|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Newbie at communion
|
John3000
Apprentice
# 18786
|
Posted
I never participated in communion during my many years of attending services as a child, I seem to remember my father had a preference for attending other types of service.
Now I have started attending some services again after 20+ years. Mostly evensong really. A few months ago I misread a music list and accidentally attended a sung eucharist. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Panic stations - what does one do? Do you actually drink the wine? From the cup while the priest is holding it? Isn't that how things get spilt? What about the wafer? Is it placed on one's tongue or in the hand. Then what? Chew it? Are you meant to say thank you? Kneel there for a seemly amount of time and then just turn your back and shuffle back to your seat?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The potential for getting something embarrassingly wrong seemed so great I just stayed in my seat. Unfortunately I couldn't see any of the goings on from my position so left the service none the wiser.
Any tips on receiving my first communion? I know I could ask someone at my place of worship but I'd feel much more comfortable just turning up and looking like I know what I am doing, armed with my internet facts. Does it vary much from place to place?
I'm not even sure about the basis of it to be honest, much of the rest of worship seems to be about prayer and contemplation and in contrast this is a very overt ritual. From my reading of 1 Corinthians 11 it's an act of remembrance of the body of Christ, a bit like laying a poppy wreath for the victims of war, is that a good way to think of it?
Posts: 29 | From: England | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John3000:
Panic stations - what does one do? Do you actually drink the wine? From the cup while the priest is holding it? Isn't that how things get spilt? What about the wafer? Is it placed on one's tongue or in the hand. Then what? Chew it? Are you meant to say thank you? Kneel there for a seemly amount of time and then just turn your back and shuffle back to your seat?
The priest or other minister steps in front of you with the wafer and says something like, "The Body of Christ." (there may be a few more words). You hold out your hands, palms up, right hand on top (usually...left hand is OK too). You say "Amen." You receive wafer and raise your hands to your mouth to consume it.
When the chalice comes to you, the minister says, "The Blood of Christ.." and you say "Amen" again. You take a tiny sip, and as you do, you can control the tipping of the chalice by gently holding the base of it. The minister will typically hold on to the chalice rather than hand it over to you (but watch to see whether that's so).
OK to chew the wafer, but it will probably melt away on your tongue and certainly when you sip from the chalice.
It's good to stay kneeling until the next person has received the chalice, to avoid bumping them while they're doing so. Get up and follow the previous communicants back to your pew.
You'll do fine...people do things differently: some never say "Amen" or anything else; others stick out their tongue to receive the wafer on the tongue (decide this ahead of time and be clear about which one you're doing...hold out your hands or your tongue with confidence).
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I'm just going to answer what look to me to be the easy parts of your question. I'm assuming that you are talking about the Church of England.
The practice varies from place to place, so mostly if you don't do what everyone else does, they'll just assume your practice is different from theirs. Most people will neither think nor comment about it.
At the rail most people kneel although some stand (usually because of physical limitations) - either is acceptable.
From "middle of the road" to 'low" most people receive the wafer/bread in the hand. Many people have been taught to put their right hand over their left. It's certainly easier for the person administering to put the wafer/bread into the palm of one hand held at a sensible height more or less horizontally. (Hands resting on the rail can be a bit low. A seriously tilted hand, or two hands together may give concern that the wafer/bread will fall off, or slip between the two hands.) In more catholic churches, the priest may put the wafer onto the worshipper's tongue. If you hold out your hands for the wafer, and the priest seems to be ready to give you a wafer, but doesn't put it into your hand, then he might be waiting for you to open your mouth for it.
When it comes to the wine, my impression is that there is a more even split between places where you are invited to hold, or to share holding the chalice, and those where you are expected to take the chalice. If the person administering is not expecting you take the chalice, it is still OK (in my view) for you to put a hand to it to make sure it goes in the right direction.
The usual response to the words used when you are given the bread or the wine is a simple 'Amen'.
As far as what it all means, there is a wealth of possibility. I quite like the words supposedly of Queen Elizabeth quote:
Christ was the word that spake it.
He took the bread and brake it;
And what his words did make it
That I believe and take it.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Welcome back to church!
It's a pity that what started off as a simple act that nearly anyone can do naturally (eating and drinking) has become a potential minefield theologically, and a source of fear of doing the wrong thing.
Communion varies from place to place - even the understanding of what it's all about. In some churches you don't even have to leave your seat!
I would encourage you to pluck up your courage and ask someone, perhaps one of the leaders/servers - that way you will be assured of doing the right thing, and probably be made to feel comfortable and welcome at the next opportunity.
I'm assuming that you are going to a CofE sort of place (evensong and sung eucharist), and in the CofE communion is seen as a bit more than a memmorial gesture such as laying a poppy wreath. The belief is that in some way the wine and wafer become to us the presence of Christ in us.
