quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
WTF?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hezekiah:
To begin a thread by asking 'what IS it' rather than what COULD it be about the Eucharist that puts people off going to church hardly poses a balanced question.

---

quote:

---

The inherent theology of substitutionary atonement?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
...Somehow the Eucharist is about us being caught up in the offering of Christ, and I'm sure we haven't managed to express that properly in our liturgical texts. But it comes across in the way that it is celebrated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:

The really off putting thing to me is reducing Christian worship to a patronising hymn sandwich.

---

 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
HC did put me off going to Church as an un-baptised and unconfirmed adult in 2001 . Having had something of a private conversion experience, I wished to attend church but avoided HC services because of the embarrassment of sitting it out.

Since then I've been surprised to discover that HC services in these ,(traditional), parts do in fact breed contention among some church-goers . HC services week on week seem to be regarded as a tad monotonous and a little bit , dare I say it, *Catholic* . I have, however, been to Morning and Evening prayer services that are also poorly attended.

As a lay person, pessimistic by nature, I'd be hard pushed to come up with any solutions for declining numbers. It's looking like a case of change or die versus change and still die.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Why should a hymn sandwich automatically be "patronising"?
 

---

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Is it the lack of connection with what Jesus actually taught? With the injunction to love God and to love one's neighbour? With the Lord's Prayer?

---

quote:

---

Continuing the theme of some other recent threads, does the Eucharist itself put people off attending church?

---

quote:

---

And if so, what is it about the Eucharist that puts people off? Is it the sacrificial language? The inherent theology of substitutionary atonement?

---

quote:

---

Is it the lack of connection with what Jesus actually taught? With the injunction to love God and to love one's neighbour? With the Lord's Prayer?

---

quote:

---

With the need to personally repent of one's sins, rather than to have them auto-magically taken away by some sort of vicarious sacrifice?

---

quote:

---

Is it the sense of the ritual being controlled by a self-appointed, hierarchical priesthood with arcane knowledge, rather than being a genuine expression of shared religious feeling?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
...Somehow the Eucharist is about us being caught up in the offering of Christ, and I'm sure we haven't managed to express that properly in our liturgical texts. But it comes across in the way that it is celebrated.

---

I'm not sure what else the idea of Christ as a sacrificial offering implies, but some form of substitutionary atonement - if He takes away our sins by his sacrifice, then how else do you explain it, other than him being sacrificed on our account, as our substitute in some sense?

And if there are other understandings of the Eucharist, then why is the Agnus Dei placed just before the climax of the ceremony? That's hardly an accident, is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Most of the clergy connected with our church think that the Eucharist puts people off, so they like to avoid scheduling Communion for services where many visitors are likely to be present, such as baptisms.

A couple of years ago when the vicar was away on sabbatical from just after Christmas to just before Easter I got the job of organising the main Sunday morning service and arranged for a visiting priest to celebrate each morning, and after about four Sunday mornings in a row with Communion we started to get complaints. Not many, but some.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Complaining about having Holy Communion in what is presumably (going by the use of 'vicar') an Anglican church? Seriously?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
It's one of the reasons that many western Canadian churches which celebrate the eucharist, such as Anglicans and Lutherans have ditched processions, excess candles, many of the vestments, and usually have only the one clergy robed, in choir dress and a stole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Complaining about having Holy Communion in what is presumably (going by the use of 'vicar') an Anglican church? Seriously?

---

There are a great many Anglican churches that don't have Communion as the main Sunday service every week. Though nowhere near as many as thirty years ago. Even here in the overwhelmingly liberal-catholic diocese of Southwark I'd guess its maybe one in ten or so, elsewhere probably more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Is it the lack of connection with what Jesus actually taught?

---

quote:

---

John 6:53-60,65-69:
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" ... And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
With the need to personally repent of one's sins, rather than to have them auto-magically taken away by some sort of vicarious sacrifice?

