Easy Instant Pot Chicken Marsala

Kyle Broflovski

Modern Heretic
IMonk is an Amazon Associate. And funny enough, my son has never really liked store bought bread but loves this bread!!!! This looks like a recipe i would use. In fact, believe it or not, and very sadly, there was a major controversy over leavened vs unleavened bread in Church history. Planned activities - make sure your exercise regimen is well-rounded, incorporating cardio, resistance, and stretching. He makes a load almost every other day and your rolls.

Ashley Confronts Thomas Backstage at the Reunion

After Eight

Finally a drinking game which promotes teetotalism, every time Jay makes a comment, you gotta down your drink. It could of course be that the guys a genius, has every matter all ready figured out and resolved in his own mind, and therefore has no need to debate with others on such trivial matters as TV. Where is Silent Jay? Something for the ladies? The first new household joining the show in are the Da Silva family from Central London. Obviously with the exception of Rolf. If anything, this special episode just served to demonstrate how hard it is for people off the telly to honestly critique people off the telly.

The Adobe Flash Player is required for video playback. A special Gogglebox spin-off, the show is scheduled to air on Channel 4 in Since her husband passed away, she has lived alone, but daughter, Verona 52 , spends all her spare time with her mum, cooking for her and taking her to church. When not with Grandma Ann, Verona works as a health care assistant, while Nate is a gospel choir manager.

In addition to her 49 grandchildren, Ann also has 44 great grandchildren, 6 great-great grandchildren and even 3 great-great-great grandchildren. Where else you gonna wear them? Looking forward to seeing you guys this series. Stephen and Chris — Channel 4. Bill and Josef — Channel 4. Jenny and Lee — Channel 4. Giles and Mary — Channel 4. We All Love it….

This website uses cookies OK More info. Any way that you can encourage a feeling that, in sharing this meal, they come together in communion with Christ and with each other, is good. Let the children in on the proceedings. They will always remember this when they are older. I suppose everyone could scrub up first, and maybe wear masks and gloves if chatting to folks or shaking hands afterwards.

The proper or perhaps an augmented practice of the Lavabo ritual handwashing would go miles and miles to prevent disease transmission. The breaking of the bread has more potential for transmitting disease than does the passing of the cup. In practice, before I ever touch the bread and wine, I use a water soluible hand sanitizer and water to cleanse my hands.

From the point I do that, I only touch the chalice, paten, and bread. Also, while my preference would be for intinction over individual cups, I and I alone do the dipping. My hands have been washed. Everyone sticking their hands in a cup will do far more to spread disease than a single minister or, in places where needed, several communion ministers — all of whom have washed.

In my Chaplaincy work at the hospital, I only use hand sanitizer at the Eucharist in the Chapel… but believe you me, I use it all the time. A service I recently went to, I forgot that that church used individual cups. I was so relishing the communion liturgy, then they unveiled the cups. I suddenly felt that I had been tantalised with the offer of communion, and then it was whisked away. I wonder if there is an official medical term for illnesses spread in this way. For those overly squeamish about the use of the common cup, chalices with pouring lips are widely avaliable which can be used to pour into an individual cup.

I would argue, however for those using individual cups to institute a better policy if your current policy is to pitch the things in a trash can as I have seen done before at the end of the communion rail. The cups should be collected, and washed — even if they are disposable. If someone tried doing that with a cross, the entire church would be up in arms! The common loaf approach, whatever decision may be made on the cup, is one of the best ways to speak of unity and of the sacrifice of Christ as the bread is broken.

It need only take a moment or two, while the choir sings a reverential song, for the broken bread to be quickly cut into manageable cubes. That cutting also keeps multiple hands from grabbing the bread and tearing into it, which is not very reverential and leads to some unfortunate visual effects.

Your Eastern-Rite training is showing, Fr Orthocuban. I think somebody on this thread also mentioned Intinction. Hermetically-sealed Packets like fast-food ketchup? I can think of no reason to use any language other than that of our Lord on the night that he instituted the communion feast. While there are some valid concerns with respect to disease transmission — there are some good coping strategies to deal with it.