In the CofE you generally take the bread/wafer in your hand, and then pop it in your mouth and eat it. The wine then is offered - I find that if I make a grab at it I soon discover whether the chalice will be handed over or whether the server will keep hold. Either way, relax, so that it is unlikely to be spilt. (In most CofE places a spillage is not a big deal.)
If you watch what others are doing, you can judge the right time to get back to your seat.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
What everyone else has said.
The key phrase is "Watch what others are doing." Customs do indeed differ from place to place, and from denomination to denomination.
In the Catholic church, it is customary to bow the head slightly just before approaching the priest, and then to extend the hands, one cupped over the other, while remaining standing. The priest will place the bread in your hands while saying "The Body of Christ." You respond "Amen" and then place the bread in your mouth. If wine is offered (not always the case at a Catholic mass), the eucharistic minister holding the chalice will stand off to the side. You take the chalice from him or her and raise it to your mouth, taking a tiny sip. Then give it back. Also, not all Catholics take from the chalice; some pass it by after taking the bread.
If communion is in the form of a wafer, it usually "melts in your mouth" and can then be swallowed without chewing, especially if you have taken wine also, which will soften it further.
If communion is in the form of a morsel of "real" bread, I can't imagine how it would be consumed without chewing.
In other denominations, customs vary widely. Sometimes it is customary to "intinct" the bread -- i.e., hold it in your hand until the chalice comes to you, then dip it ever so slightly into the chalice so that it soaks up a drop of wine. Sometimes the eucharistic minister will take the bread out of your hand, dip it in the chalice for you, and then place it on your tongue.
Sometimes the wine (or grape juice) is ministered in tiny plastic cups (we call them "wee cuppies" here on the Ship), in which case you take one, drink it, and then put it back in the vessel from which you took it. But again, watch what everyone does -- in Lutheran churches you sometimes see everyone at the communion rail waiting until everyone has received bread and wine, and then consuming them all together upon cue from the priest.
In many Protestant churches, you will remain in your pew and the bread and wine will be brought to you by the elders. In that case, leave the wee cuppie in the pew (sometimes little cup holders are provided next to the hymn racks) after consuming the contents. But again, sometimes everyone waits until everyone has received bread and cuppie, and then consumes them together upon cue from the minister.
We could go on and on.
Bottom line -- again, watch what everyone else does. And know that you are doing exactly as the apostles did at the Last Supper. I'm sure their table manners weren't perfect either.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
And if you get it "wrong" (while trying and without dropping the chalice*) don't worry. And don't take any "corrections" personally.
Most of the time, they really happy either way, and didn't notice.
Most of the rest, it's for purely (often sensible) practical reasons.
Where there's a spiritual sibboleth, there's a fair chance it's been exaggerated (I'm sure I've heard both sides of chewing, and personally speculate it depended on if the local strange woman with the goat had teeth or not).
And if there are cases where it really matters and common-sense doesn't work, I'm sure God can handle it.
*If you do, do worry, but stop worrying once it's cleaned up and sorted out.
[Of course you could go somewhere superficially similar when on holiday, or to 8 O'clock]
[ 02. December 2017, 18:15: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Even President and Mrs. Reagan got it wrong the first time!
quote:
When communion began at the small Virginia church, Nancy Reagan was scandalized that people were all drinking from the same cup. Her aid, registering her panic, assured her that she could just dip the bread in the wine; frazzled, she dropped it in. Ronald Reagan — on autopilot, as if he were reading from a teleprompter — followed suit by confidently plopping his bread into the chalice, never comprehending his mistake, his face radiating piety as his wife and aid looked on mortified. After the final hymn he stood outside the chapel shaking hands and nodding with interest. Here was the President, “insufficiently briefed (or, as they say in the White House, ‘badly served’) on the wafer issue but moving ahead, stepping ‘into the sunlight,’ satisfied with his own and everyone else’s performance, apparently oblivious to (or inured to, or indifferent to) the crises being managed in his presence.”
I am so glad I wasn't the Eucharistic minister!
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
While it is indeed very useful that Miss Amanda explains in some detail how one approaches Communion in a Catholic church, this would surely at the moment only be of academic interest. Before one should approach Communion for the first time, one should have slightly more knowledge about what one is doing and I don't simply mean knowledge of the mechanical acts with hand and tongue.
Assuming that John is a Newbie at Communion in an Anglican church,should he not ask privately one of the clergy to explain the Church's understanding of what the eucharist represents
as well as how best to receive it ?