---

quote:

---

1 Cor 11:27-30:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Is it the sense of the ritual being controlled by a self-appointed, hierarchical priesthood with arcane knowledge, rather than being a genuine expression of shared religious feeling?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
And if the Eucharist is as fantastic as the Church claims, then why aren't people attending in their droves? Or conversely, are the big evangelical churches successful precisely because they don't have, or at least downgrade communinion services, and actually provide people with some sort of real spiritual experience that is lacking in your average 'Parish Communion'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
can the Eucharist be changed in any way to remove all the sacrificial stuff

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mechtilde:
The attraction was irresistible: I needed to be where Jesus was, where I could meet him in that especially powerful way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Why should a hymn sandwich automatically be "patronising"?

---

Agreed. The accusation that something that many churches appear to work very hard at achieving is in any way automatic is just plain uncharitable.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
From a practical point of view Holy Communion is sometimes regarded as being rather awkward and divisive eg, at inter-church marriages, baptisms and at funerals. There are ways round that, of course, but it still (perhaps rightly in some people's minds) tends to highlight the lack of table hospitality between Christians.

Nevertheless, I don't think of itself the communion is harmful, but rather the fuss some people make of it can be (whatever the practice of a particular church).
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
I wish our own church would celebrate it more often and make more of it. I was reading an account of a celebration of the Eucharist in a church in a predominantly Muslim country. Christians were allowed to practice their religious rites but not preach. The priest was approached at the end of the service by two members of the local security services, sent to keep an eye on him. The Eucharistic service had told them the story of Christ's death and resurrection (through the readings) and provided a powerful visual aid about what it all meant for us today through taking the bread and wine. The security fellers had been so moved by the whole experience that they wanted to explore what it meant to become a Christian.

I also love the idea of Eucharist (eucharistein) as derived from the Greek for "to celebrate". What a great way to start any week.

[ 23. December 2012, 07:41: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
 

---

Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
From a practical point of view Holy Communion is sometimes regarded as being rather awkward and divisive eg, at inter-church marriages, baptisms and at funerals. There are ways round that, of course, but it still (perhaps rightly in some people's minds) tends to highlight the lack of table hospitality between Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... My reply at the time was, 'I sang a dirge and you did not mourn, I played the pipe and you did not dance ...'

I think my friend was onto something though. That said, I think people will come up with any reason not to engage with church ... if it's not the eucharist it will be something else. Too High, too Low, too happy-clappy, not happy-clappy enough, too liturgical, not liturgical enough, clergy who wear gowns, clergy who don't wear gowns, too homophobic, not homophobic enough, too exclusive, too inclusive, too much emphasis on sin, not enough emphasis on sin, too little social action and involvement in politics, too much social action and involvement in politics ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Why should a hymn sandwich automatically be "patronising"?

---

Agreed. The accusation that something that many churches appear to work very hard at achieving is in any way automatic is just plain uncharitable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For me, this is a very bizarre topic. You might as well argue that the worst thing about Guinness is the flavour.

I have been going to the Eucharist for nigh on 50 years, and it has continually inspired and refreshed me.

---

I have been feeling the opposite about it just recently, especially compared to the offices, which is one reason I have started this topic.

And perhaps I am being unduly suspicious, but a ceremony which has been the main rite of the established church for centuries is, I would have thought, unlikely to be there solely for the benefit of the ordinary punters. There's just a little too much of 'pay, pray, and obey' about it for my liking, and however much it's supposed to be about us 'feeding' on Jesus (as per John), it really doesn't feel like that to me, anyhow.

Sorry if people don't like this topic, but there you go. People ask why people don't go to church any more - there's one possible reason, they realise at some level, perhaps without being able to clearly articulate it or give a consistent rationale, that the church is there for the benefit of the church, and that the rituals of the church serve to reinforce that.

(And please don't ask my opinions about Guinness, or at least, the stuff which passes for it around these parts. )
 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Well maybe, but as ken will point out Holy Communion has only become the principal service in the Church of England relatively recently and as the establishment connotations have faded somewhat.

In fact I would strongly suggest that historically it was precisely when state control of the Church of England was imposed, that Morning Prayer became the main service.

