I am confident of my position, as it is the common sense position. I do not denigrate those who practice the traditional Catholic way, but think the common sense way, the most likely way the first “remembrance” dinner was done, and a common Protestant practice, ought to be respected too.
Sorry for the run-on sentence. I think you get my point.
I do not automatically assume that the most likely way the first remembrance dinner was done is a common Protestant practice.
Indeed, I think the movement that ought to get the most points in this area would be the neo-Catechumanate Way, a Catholic movement that has been slapped down hard because of its liturgical practices.
To begin with, everyone ought to be reclining on couches. Not certain, but most likely. There also ought to be a roasted lamb and lots of wine served. What is common sense from there on out is debatable. I don’t see the evidence pointing so strongly in any direction as to claim that there is a common-sense position. It is like having a common sense position on the AFC champion in 2030—not enough evidence to have one.
As to respecting positions, I think that the Neo-Cats are probably more faithful to the original meal than anyone else, and applause to them for this in terms of theatre, but St. Paul himself indicates that the last supper is in any ways not meant to be the model for the Mass when he tells everyone to eat at home (I Cor. 11:20-22)—the Corinthian liturgical practice seems to have been stuck in the 0030’s and the practice of the Church had developed. I hope that Protestants do their best with whatever insights to the truth they may have, but following in the tradition of St. Paul I will not concern myself with the Last Supper as liturgically normative. The essentials, yes, but the trappings were suited to the old passover, and the New Passover deserves the trappings proper to itself.