One doesn't need to have a full knowledge but surely some understanding,particularly the understanding of the clergy of the church which he attends, would make everything clearer.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Even President and Mrs. Reagan got it wrong the first time!
quote:
When communion began at the small Virginia church, Nancy Reagan was scandalized that people were all drinking from the same cup. Her aid, registering her panic, assured her that she could just dip the bread in the wine; frazzled, she dropped it in. Ronald Reagan — on autopilot, as if he were reading from a teleprompter — followed suit by confidently plopping his bread into the chalice, never comprehending his mistake, his face radiating piety as his wife and aid looked on mortified. After the final hymn he stood outside the chapel shaking hands and nodding with interest. Here was the President, “insufficiently briefed (or, as they say in the White House, ‘badly served’) on the wafer issue but moving ahead, stepping ‘into the sunlight,’ satisfied with his own and everyone else’s performance, apparently oblivious to (or inured to, or indifferent to) the crises being managed in his presence.”
I am so glad I wasn't the Eucharistic minister!
This is not just a Reagan problem. We folk in liturgical churches are often not sufficiently mindful of how what we view to be normative practices are unknown or misunderstood by pretty well everyone else.
As did then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the state funeral of a former Governor-General (Roméo LeBlanc). Accustomed to the holiness church practice of retaining the bread until the moment when worshippers communicated as one, he retained the host (given to him by the RC Archbishop of Moncton, who should have known better) and held on to it and waited for the signal. It never came and, embarrassed, he slipped it into his pocket. One of his seatmates quietly corrected him, and he then consumed the host.
A fuss was made over it by the usual suspects, and the Governor-General's son made a statement that the family welcomed the PM's sympathetic presence at the funeral and viewed this as a non-issue.
This by way of saying to John3000 that he should do his best, pay attention to how others are behaving, and all will be well.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Forthview is right. You should not receive in an RC church unless you are RC. You should not receive in the CofE unless you are either baptised and confirmed in the CofE or a person in good standing who is a member of another Christian communion. The requirement to be confirmed as well as baptised is not usually insisted on at the moment.
It is not just a question of embarrassment or religious politeness. These are the sacred mysteries. It is spiritually dangerous to receive if one does not know what one is doing or understand what the whole event signifies. And it is perfectly OK not to receive, and either to remain in one's seat or go forward and ask for a blessing.
I would very, very strongly endorse everything Forthview says, especially,
quote:
ask privately one of the clergy to explain the Church's understanding of what the eucharist represents
as well as how best to receive it ?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John3000
Apprentice
# 18786
|
Posted
Thank you all so much for taking the time to respond. It certainly seems I was right to ask, the little things are useful, like holding the cup at the same time as the minster to steady it without trying to take it away. The amusing anecdotes are reassuring as I hopefully won't get things quite that wrong. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
On a more serious note I should perhaps consider more carefully whether I ought to take part at all.
It is correct to surmise I am talking about the CofE. I currently irregularly attend services at a handful of places, but not my parish church. These places say communion is open to, variously "communicant members of all denominations", "those of any denomination" or "those who seek to follow Christ". On the strength of these written statements, I imagine if I were to ask a member of clergy, I'd get a different answer depending on who I asked.
Regarding it only being appropriate to participate if I am a communicant member, how can I become a communicant member if don't first participate
I was baptised at birth but I was not confirmed, I don't recall confirmation ever being mentioned when I was an older child attending church regularly. Just now doing some reading on the topic of infant baptism I see there's a wee bit of controversy there, with no doubt a thread or two on here already I should read up on.
Posts: 29 | From: England | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
In Church in Wales churches, confirmation is no longer required before taking the elements; this has caused a certain stir, but IMHO makes things much simpler for everyone.
At my own Anglo-Catholic CiW church, many cross themselves before taking each element, though some don't; some kneel, while others stand; some bow slightly before receiving each element, and some don't; some say Amen and some are silent; but all are equally welcome and equally blessed.
If you don't understand what's happening at the Eucharist, then you are perfectly correct: it's a Sacred Mystery.
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
If you’ve been a member of another denomination where you have been a communicant member, and you are in good standing (i.e. haven’t done anything which would lead to you being excluded from communion) then you are welcome to receive communion in the Church of England.
If you are in the Church of England, and have never been confirmed then it would be normal for you not to receive communion. In the Church of England confirmation is the normal ‘gateway’ to communion. Someone who has been baptised/christened and is “ready and desirous to be confirmed” may also be admitted to communion, and this would be something you should talk to the Vicar about. [ETA That if you are not receiving communion you would still be welcome to go up for a blessing. Simply keep your hands down and bow your head as a sign that that is your intention.]
[ 03. December 2017, 11:41: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John3000
Apprentice
# 18786
|
Posted
Ok so it seems that as I am not a child the 2006 Regulations for Communion before Confirmation aren't applicable to me, and so I need to be confirmed before getting involved with communion. To be confirmed I need to regularly attending my local church according to the CofE website.
I will probably just carry on as I am for the while then. Returning to church seems a whole lot more complicated than returning to God.