Naturally the working classes were suspicious of the Church of England as an instrument of state control, which is why they flocked to Mr Wesley in the C18. And if they listened to Mr Wesley, they would know that weekly communion was not an option for the literate classes, but a part of Christian discipleship, available and empowering to them as much as any to Christian.
 

---

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
If you're talking about the worship of the CofE, the Agnus Dei wasn't part of the eucharist in the 1662 order. It came to be used towards the end of the 19th century. But churches that still use the 1662 shouldn't be intruding it in the first place (not that the 1662 isn't heavily PSA in other ways, but that's a separate point).

I have a less than complete collection of various revisions used at one time or another in the CofE since about 1968 ... in all of them, the Agnus Dei is optional.John

---

That's interesting - I don't think I've been to a modern (i.e. CofE Common Worship) service which doesn't include the Agnus Dei, and that really, really pushes the meaning of the ritual towards the idea of Christ as sacrificial offering, rather than leaving it open to the other possible understandings. Hell, the weekday evening Eucharist is even introduced as 'The Sacrifice of the Mass' at my local cathedral, these days.

So that's just telling me that the ritual is intended as a symbolic sacrifice, presumably, with the congregation playing their part. And I'm very sorry, but I'm not sure how that is a very healthy thing to take part in. Or how this understanding has anything whatever to do with what Jesus taught or is reported to have taught (regardless of whether the Lord's Prayer is actually included).
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
ISTM there are three ways of looking at it.

[1] The Eucharist is the main (and divinely-instituted) means for us to become involved in the act of redemption.

or
[2] it is enough just to listen to readings and sermons about the act of our redemption.

or
[3] Christianity is not really about redemption at all but about the moral example of Jesus Christ, and so church should either be about moral guidance or, less challengingly, encouraging each other to be nice.
 

---

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"? I was hoping I could pick up the answer from context, but that hasn't worked. It seems to be contentious.

(I do get the possibility that a pun on "ham sandwich" may be involved .... but )
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:


And perhaps I am being unduly suspicious, but a ceremony which has been the main rite of the established church for centuries is, I would have thought, unlikely to be there solely for the benefit of the ordinary punters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"? I was hoping I could pick up the answer from context, but that hasn't worked. It seems to be contentious.

(I do get the possibility that a pun on "ham sandwich" may be involved .... but )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I'm not sure what else the idea of Christ as a sacrificial offering implies, but some form of substitutionary atonement - if He takes away our sins by his sacrifice, then how else do you explain it, other than him being sacrificed on our account, as our substitute in some sense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
...The problem here is that, aside from the eucharist itself, we don't have any sacrificial rites in our society by which to understand what goes on in a sacrifice. I think the essential element of a sacrifice is that something not sacred is made sacred, consecrated to divine use, perhaps by destruction but not always.

---

Is there not almost always an element of propitiation in sacrifice? OK, the primary function of a sacrifice to the gods is to get them to do something of benefit for the worshippers, but on the other hand, if things are going badly for the people, then perhaps the gods are angry, and then offerings are made to make up with the gods, and to assuage their wrath.

So then why was Jesus sacrificed? The first answer is that he was sacrificed in order to gain the benefit of redemption from our sinfulness; the second that he was sacrificed to propritiate God's wrath at our sinfulness, then because he was God, he was the perfect sacrifice, and because he was Man he was our substitute, etc., etc.

The thing is, I'm not sure how you can properly separate out the two sides of sacrifice; if the worshippers don't sacrifice, then the gods will not look kindly on them versus if they do sacrifice, then the gods will stop being angry with them. They're just two sides of the same coin, IFAICS. You have sacrifice, you get PSA.

And I still don't see what all this has to do with Jesus's teachings - OK, there is sacrifice in them in the modern sense of the word - making sacrifices of time, money, etc. in order to serve God - but that is sacrifice more in the sense of there being a price for everything, not sacrifice in the old pagan/Jewish sense of burnt offering.

