the bread and wine are irrelevant to the true meaning of what they are.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but would seem to me irrelevant whether it is wine or grape juice or gluten containing/gluten free to the symbolism in a faith context.

The most important thing is that they are consecrated on the alter at the high point of the Catholic Mass to transform them into the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Absolute non-sense - there is absolutely no change whatsoever in the composition of the wine and bread - they remain wine and bread, they do not turn into blood and flesh.

This process, known as transubstantiation, is absolutely central to our Roman Catholic faith.

The symbolism may be really important to your faith, but there is no actual alteration in the bread/wine. The composition of them remains identical before and after the process.

[Spud]

Just to say: Matthew and Mark's accounts of the institution of the Eucharist are similar.
But where Matthew writes, "take, eat", Mark writes "take".
Where Matthew writes, "drink of it, all of you", Mark writes, "and they all drank of it".

[Steve H]

Just to say: Matthew and Mark's accounts of the institution of the Eucharist are similar.
But where Matthew writes, "take, eat", Mark writes "take".
Where Matthew writes, "drink of it, all of you", Mark writes, "and they all drank of it".

Different, but not contradictory. There are many contradictions in the Bible, but these aren't two of them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to say: Matthew and Mark's accounts of the institution of the Eucharist are similar.
But where Matthew writes, "take, eat", Mark writes "take".
Where Matthew writes, "drink of it, all of you", Mark writes, "and they all drank of it".

And why is this relevant to the actual thread topic, which is about whether non-alcoholic wine and gluten-free bread are appropriate options for use in communion.

[Steve H]

Apparently, the Catholic church has always used unleavened bread at communion, while the Orthodox have always used leavened. Discovered that yesterday from 'Byzantium' by Judith Herrin, which I'm currently reading

[Dicky Underpants]

Apparently, the Catholic church has always used unleavened bread at communion, while the Orthodox have always used leavened. Discovered that yesterday from 'Byzantium' by Judith Herrin, which I'm currently reading

And apparently the Catholics have abandoned the wine. Was it more difficult to transubstantiate? Or was 'Jesus' blood' still capable of transmitting nasty infections?

[Steve H]

Didjano that Catholics se unleavened bread, while the orthodox use leavened? Neither did I, but it is so, according to 'Byzantium' by Judith errin.

[Spud]

Different, but not contradictory. There are many contradictions in the Bible, but these aren't two of them.

True, it's not a big difference, but it indicates that Matthew is the original account. Matthew uses exactly the same pattern for both the bread and the wine:

Jesus
Took bread
Blessed and broke it
Gave it to the disciples
Said, "take, eat, this is my body"

Took the cup
Gave thanks
Gave it to them
Said, "drink this all of you, this is my blood..."

Mark however, follows the same pattern but breaks it by omitting '...eat...drink' and inserting 'and they all drank of it', with Jesus explaining what the cup represents after they have drunk from it.

If you had two versions of a rhyme, and in one version the pattern was broken, you would assume the intact pattern belongs to the original version.

I guess this could be relevant to the thread in the sense that we see in Matthew what is probably a liturgical form of the account, being therefore a more accurate representation than Mark's of how the Eucharist was originally practised.

[Spud]

Didjano that Catholics se unleavened bread, while the orthodox use leavened? Neither did I, but it is so, according to 'Byzantium' by Judith errin.

Something to do with whether the last supper was on the passover, in which case they would have used unleavened bread, or the night before the passover (as in John) in which case leavened bread could have been used.

[jeremyp]

True, it's not a big difference, but it indicates that Matthew is the original account.

Matthew isn't the original account according to most scholars.

I'll take their word over a biased Christian.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Matthew isn't the original account according to most scholars.

I'll take their word over a biased Christian.

Genetic fallacy?

[jeremyp]

Genetic fallacy?

I am familiar with many of the arguments in favour of Mark being the earliest gospel and we had a thread discussing it. The thing it really proved his the Spud is unable to examine the evidence in an unbiased way. Therefore, I fall back on the scholarly consensus.

[Spud]

I am familiar with many of the arguments in favour of Mark being the earliest gospel and we had a thread discussing it. The thing it really proved his the Spud is unable to examine the evidence in an unbiased way. Therefore, I fall back on the scholarly consensus.

Regarding this passage, I did also look at the possibility that Mark was the original. It seems the reason that he omitted "eat"after "take" could have been because he had already said "while they were eating" and didn't want to repeat the word eat. But this could also be true if he was copying Matthew.

The evidence therefore suggests that this passage is originally from Matthew. It also adds to the evidence that the author of Matthew was one of the disciples and an eyewitness.