Posts: 29 | From: England | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John3000:
Ok so it seems that as I am not a child the 2006 Regulations for Communion before Confirmation aren't applicable to me, and so I need to be confirmed before getting involved with communion. To be confirmed I need to regularly attending my local church according to the CofE website.
I will probably just carry on as I am for the while then. Returning to church seems a whole lot more complicated than returning to God.
That may be true, but don't be discouraged. The opportunity to grow is a precious one, even if it comes wrapped in what looks like a purely bureaucratic requirement.
For laity who are not called to ordination, there seem to be very few opportunities for genuine spiritual growth within the church after confirmation, or at least that's my experience. Instruction in bible reading, possibly, but spiritual growth seems to be something of which the church is rather scared at the moment.
[edited for breakdown in fine motor control]
[ 03. December 2017, 12:48: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Don't worry too much about the C of E's 'requirements'. All churches, of whatever denomination, have to have certain ways of regulating themselves.
The retired priest who is helping us out at the moment is willing to give Communion to anyone who 'loves the Lord', and who presents himself or herself at the altar to receive - standing, kneeling, in one kind, or both - whatever.
But.....as your faith deepens, Confirmation is a good and solid way of publicly affirming that faith, whenever you feel ready so to do.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Forthview is right. You should not receive in an RC church unless you are RC.
Unless you are invited to by the priest, as I have generously been in the past. I will not seek to share in the sacrament by deception (e.g. by letting a priest believe I'm RC) but neither will I be the enforcer for rules I do not agree with if I am invited to share in what is a sacrament of the whole Church, not just that part that follows the Bishop of Rome.
[ 03. December 2017, 13:37: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John3000:
Ok so it seems that as I am not a child the 2006 Regulations for Communion before Confirmation aren't applicable to me, and so I need to be confirmed before getting involved with communion. To be confirmed I need to regularly attending my local church according to the CofE website.
I will probably just carry on as I am for the while then. Returning to church seems a whole lot more complicated than returning to God.
Perhaps you should have a word with the priest and ask his advice. Some are much more open than others, and I know of some who - regardless of the rules - simply say that anyone who wishes to worshipfully receive the elements is welcome to do so. That in part is why I welcome the current CiW position.
Either way, you would be welcome to go forward to receive a blessing; it's quite commonly done, and won't mark you out as 'odd' in any way.
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I do appreciate it when Enoch says 'Forthview is right' however his interpretation of my words would not be mine. I didn't say that one has to be RC to communicate in an RC church. I said that one should have some knowledge and understanding of what one is doing. As a shorthand one could say that if one is not RC one shouldn't communicate in an RC church,but that is only shorthand - the situation is much more nuanced. If one cannot find a minister of one's own part of the wider Catholic church and if one has an understanding of the Catholic doctrine of the eucharist and share in that understanding personally and if one has a real desire to receive Communion,then you are welcome to share in the Catholic eucharist sacramentally as well as spiritually.
John asks as to how he can participate in church life without receiving Communion,but he seems to have done this for much of his life.
In the early church Baptism.Confirmation and Communion were all part of the rites of Initiation
and are still so in most of the Eastern (Orthodox)
churches.
Would John just go into a CofE church and ask straight off for baptism ? I think if he did, the priest would say that he should find out more about the Church and its teachings before being presented for baptism. I would now say the same for Communion.
Whatever he chooses to do I wish him all the best.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I've been at baptisms in the CofE where the priest has asked if anyone is present who has not been baptised and would like to be, and have a middle aged man come forward for baptism. I don't think it's up to us to question when and how the Lord moves in someone's heart, and much less to put the brakes on. Maybe that baptism led to the fullness of faith, maybe it didn't, but I'm pretty certain that responding to that desire was the right thing to do.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Gently, because obviously I'm extrapolating out from my own experience here, but this does for me point up why confirmation is a good idea.
I was baptised at birth, forced to go to chapel every week at school, but dodged confirmation classes. When, post university, I fell into attending worship through choice, I reasoned that I just didn't know enough about everything to crash straight up to the front and get stuck in - so I went to confirmation classes and was confirmed.
There's a lot to be said for finding out "on the job", but really when I think about it more generally I think there's (IMO) a great deal of sense in at least *some* catechism before being left to wander through church life as an individual. No shame in doing it as an adult - most churches either won't have anyone going through it at the moment anyway, or will run separate classes for adults - you certainly are unlikely to be surrounded by 12 year olds!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Would John just go into a CofE church and ask straight off for baptism ? I think if he did, the priest would say that he should find out more about the Church and its teachings before being presented for baptism. I would now say the same for Communion.
IMO baptism should pretty well be available on demand, to anyone who asks for it. Everything else from then on does indeed need more education for/questioning of the supplicant before it happens.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
There used to be a Rite of Provisional Baptism; a form of it is still available where an adult is uncertain whether or not they were baptised as a child, but it was certainly far more widely used than that at one time.