OK, you can trace the steps by which the Eucharistic doctrine got there, but surely that is going back to square one, rather than going forward, and a million miles from the idea of eating bread and drinking wine in Jesus's memory, as the earliest accounts hold.
 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
a million miles from the idea of eating bread and drinking wine in Jesus's memory, as the earliest accounts hold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
If you're talking about the worship of the CofE, the Agnus Dei wasn't part of the eucharist in the 1662 order.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
So the question's so threatening it just has to be dismissed?

---

quote:

---

As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
But if you look at the sacrificial rites in Leviticus, very few of them are substitutionary in form. The only one that's explicitly substitutionary is the scapegoat, and the scapegoat doesn't get killed. The scapegoat is not punished. Otherwise, they can only be said to be substitutionary in the most woolly and general of senses in which almost anything can be said to be substitutionary. (Eating is substitutionary because...)

---

quote:

---

The problem here is that, aside from the eucharist itself, we don't have any sacrificial rites in our society by which to understand what goes on in a sacrifice. I think the essential element of a sacrifice is that something not sacred is made sacred, consecrated to divine use, perhaps by destruction but not always.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial:

quote:

---

As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Angloid (4) nice to the marginalized? The homeless, the afflicted, the addicted, the excluded, the angry, the imprisoned, the lonely, the nasty is unchallenging?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"? I was hoping I could pick up the answer from context, but that hasn't worked. It seems to be contentious.

(I do get the possibility that a pun on "ham sandwich" may be involved .... but )

---

It's a mildly derogatory term for, usually protestant, services that tend to alternate between hymns and (often only said by whoever is leading) prayers. Those of us from more sacramental traditions can find them a little flavourless, and without a sense of purpose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial:

quote:

---

As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.

---

---

Except that you know perfectly well that there are at least some Christian churches that never celebrate the Eucharist, and many more that do so only rarely, and many Christians who attend church but abstain from Communion. You can't simly dismiss their experiences because they don't conform to your traditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
...To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial:

quote:

---

As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
...To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial:

quote:

---

As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.

---

---

Ah, I see what you're getting at... But an extreme view, surely, even for a Catholic?

HS (brought up on weekly BCP Matins)

---

quote:

---

To Thee His passion we present,
Who for our ransom dies;
We reach by this great instrument
Th’ eternal sacrifice.
The Lamb His Father now surveys,
As on this altar slain,
Still bleeding and imploring grace
For every soul of man.

...

By faith and hope already there,
Even now the marriage-feast we share,
Even now we by the Lamb are fed;
Our Lord’s celestial joy we prove,
Led by the Spirit of His love,
To springs of living comfort led.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
...a ceremony which has been the main rite of the established church for centuries is, I would have thought, unlikely to be there solely for the benefit of the ordinary punters. There's just a little too much of 'pay, pray, and obey' about it for my liking...

People ask why people don't go to church any more - there's one possible reason, they realise at some level,...that the church is there for the benefit of the church, and that the rituals of the church serve to reinforce that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
That Holy Communion 'puts some people off' goes back to the time of Jesus - see John 6 where the notion of eating (chewing - lit. meaning of the Greek word) jesus' flesh led to some going away.

If it was good enough for Jesus...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"? I was hoping I could pick up the answer from context, but that hasn't worked. It seems to be contentious.

(I do get the possibility that a pun on "ham sandwich" may be involved .... but )

---

It's a mildly derogatory term for, usually protestant, services that tend to alternate between hymns and (often only said by whoever is leading) prayers. Those of us from more sacramental traditions can find them a little flavourless, and without a sense of purpose.

---

Mmmm. A good job the church fathers and mothers, who spent so much time at vigils, hadn't heard this. You know vigils - those services that alternate hymn or psalm singing with prayer and scripture reading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aravis:
It can be socially awkward to invite someone to church when the main service is always a Eucharist. If they have no Christian background whatsoever and simply want to see what a regular church service is like, it's not appropriate for them to receive communion, but on the other hand they may not be comfortable with the alternatives: going up to the rail and receiving a blessing when only the little kids are doing the same; sitting in their seat and waiting for you to come back; sitting with you and feeling they've prevented you going...
I had a Japanese friend who lived in Cardiff for a few years. If we'd had Morning Prayer from time to time she would have been interested in coming to see what the service was like, but she would have found the Eucharist an embarrassment for the above reasons - plus the idea of the communal chalice would have completely freaked her out. So I didn't invite her.