As far as the common cup goes — If you have a cold, and wish to take communion, it is wise and easy to wait until the end of the communion and be the last persons to take the cup. In my current congregation we receive the bread from the server and it is dipped in the cup, so for the most part individuals who are ill do not contaminate the cup.

In congregations where wine is used, the alcohol content is generally high enough to disinfect the cup, however, if you are ill, the recommendation to wait until the end applies.

In my current congregation we use a single loaf which is divided in to as many pieces as are needed, usually two and we split the single cup in to as many as needed for the communion stations. Additionally as a health measure each of the people at a station use hand sanitizer before handling the elements. As to the health concerns, this was a big topic in Roman Catholic circles several years back. A study was conducted with regards to single-cup distribution.

The result was that you were less likely to catch illness during communion, even with a shared cup, then you were during the Sign of Peace shaking hands, greeting, whatever the terminology your church uses. Thanks for the Gospel guys! You might wish to look at Church history. The East has been using leavened bread since long before the Great Schism. In fact, believe it or not, and very sadly, there was a major controversy over leavened vs unleavened bread in Church history.

It was even addressed at the Council of Trullo. I am not saying we must be consistant , but the unleavened bread has as much sybolism as one loaf. It does seems a little inconsistant to care about one without the other, though I can see that some of the concern about wine is also concern about many Christians wrong views on alcohol being forbidden.

What was the example of the apostles? How did they go about things? The only implication given by the Apostles example is that the frequency increased. There is no reason to assume that any other aspect did. The only outright commands given are limited to a command that we should do it at all and how we treat on another while doing it.

I think the corporate aspect is one of the most important elements. Has anyone ever been at a church where this sort of thing was practiced? The church issues them and blesses them or blesses them and issues them according to local practice. The believers open their hermetically sealed packets and partake. Needless to say, it has not exactly caught on greatly!

I have partaken in this manner before, at a very large SBC church. While I appreciate the health and efficiency standpoint of this, having grown up Roman Catholic, this was an offense to my sensibilities of the communion service. My parents, who are still Roman Catholic, nearly fell our of their seats no pews in that church, either. Note that I am not trying to condemn that church or the people there.

It is a good church full of faithful people. Just seemed to me to be a weird way to try and re-enact the sharing of the body of Christ. Because of H1N1, we took communion like this once at the Methodist church where I am a member. I met the minister there one time. He said they passed it out as folks came in and everybody just ate when they were ready.

You just get your elements when you darn well please. In particular, the normal method of the partakers coming down and kneeling at the altar and being served by the minister and the deacons will not go down well with evangelicals. There is nothing wrong with the passing of the plate of wafers and cups of wine from one congregant to another and it deemphasizes the idea of the pastor imparting something mysterious to the meal.

Another good way that involves the partaker is intinction, as he tears a piece of bread from the loaf and dips it in the cup, usually held by the pastor or deacon.

Another hindrance to frequent partaking is the lack of suitable contemporary music. Most people do not wish to partake in silence, although this has its merits. There is plenty of traditional music available, but few evangelical churches would use it either because it is in Latin countless versions of Agnus Dei or speaks in terms that could be understood as literal in relationship to the Body and Blood of Christ although no more so than the Scripture.

I agree with the method of intinction which you describe. As for music, I have experienced several methods, and all have their merit. I grew up in a church that used multiple hymns, to be sung by the congregation. I have attended services with no music. Actually, it is kind of nice to be able to pray in silence after receiving. The church I currently attend uses instrumental music during distribution.

Why do we come to the front to receive? Why should the pastor and a team distribute as such? Why or why not one loaf? Why or why not one cup? What is in the cup? Really instill meaning to the actions, which I find lacking in so many churches, although not really denomination specific trends, in my experience. We sit silently and prayerfully most of the time, but sometimes we have whoever is willing read aloud sections of the Word related to the gospel.

I know the whole Bible is related to the gospel, but you know what I mean. Both ways really work, I feel we lack for not having music. For large congregations, this is where the Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist come in: I think if someone really wants to do it, the logistics can be managed. Catholics have served communion to over a million people at a shot in 20 minutes or less.