I share the view that Baptism marks a person's entry into the body of the Church; to refuse it may be (who knows?) to deny salvation. And the Christ who speaks from the Cross in the Don Camillo stories has some pretty strong words to say when Don Camillo refuses to baptise the Communist mayor's son with the name Joseph Stalin.
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
Welcome (back) to the Anglican madhouse John3000. I got baptised and confirmed as an adult and I'm really glad I did. There's no rush - I hope you can do what feels right when it feels right.
Btw, I once spilled the wine out of the chalice and the priest (at Pusey House where they do things PROPERLY) was put out but coped manfully...
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John3000:
Ok so it seems that as I am not a child the 2006 Regulations for Communion before Confirmation aren't applicable to me, and so I need to be confirmed before getting involved with communion. To be confirmed I need to regularly attending my local church according to the CofE website.
I will probably just carry on as I am for the while then. Returning to church seems a whole lot more complicated than returning to God.
That should not be the case. It is sad if that is so. As you say, how can you be a 'communicant' if you have never received?
Despite what some Anglican legalists will tell you, the requirement for confirmation before communion is not an absolute (even the BCP says 'ready and desirous to be confirmed', which is an exception allowing a very elastic interpretation.)
Nobody will condemn you if you don't feel ready to receive. Nor is it a good idea to receive the sacrament simply because everyone else does. It is a Mystery full of deep significance, so you need to recognise that and at the same time (for the same reason) know that no-one understands the full significance of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in this life.
Different priests will have different views on how readily to admit people to communion, but as others have said it's important to approach him or her with that question. My approach for what its worth would be to treat every serious request as 'being ready and desirous' to receive.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John3000
Apprentice
# 18786
|
Posted
Confirmation is something I will look to in the future, perhaps later in my life when reduced family commitments mean regular church attendance on Sundays won't be selfish of me. For now, random evening services in various places seems to be the right thing.
I certainly don't need to receive communion right away. As a Christian, present at a service where it was being offered, it just seemed like there was nothing stopping me, other than fear of the practicalities!
But yes it can certainly wait, this probably answers my question of why I didn't find any My First Communion Help FAQs or similar on here or elsewhere online - because it's usually approached in dialogue with a priest/church community.
Posts: 29 | From: England | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John3000:
it just seemed like there was nothing stopping me, other than fear of the practicalities!
Really, the only thing stopping you (or not) should be your own conscience - and I don't mean that your conscience should be stopping you so much as it's between you and God what you do. However, given that you're starting (from this thread) with not knowing what the CofE thinks it's doing (allowing for the divergences in opinion between priests) at communion, or what you think you would be doing (ie memorialism, consubtantiation, transubstantiation, etc), I'd suggest that it is indeed something that you'd benefit from talking about with a priest.
I hope that none of this is coming across as legalistic or doctrinaire by the way - I was prepared for confirmation by a very wise priest who told me that it was important to have a base level of understanding of Christianity (and the CofE) from which you could then diverge, put down, take up or whatever - but it was important to know what it was that you diverging *from*, putting down, or taking up.
I've always been grateful for that advice (and the education I got at the time) - it's made it easier to gloss over a lot of theological disagreement, whilst at the same time being more sure (note, *not* certain) about where I was standing on things.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Your concerns remind me of a story when President Reagan and his wife attended an Episcopal service with one of his aids--who happened to be an Anglican.
The president and his wife were not active churchgoers so they did not know how to take communion either. His aid told them just to follow his lead and they would do fine. Reagan was hard of hearing so he asked Nancy, "What did he say?"
She replied, "Just follow me."
As they came up for communion, the aid took the host, dipped it in the wine and ate it.
Nancy was next, but after she took the bread she got nervous and dropped the bread into the wine.
Reagan came next, received the bread, and dropped it into the wine just like Nancy did.
They walked away from the communion. Nancy embarrassed for what happened. Reagan thinking what he did was what he was supposed to do.
And there was the priest wondering what he was going to do with the bread that had been dropped into the chalice.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
That sounds familiar, as in something I read up thread.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
That sounds familiar, as in something I read up thread.
Indeed ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
It is not just a question of embarrassment or religious politeness. These are the sacred mysteries. It is spiritually dangerous to receive if one does not know what one is doing or understand what the whole event signifies. And it is perfectly OK not to receive, and either to remain in one's seat or go forward and ask for a blessing.
Whilst I generally agree with the tenor of this, I don't think there is much spiritual danger of receiving through inadvertence. In a previous parish, our Reader befriended an Indian lady whose husband was dying. After his death she was going to move up to London and, as a farewell gesture, turned up with her to Mass. This was a small midweek service and so I said something to the effect that if it wasn't their usual practice to receive communion they could come up for a blessing. She presented herself at the altar rail, hands out, like she was born to it so, naturally, I communicated her. Afterwards the Reader, who was horrified, told me that she was a Hindu. I told her that if we believe in a God who pots Hindus for inadvertently receiving the sacrament then he'd probably pot her anyway for being a Hindu. If, on the other hand, we believe:
quote:
Who knows what Reasons may his Mercy lead;
Or Ignorance invincible may plead?