OK, it may seem trivial. But often it's the trivial reasons that stop people giving church a try.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"? I was hoping I could pick up the answer from context, but that hasn't worked. It seems to be contentious.

(I do get the possibility that a pun on "ham sandwich" may be involved .... but )

---

It's a mildly derogatory term for, usually protestant, services that tend to alternate between hymns and (often only said by whoever is leading) prayers. Those of us from more sacramental traditions can find them a little flavourless, and without a sense of purpose.

---

Mmmm. A good job the church fathers and mothers, who spent so much time at vigils, hadn't heard this. You know vigils - those services that alternate hymn or psalm singing with prayer and scripture reading.

---

These vigils in your misty rear view mirror were vigils for the Divine Liturgy the next day.

---

Sssh! You'll give it away.

Yes, they usually were, though they were less frequently held for other purposes I understand. The point is really that far from this format being "flavourless and without a sense of purpose", they evidently felt them intrinsically worthwhile. I'm sure they would have thought it somewhat puzzling to find them the sole (or nearly sole) mode of worship though.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
One of our kids described their first visit to a Protestant worship service as a concert interrupted by a lecture.
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yes, they usually were, though they were less frequently held for other purposes I understand. The point is really that far from this format being "flavourless and without a sense of purpose", they evidently felt them intrinsically worthwhile. I'm sure they would have thought it somewhat puzzling to find them the sole (or nearly sole) mode of worship though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the things which occurs to me is that the OP seems to be speaking from within the Reformed tradition. OK, fair enough, but this seems rather parochial to me, and ignores sacramentalism, and also the mystical tradition in Christianity, which describes the idea of sacrifice in many areas. For example, 'The Cloud of Unknowing' argues that we have to sacrifice our own conceptions of God, in order to overcome the separation between us and God. So, there are almost two different languages (or maybe more than two), being spoken here. Well, translation is a difficult art.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
One of our kids described their first visit to a Protestant worship service as a concert interrupted by a lecture.

---

Oh really? My first visit to an Orthodox shack featured a black-robed bearded dude droning on and on and on in a language not understoodeth of the people and popping in and out of this door in a fancy wall.

At least the hymn sandwich features a change of pace.

If you're quite through being facile and gratuitous about Protty services....
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Sober Preacher's Kid, speaking as someone who IS a Protestant (just about), mousetheif's experiences line up pretty neatly with my own. While I don't doubt I would have the same first impressions as you of an Orthodox service, there is a decided lack of the numinous within a lot of Protestant services, including low church Anglicanism. I don't think the hymn sandwich format helps this. Charismatic/charevo churches get it better, imo - there's a sense of God being Other, not like us. I don't get that with hymn sandwiches.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
As a church steward, I found that people who weren't regular attenders, or people who were affiliated without being members, were less likely to take Communion than full and active members. (This is in a denomination that urges anyone who wants to to take Communion.)

If you believe that churches should try to make as little distinction as possible between the inner circle and the outer circle, so to speak, then Communion must be somewhat problematic. This is because the reluctance of some people to participate in Communion highlights the divide between inner and outer more than anything else that happens inside a church on a Sunday morning.

Everyone will stand when it's time to sing; everyone will sit quietly when it's time to pray; everyone will try hard to look thoughtful during the sermon. Minds may be wondering during these times, but at least people try to look engaged. However, when people fail to come to the Communion table when called, they're openly defying congregational unity. They're showing everyone that they don't quite fit in, as far as they're concerned. And perhaps that worries us in the mainstream churches, because we're desperate for visitors and casual attenders to feel at home. In a church that has Communion frequently and perhaps has a large fringe group of attenders, or many visitors, this regular display of congregational division might be unnerving for the inner group. It's a thought, anyway. I don't know what could be done about it, though.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
In the Anglican church we don't really have 'membership' like that. Even in Anglican churches with less frequent Eucharistic services (eg monthly), I've only ever seen children not receive, never a group of adults within the congregation.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
...To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial:

quote:

---

As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.