Yet Catholics manage to distribute communion to , plus crowds attending a Papal Mass in minutes. Perhaps someone should attend and take notes. Thoughts on instituting this in larger churches, and in non-chaotic ways? At my LC-MS church, we will set up stations where the associate pastors will take the bread and the wine after they have been concentrated on the alter. At each station, pastors will administer the sacraments to those coming up.

Communion in larger churches is an issue, and especially for those of us in my tradition where the community is a strong emphasis esp in Anabaptism. In the Lutheran tradition, we use wine and wafers unleavened bread for the elements in Holy Communion. Does it matter to if you use wine not grape juice and unleavened bread not yeast bread at your church? Christ used both wine and unleavened bread on the night what he was betrayed since non-fermenting grape juice had been invented and no leavening were to used in the Passover meal.

That is why we use wine and wafers. The Orthodox use leavened but rather dense loaves, which they cut into cubes and serve on a little spoon. I associate unleavened bread with the manna in the desert, the Passover generally and, of course, the Last Supper specifically. Unleavened bread also symbolizes a break from the past since leaven comes from an older batch of dough. The controversy over leavened vs. Early on, both leavened and unleavened bread were used. The churches practices gradually separated until only unleavened bread was used by Latins Roman Catholics prior to the Great Schism , while Orthodox used only leavened.

This was not controversial until they began carping at each other for political reasons. The Bishop of Constantinople, in , concerned that the Latin Church and the Arminian Church, both of whom used unleavened, were conspiring against the Orthodox, declared the Latin Church to be heretical unless they changed.

Shortly thereafter the Great Schism occured, cementing the differences. The theology behind all this is complicated, but basically, the RC church uses unleavened bread because this is what was used by Christ at the Passover.

The Orthodox believe that unleavened bread symbolizes sacrifice, while leavened bread, which the Old Testament proscribes for feasts, emphasizes the Messianic Banquet which the Eucharist Thanksgiving points too.

Maybe we should break a loaf of each! I believe you will find discussion about this in the I-monk files. Grape juice could not be used practically until Mr. Welsh invented a way to prevent fermentation. Obviously, the teetotaler movement in the nineteenth century led to many Protestant churches switching to grape juice, but there is no theological reason for it. Catholics are very careful to be sure that only wine is used. When the SBC young bloggers started writing that wine was certainly acceptable according to Scripture, Paige Patterson wrote a ridiculous defense of grape juice, claiming that Jesus never drank wine!

In my opinion, it matters little what the elements are. Wine and bread were fundamental to the early Jewish and Christian diet and symbolized the good things that God gives us for the Messianic banquet. The important thing is the understanding of what is being received by the partaker. We remember and believe that Christ died and we participated in His death by dying to sin and because of His Resurrection, we believe and anticipate the Messianic Feast after the Judgment.

I do not mean to disparage all the symbolism and ritual built up by different traditions around the Eucharist, but they are not the point. Christ and Christ in us, is. I consider the leavened — unleavened argument to be one of the more stupid arguments in Church history. As a result, neither the West Romans, Protestants nor the Armenians accept it as Ecumenical while the Orthodox all cite the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which has a canon that says that the canons of the Council of Trullo are to be considered ecumenical.

Of course, uhm, there were only a couple of delegates from the West, and the Pope refused to accept it, so. The Patriarch of Constantinople decided to cite Trullo during a time of rising tensions, but Trullo had been cited previously.

As, I said, one of the more stupid arguments. I use leavened because I am under obedience. The same it true of Roman Catholic priests and unleavened bread. But, Protestants are free to choose on this one.

Please avoid this argument like the plague and use whichever one is compatible with your group and your congregation. Sorry, just a little leavity! I can see a big row about wine versus grape juice brewing, but once again: I see both sides of the argument here, having functioned in both Western and Eastern traditions. Theologically, leaven can also symbolize sin, which is a classic theologic-symbologic explanation for unleavened bread, but, as a previous poster pointed out, leaven is also a sign of joy and celebration.

I once heard someone say that there was no way that any wine could be genuinely Kosher, since yeast caused fermentation… an interesting thought… myself I would prefer using Mustum as a happy medium if I found myself in the midst of a situation where wine was being debated. Mustum is unpasteurized grape juice with a very low naturally-occuring alcohol content.