Then we can dial the panic a bit down down from DefCon1. Paul's warning on the subject is about people who receive the sacrament whilst living unworthily of their Christian profession. AIUI, in the early Church it would have been much harder to receive inadvertently, so wouldn't have been a live issue.
As others have said, the best thing to do is have a word with the priest and take it from there. But if John3000 has received communion and now thinks he ought to cease and desist until being formally received into communion or getting Confirmed or, at least, until he's found out that the Vicar is OK with that, then he need not worry about a black mark next to his name in the Book of Life, or anything of that sort.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I was prepared for confirmation by a very wise priest who told me that it was important to have a base level of understanding of Christianity (and the CofE) from which you could then diverge, put down, take up or whatever - but it was important to know what it was that you diverging *from*, putting down, or taking up.
In reality, though, it seems that a widespread divergence from orthodoxy tends to lead to a lessening willingness to learn what orthodoxy is. It becomes a specialist interest.
Regarding this thread, it's clear that the CofE has a wide variety of views about who should take communion, which in a sense means its impossible to be 'wrong'. Not causing offence seems to be the most immediate problem.
I want to add that if John3000 feels inclined to take communion in a mainstream setting where causing offence is highly unlikely, a Methodist church is one option. The table is open to anyone who wants to receive. The small pieces of bread are passed around and eaten first, then the (non-alcoholic) wine will be given out in small cups, so no awkwardness about handling a shared chalice. Not 'better' than the CofE, just different, and less complicated.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]In reality, though, it seems that a widespread divergence from orthodoxy tends to lead to a lessening willingness to learn what orthodoxy is. It becomes a specialist interest.
True, but couldn't you argue that that's exactly *why* we've ended up with open tables?
Go back 50-odd years and you wouldn't be able to commune in most (if not all) Anglican/RC churches without having been confirmed, and virtually everyone else either had a statement or policing by Elders to ensure that only those who believed what that church believed and were known to be in good standing (or frankly just known) would be allowed to partake.
If no one's doing the education, and churches practising open table are relying on a process of osmosis in terms of people believing what that church believes (or even knowing what it is that they themselves believe) then isn't that about as far from "orthodoxy" as you can get?
Not a criticism, but it's the problem (in so far as I think about it) that I stumble on around this subject.
Almost all churches* have got it written down somewhere what they believe *as churches* (never mind what the individual presiding does or doesn't). If they're not passing that knowledge on to the congregation then actually isn't this, down the line, just a recipe for a return to clericalism (while at the same time allowing individual congregants to believe - accidentally or otherwise - all sorts of syncretic things, some of which may be harmful and some not).
Overall, I think it's safer to take the education in what your church believes, and what therefore you're "supposed" to believe, then at least you know where you sit light to it (or not at all) and how far you're diverging. That's not to say that each church's statement should be held infallible, but I'd argue it's dangerous as a communicant within that church (let alone a member) to not know what it is.
*2 spring to mind, but then we really are in DH territory.
[ 05. December 2017, 14:00: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding this thread, it's clear that the CofE has a wide variety of views about who should take communion, which in a sense means its impossible to be 'wrong'.
I tend to think of it more as a view that a wide variety of people ought to be able to receive communion.
- The baseline is: (a) members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands
- Then (b) baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church;
- After that (c) any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod*
- And finally (d) any baptized person in immediate danger of death.
(*General Synod has made regulations permitting quote:
Children who have been baptized but who have not yet been confirmed and who are not yet ready and desirous to be confirmed as required by paragraph 1(a) of Canon B 15A may be admitted to Holy Communion provided that the conditions set out in the[se] Regulations are satisfied.)
Of course, as in other denominations the actions of the individual minister may not necessarily reflect the stance of the denomination.
In practice, in a church which has many visitors from across the world, it is neither practical nor hospitable to list the regulations when inviting people to communion. I give an invitation which I hope is (a) inviting and (b) a good approximation to the openness of the C of E.
I don't generally enquire of people who come to the rail whether they are entitled under Canon Law to receive communion. I doubt if they'd know. Although if their behaviour suggests uncertainty I will ask them discreetly if the *wish* to receive communion. On the other hand if someone is regular at communion but doesn't receive I am likely to enquire why not in case there is a pastoral issue of some kind which needs to be addressed.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
betjemaniac
I certainly agree that keeping knowledge for the clergy alone is disempowering for the laity, but I'm not sure that 'safety' is an issue.