---

---

Ah, I see what you're getting at... But an extreme view, surely, even for a Catholic?

HS (brought up on weekly BCP Matins)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
ISTM there are three ways of looking at it.

[1] The Eucharist is the main (and divinely-instituted) means for us to become involved in the act of redemption.

or
[2] it is enough just to listen to readings and sermons about the act of our redemption.

or
[3] Christianity is not really about redemption at all but about the moral example of Jesus Christ, and so church should either be about moral guidance or, less challengingly, encouraging each other to be nice.

---

quote:

---

also posted by Angloid
We are called to live in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, and we can't do this out of any false sense of superiority, only through our solidarity with Jesus Christ. Participation in the Eucharist is par excellence the way to express this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
But if you look at the sacrificial rites in Leviticus, very few of them are substitutionary in form.

---

True, most of the sacrifices are not substitutionary. But some are. There are other sorts of sin-offering. Also the sacrifices at the time of the birth of a first-born son are portrayed as a sort of "redemption" of the child - as if the eldest son was due to be set aside for the LORD just as the first-fruits of any other harvest, and just as the first-born of domestic animals, and the parents somehow "buy them back" by sacrificing an animal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Is there not almost always an element of propitiation in sacrifice? OK, the primary function of a sacrifice to the gods is to get them to do something of benefit for the worshippers, but on the other hand, if things are going badly for the people, then perhaps the gods are angry, and then offerings are made to make up with the gods, and to assuage their wrath.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
In the Anglican church we don't really have 'membership' like that. Even in Anglican churches with less frequent Eucharistic services (eg monthly), I've only ever seen children not receive, never a group of adults within the congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

also posted by Angloid
We are called to live in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, and we can't do this out of any false sense of superiority, only through our solidarity with Jesus Christ. Participation in the Eucharist is par excellence the way to express this.

---

Participation in the Eucharist is solidarity with Jesus Christ. I'd query whether it might be a bit far fetched to say that it is expressing our solidarity with the poor and oppressed. Do the homeless in this city, yet alone the poor, oppressed and marginalised in Africa or Asia get a strong feeling that I am identifying with them when I go to the midnight service tonight?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
... Although I don't think that sacrifice has ever been used as a model for the atonement, or the eucharist for that matter. ...

---

quote:

---

"made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world: and did institute and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
... Although I don't think that sacrifice has ever been used as a model for the atonement, or the eucharist for that matter. ...

---

Are you sure of that? Have you read Hebrews recently? Or what do you think John the Baptist meant by 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh really? My first visit to an Orthodox shack featured a black-robed bearded dude droning on and on and on in a language not understoodeth of the people and popping in and out of this door in a fancy wall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm sure those people who are out on the streets handing out soup or inviting the homeless to Christmas parties, instead of going to church, are showing solidarity in a much more immediate and real way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

from Hebrews
"made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world: and did institute and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again".

---

Admittedly the third example is from only part of Christendom, but it's quite a large part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I think that one reason the Eucharist puts of outsiders is because it's fundamentally an insider thing, I think, even for churches that practice open communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
...To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial:

quote:

---

As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.

---

---

Ah, I see what you're getting at... But an extreme view, surely, even for a Catholic?

HS (brought up on weekly BCP Matins)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
There is nothing in there about substitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
I think some people are less than comfortable with the Eucharist as ritual cannibalism, and others with unsanitary practices. It is also treated as a Big Deal (c) which emphasizes the role of the officiant and thus the non-democratic nature of the event.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I think that one reason the Eucharist puts of outsiders is because it's fundamentally an insider thing, I think, even for churches that practice open communion.