Rome approves it for alcoholic priests, through in my opinion, if it is good enough for one, it is good enough for all. I am very sadden when I read this. We should consider it a great joy that we can receive what the Lord Jesus Christ has invited us to receive, namely the forgiveness of sin found in the bread and in the wine.

Holy Communion is both a gift and a command of our Lord that we should not limit. Implying that means they always took communion every time they met- even daily- is unwarranted, at least on the level of binding practice. Imonk said that there were some good things to commend about closed communion, at least in theory. Now I know that admonition is in the scriptures but when baptist churches are guilty of doing that are we sort of missing the point.

Let me give you a scenario. Perhaps he knows of an active affair, or a couple co-habitaing etc. I only ask because I know of some baptist ministers who will do the former, I probably used to be one of them, but I find myself more drawn to the second more sacramental view. By this, I mean that we should be intentional about using traditional liturgical forms and language that are not inconsistent with scripture, in order to emphasize that we are ONE BODY, with one Lord, partaking of one loaf and one cup 1 Cor In planning, one needs to realize that communion has a primary place in worship, and allow sufficient time and personnel to do it both efficiently and effectively, neither of which is possible in those evangelical churches that regularly feature sermons of 45 minutes or more.

I like the liturgical balance between word and sacrament, where neither dominates the time budget for the service, and both are done intentionally, striving for quality rather than quantity. You could each do it at the same time with your right hand touching their left shoulder.

Maybe, as Paul suggests, we should be worrying more about getting sick and dying from judging the body wrongly. For the record, my understanding of this is that here he means the body in the sense of the church, not their understanding of real preassence or whatever other view people take, due to the overall context that he was rebuking them due to their apparent judgement of each other that certaing christians intheir church were of a lesser value or class. Nevertheless, transmission does not necessarily imply inoculation or infection.

Consideration of the epidemiology of micro-organisms that may be transmitted via saliva, particularly the herpes group of viruses, suggests that indirect transmission of infection is rare and in most instances a much greater opportunity exists for direct transmission by other means.

There is substantial evidence that neither infection with hepatitis B virus nor HIV can be transmitted directly via saliva so that indirect transmission via inanimate objects is even less likely. Currently available data do not provide any support for suggesting that the practice of sharing a common communion cup should be abandoned because it might spread infection.

The hazard of infection from the shared communion cup. However, the same principle applies when venerating the Cross on Good Friday — everyone goes up, kisses the crucifix held by the priest, the priest or acolyte gives it a wipe and goes on to the next person.

The kiss of peace — if that becomes kisses or hugs, see me running screaming for the door. A formal embrace, though: Grapes are harvested in Summer to early fall. Jesus and the disciples would not have had non-fermented grape juice in the spring. I just had a terrible, terrible flashback involving not taking Communion seriously as it should be. My mom was gone for one of her many conferences and came home with a tiny plastic bag full of watered-down Ribena for my non-Brits, this is a blackcurrant-based drink and a cube of local bread.

She called me, poured the Ribena into a cup and gave me the cube of bread. You should have seen my face. To serve someone the Bread of Life and Cup of Salvation at the same time tiny preemie infants are being fed may sound unusual or even disrespectful, but in practice it was very worshipful and meaningful. Indeed, we are more helpless than those infants. Why oh why oh why should only those who are ordained ministers be allowed to preside at communion?

For an evangelical context, I would recommend a contemporary version of the Book of Common Prayer , the official prayer book for the Anglican Church. The Prayer Book is very scriptural and the liturgy was meant to proclaim liturgically the gospel of salvation by grace through faith.

Sometimes I might or someone else might play some sort of classical composition, but generally because of the flexibility to wrap up a verse quickly, etc, I play hymns. Usually, I choose hymns having words directly connected with the ceremony or maybe 1 or 2 of that sort and then 1 or 2 connected with the sermon or theme of the day.

I try to make selections that people will know the words to so the music is meaningful and not just background noise , though often I try to pull out older hymns or perhaps hymns from other traditions still covering the same themes just to introduce them.

Navigation menu