And if both clergy and laity end up as unorthodox, even if they reach that destination by different routes, I'm not sure if either side is particularly worse off than the other.
With regards to communion, I'm more or less a memorialist. I think it should be taken in a spirit of humility and suppliance in the face of God, but I don't see why there needs to be any kind of drawn out instruction beforehand.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
I find it hard to credit that communicants might be unaware of the beliefs of the church when as much as 15 minutes previously they have stood to recite the Nicene Creed, and even more recently than that have heard an account of the Institution.
To put it somewhat irreverently, the whole of the Anglican communion liturgy is designed to deliver us all confessed, forgiven, taught, reconciled and orthodox (possibly I have one or two of these out of order) neatly ready to receive more or less at the end.
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thing is, Mrs Whibley, some form of catechesis is necessary, particularly these days when people don't have a Sunday school background as often used to be case.
It's one thing to hear or recite the Nicene Creed, another thing to 'own' it. That said, I'm not that comfortable with the practice in some evangelical Anglican churches of giving a lengthy preamble before the recitation of the Creed to the effect that people should only say it if they really mean it, yadda yadda yadda ...
I think all churches of whatever stripe could do with more regular catechesis and not simply expect people to pick things up by osmosis, although that certainly does happen.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
To put it somewhat irreverently, the whole of the Anglican communion liturgy is designed to deliver us all confessed, forgiven, taught, reconciled and orthodox (possibly I have one or two of these out of order) neatly ready to receive more or less at the end.
Indeed, although as Gamaliel notes (and IME) the base knowledge is no longer there to be built on. At best you could say that the liturgy allows it all to work *despite* that - but doesn't do anything to address the problem. I still think the answer to that is decent catechism - which ideally shouldn't be seen as an optional extra.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
So the OP should really be asking how to find a 'decent catechism' class for adults. I don't think these are commonplace in the CofE, but I could be wrong.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So the OP should really be asking how to find a 'decent catechism' class for adults. I don't think these are commonplace in the CofE, but I could be wrong.
The Pilgrim course is, I think, intended to meet that need. In particular the second half is intended for those seeking to deepen their faith and focusses in turn on the creeds, the Eucharist, the Bible and lastly Church & kingdom.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So the OP should really be asking how to find a 'decent catechism' class for adults. I don't think these are commonplace in the CofE, but I could be wrong.
They are. They are confirmation classes....
[ 06. December 2017, 10:02: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
I find it hard to credit that communicants might be unaware of the beliefs of the church when as much as 15 minutes previously they have stood to recite the Nicene Creed, and even more recently than that have heard an account of the Institution.
To put it somewhat irreverently, the whole of the Anglican communion liturgy is designed to deliver us all confessed, forgiven, taught, reconciled and orthodox (possibly I have one or two of these out of order) neatly ready to receive more or less at the end.
Yes, exactly. Very well put!
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
I find it hard to credit that communicants might be unaware of the beliefs of the church when as much as 15 minutes previously they have stood to recite the Nicene Creed, and even more recently than that have heard an account of the Institution.
To put it somewhat irreverently, the whole of the Anglican communion liturgy is designed to deliver us all confessed, forgiven, taught, reconciled and orthodox (possibly I have one or two of these out of order) neatly ready to receive more or less at the end.
Yes, exactly. Very well put!
I'd agree with the second para. The first, not so much - just because people are saying the creed *doesn't* mean it can be assumed that they understand it, or understand by it what the church understands by it. That was less important when there was a benchmark they had to meet before they could communicate. After that, it is indeed up to the individual's conscience but no one could say they hadn't been told.
The second para does indeed set out that things have been designed such that they should work regardless - this is not a new thing either, quite a lot of the 39 Articles in a CofE setting were designed expressly to achieve that hundreds of years ago.
However, there's a difference between that being a catch all "just in case" on the grounds of ignorance of the communicant, or unworthiness of ministers, and it being the general situation that everyone should be happy with surely? Because that's where "catechism doesn't matter" leads to...all sorts of odd ideas about resurrection, the nature of heaven, etc.
Again, I've got no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe, but surely it's the duty of the church (any church) to set out what the church believes on a point, and then leave the individual to choose to assent or deviate from that, rather than just do nothing at all and hope for the best? if it isn't, then why are we all bothering? Because any kind of orthodoxy is unlikely to last much longer even within the walls....
I'm not talking about DH issues, I'm talking about anything that's taken for granted at the moment but is unlikely to survive to the next generation if enough people in leadership think it doesn't matter about education, all are welcome who want to come up, and as far as possible there shouldn't be hurdles or catechism before people are admitted to full membership.
I'd argue that the hurdles are as much there for the individual's spiritual safety as they are for the corporate body to keep people out. Otherwise we're basically just a *less* rigid version of the freemasons. At least they admit their members to knowledge progressively through rituals. Church attendance seems to be going the other way - "leave people to it and if they're interested we'll answer their questions" - how are they going to even know what questions to ask, or which questions they may have answered (wrongly) for themselves?