---

But are all our services meant to be inoffensive, outreach services? The church must also feed its flock. Our Lord didn't say to Peter, "Leave off feeding my sheep because it might make visitors feel left out."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
.. with the Eucharist ... unsanitary practices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
.. with the Eucharist ... unsanitary practices.

---

As a kid I asked about germs and all drinking from one cup and was told it's OK because (1) it's alcohol, which kills germs, and (2) served in silver, which kills germs. But when a "contemporary" service uses pottery instead of silver, does the reasoning hold? And in a church that uses pottery with non-alcoholic grape juice, I can see that would be off-putting to anyone who feels their health is vulnerable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
I think some people are less than comfortable with the Eucharist as ritual cannibalism, and others with unsanitary practices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
.. with the Eucharist ... unsanitary practices.

---

As a kid I asked about germs and all drinking from one cup and was told it's OK because (1) it's alcohol, which kills germs, and (2) served in silver, which kills germs. But when a "contemporary" service uses pottery instead of silver, does the reasoning hold? And in a church that uses pottery with non-alcoholic grape juice, I can see that would be off-putting to anyone who feels their health is vulnerable.

---

I don't think that's ever been true about silver and alcohol - just something we believe to make it more acceptable. I think the sharing of the risk of infection is part of the deal. Part of being a community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I've never heard of anyone going down with anything. If it worries you can intinct or simply take the bread alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
It is my understanding what little saliva that may come into contact with the common cup is a very poor carrier of infectious diseases/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
There's no need for the baptized to take any notice of clergy when they are talking obvious bollocks or sentimental platitudes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
.... I've only ever seen children not receive, never a group of adults within the congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QUOTE] .... was told it's OK because (1) it's alcohol, which kills germs, and (2) served in silver, which kills germs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
the wine (port?) in the chalice is watered down

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QUOTE] .... was told it's OK because (1) it's alcohol, which kills germs, and (2) served in silver, which kills germs.

---

Both true but ...

2. You don't get enough contact with silver to do any good - in any case silver is meant for external wound antisepsis, not internal consumption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
...the body of the bapitized are "the holy priesthood, existing to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2.5) which is articulated for them by a symbolic and representative sacramental priesthood....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
the wine (port?) in the chalice is watered down

---

Traditionally water is added to the wine at the offertory. But only a tiny drop: not enough to 'water it down' in my experience. Other churches may have a different practice of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Which suggests to me Methodists see clergy as an organizational position only. But if so, why can't anyone could be appointed deputy representative for a day, when needed? Or maybe I've watched too many Westerns where people get appointed deputy sheriff for the purpose of a specific temporary task.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
I'm a lay person. A eucharist (and it's not just communion) presided over by another lay person would be pointless. I could just do it in my front room with like minded people...
I will probably offend some by this post, but it is my honest opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
someone sacramentally set aside to represent the whole church in history and space. Their personal qualities are almost irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Holy Communion (for which "Eucharist" is just a fancy non-English word;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
This is another issue (the president) that I don't want to go into, but since it's mentioned...

I'm a lay person. A eucharist (and it's not just communion) presided over by another lay person would be pointless. I could just do it in my front room with like minded people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
One might disagree about whether you and I have the same rights to distribute communion that Christ did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
One might disagree about whether you and I have the same rights to distribute communion that Christ did.

---

I wasn't referring to the last supper. Sloppy wording on my part, perhaps.

---

Sloppy theology too?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
One might disagree about whether you and I have the same rights to distribute communion that Christ did.

---

I wasn't referring to the last supper. Sloppy wording on my part, perhaps.

---

Sloppy theology too?

---

back. No, what I was getting at, whilst cajoling child #3 to go and clean her teeth, was that the celebration of the Eucharist in response to Jesus' instructions to do so started in people's front rooms, or whatever folk had in those days, before an organised priesthood and the idea that only an ordained priest could say the magic words had developed.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, what I was getting at, whilst cajoling child #3 to go and clean her teeth, was that the celebration of the Eucharist in response to Jesus' instructions to do so started in people's front rooms, or whatever folk had in those days, before an organised priesthood and the idea that only an ordained priest could say the magic words had developed.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0