Sorry, loads of questions there - it's something I've been thinking about since the thread started and I'm not sure what the answers are. I just increasingly think that churches don't either, and am a bit afraid that it's too easy to go for "it doesn't really matter, let's not worry about it" which I'm not sure is a long term plan!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
This is personal anecdote and reflection on my experience of Eucharist in Reformed setting but it is intriguing.
---
My earliest recall of any statement on communion was that it was not just a memorial. I could say no more than that but I sensed it was something deeper. I must have been about 22. I was striving to explain what we did at communion to a Roman Catholic friend. One of the examples of Ecumenism at its best, where it stretches you beyond your comfort zone into deeper realisations of what you believe. If I recall correctly it was also a conversation where an atheist learnt that while Christians may differ in their opinions in public they also know that they share more than they differ.
Around my mid-thirties I took a step further and said that Christ is present in the breaking of Bread and the sharing of wine. This was not a simply formed statement but took much pondering in the intervening decade. This statement places the presence of Christ not in the elements but in the actions of the community of believers. I would also about this time have started to come across the use by the Iona community. This may go back to George Macleod; it was certainly used by Brian Woodcock while warden at the Abbey. To this extent, the text of the Words of Institutions is read as
quote:
I received a tradition from the Lord, which I also handed on to you: on the night on which he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread. After giving thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this to re-member me.” He did the same thing with the cup, after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Every time you drink it, do this to re-member me.” Every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you broadcast the death of the Lord until he comes.
To my understanding the use of ‘re-member’ strives to do two things. Firstly it echoes the strong sense of participation that is in the original. The re-enacting of the Passover was a more than a mental recall but an active participation in. Secondly, there is a deliberate echo of 1: Corinthians 12:27
You are the body of Christ and parts of each other. It is archaic to talk of an arm or a leg as a ‘member of a body’ but it still remains on the edge of consciousness.
Another step was a stray remark during my PhD by my supervisor that all churches these days teach the Memorialist approach. I could acknowledge the truth of this, yet I also knew that something in my teaching had pushed me to take a step further. I then realised that almost as a side point, in a bible study or sermon on any meal that Jesus had with his disciples apart from the last supper the leader will mention that this was partly written to show a foretaste of the Great Banquet in the last days. The implication is that the last supper is also a foretaste of the Great Banquet. This is important because actually, it is a reflection back to the merger between the Zwinglian and the Calvinists at the start of the Reformed tradition. While Zwingli was Memorialist, Calvin was not and the Great Banquet is his chosen entry into the mystery of the Eucharist.
---
So in my case, at least, it is a much slower process of osmotic teaching within the life of the Church that has led to my current understanding of the nature of the Eucharist rather than the confirmation classes I have been through.
I agree teaching is necessary but I think we misunderstand often the nature of that teaching. For many the participation in the act, the way others behave and wider theological formation play as important, if not more important role, in people's understanding. This is how people learn what is 'understood' at the Eucharist. That means not just the celebrant but every single person partaking has a role in teaching eucharistic theology.
Jengie
[ 06. December 2017, 10:52: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I agree teaching is necessary but I think we misunderstand often the nature of that teaching. For many the participation in the act, the way others behave and wider theological formation play as important, if not more important role, in people's understanding. This is how people learn what is 'understood' at the Eucharist. That means not just the celebrant but every single person partaking has a role in teaching eucharistic theology.
Jengie
Totally agree with that. I'm just more than a bit concerned that the teaching element is increasingly the nice to have because "everyone will just work it out for themselves." Some might, of course. The others, IMO, are being failed.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes, but in my experience, the formal confirmation teaching on the Eucharist plays a very small part in that teaching. It is better to think of integrating it in other ways into the life of the congregation.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yes, but in my experience, the formal confirmation teaching on the Eucharist plays a very small part in that teaching. It is better to think of integrating it in other ways into the life of the congregation.
Jengie
Of course, but then it's still both/and. If we're relying on integration *instead* then there isn't that baseline, however small, that can be assumed.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yes, but in my experience, the formal confirmation teaching on the Eucharist plays a very small part in that teaching. It is better to think of integrating it in other ways into the life of the congregation.
Jengie
In my experience as well. Confirmation classes tend to be a course in Christian basics. Teaching on what the Eucharist means will be a small part of that or may not be in there at all.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So the OP should really be asking how to find a 'decent catechism' class for adults. I don't think these are commonplace in the CofE, but I could be wrong.
They are. They are confirmation classes....
Confirmation classes have already been mentioned above, so I thought you were talking about something else.
In essence, you're saying that individuals should be confirmed before taking communion in the CofE, unless they've received adequate Christian instruction in some other way, or in some other setting.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
