|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Restoration of the Eucharist in Protestant Worship
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I suppose this could arguably be posted in Eccles, but I don't want to restrict the discussion to the merely liturgical. Theology is intrinsic to praxis in regard to the celebration of the Eucharist.
The Eucharist has been greatly restored as the central act of worship on Sundays and observed holy days amongst Anglicans, and certainly here in North America. Indeed, public Morning and Evening Prayer have just about disappeared from the service roster in TEC. It's also apparent that Evangelical Lutherans have become increasingly eucharistically-centred in North America. Some restorationist denoms such as the Disciples of Christ and the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ) have always observed the Lord's Supper as the central feature of Sunday worship, even if they hold a memorialist view.
So what about other denominations in the U.S and throughout the Anglosphere: Methodist, Presby, Reformed, Lutherans generally, Congregationalist, Baptists of various stripes, etc.? What are the present-day eucharistic norms in your experience?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
One addition to the foregoing. I'd like to ask Shippies of different traditions what Eucharistic theology they find currently being taught or believed in their congregations, and indeed the extent to which there is any emphasis on particular Eucharistic teaching, catechesis, or a corporate mind as to what is happening in the Eucharist.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I grew up in a Restorationist church - one of the more extreme offshoots of the COC - and communion was every Sunday for members only - members defined as people baptized within their very strict rules which basically meant no one baptized outside of their authority counted. And as you say strictly memorialist. With grape juice in tiny individual cups, never wine.
My current evangelical CofE parish does weekly Eucharist at the 9 AM service but only once a month for the 11 AM and 6 PM services. I tend to spend one Sunday a week at a different (and closer to home) evangelical parish because they hold the Eucharist twice a month at all services.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
British Methodists have Communion (as they call it) once a month. They are memorialists ('Do this in remembrance of me').
I still see myself as a Methodist, although not in membership at the moment. There are several issues I have with the Methodist Church, but the denominational attitude towards Communion isn't really one of them. Once a month is fine for me, and in fact I have a sense of overkill if I attend two different church fellowships in a week or a fortnight and have to participate in Communion each time.
Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel taking Communion in a Christian fellowship without an ordained person present. That would feel like a very daring thing to do. But I've never been in a setting where that's been on the cards.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Oh, and of course, Methodist Communion wine is always non-alcoholic. I think there are several advantages to this. For example, a last minute bottle of Ribena (blackcurrant juice) is easier and cheaper to get than a bottle of wine!
Methodists also use bread, rather than wafers, IME. Again, bread is much more convenient.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For example, a last minute bottle of Ribena (blackcurrant juice) is easier and cheaper to get than a bottle of wine!
Cheaper it may well be (although I don't see that as an advantage), but easier to get?
Ribena is sold in supermarkets and corner shops. These shops almost invariably sell wine as well. In addition, wine is available from off-licences which are less likely to stock Ribena.
The only way that I can see that Ribena is easier to obtain is that you can send a child out to purchase it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Oh, and of course, Methodist Communion wine is always non-alcoholic. I think there are several advantages to this. For example, a last minute bottle of Ribena (blackcurrant juice) is easier and cheaper to get than a bottle of wine!
Methodists also use bread, rather than wafers, IME. Again, bread is much more convenient.
Horses for courses, and all that, but from the point of view of distribution, wafers are far easier: individual and much less likely to crumb. Of course, that may not be regarded as problematic in all churches.
And I'd be interested to know how blackcurrant juice is thought to be appropriate matter for Communion: if I squint I can just about understand grape juice, but blackcurrants are not grapes (though currants, amusingly enough, are...).
The general prevalence of weekly (or more frequent) Communion in MOTR and MOTR-Evangelical places noted, the practice of celebrating the Communion once a month is still fairly common in the Evangelical churches I know: I always find this concession to secular, rather than liturgical, calendars rather odd, and occasionally wonder what's so special about the fourth Sunday in the month...
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Ribena is sold in supermarkets and corner shops. These shops almost invariably sell wine as well. In addition, wine is available from off-licences which are less likely to stock Ribena.
The only way that I can see that Ribena is easier to obtain is that you can send a child out to purchase it.
Of course, alcoholic wine might be easier to get, but non-alcoholic wine might not be if you have to get something at short notice.
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
From the point of view of distribution, wafers are far easier: individual and much less likely to crumb. Of course, that may not be regarded as problematic in all churches.
And I'd be interested to know how blackcurrant juice is thought to be appropriate matter for Communion: if I squint I can just about understand grape juice, but blackcurrants are not grapes (though currants, amusingly enough, are...).
We didn't have problems with distribution. But otherwise, if a wafer can be substituted for bread, why can't blackcurrant juice be substituted for wine?
I think we used grape juice more often than blackcurrant juice, but I didn't have a problem with the latter. We did usually have official non-alcoholic Communion wine, though. It's a question of what you can get, and the church's financial circumstances.
quote:
The [...]practice of celebrating the Communion once a month is still fairly common in the Evangelical churches I know: I always find this concession to secular, rather than liturgical, calendars rather odd, and occasionally wonder what's so special about the fourth Sunday in the month...
Maybe it's about generating a sense of expectation?
In the British Methodist Church ministers often have several churches to look after, and will visit each one on a different Sunday. So I presume the different congregations don't celebrate Communion on the same day. Maybe they can if there's a retired or non-stationed minister available.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
Well, for one thing, wafers are made of wheat and water, and are thus Bread, whereas blackcurrant juice is a completely different species of thing, with no relationship whatever (not even that of unfermented grape juice) to the wine drunk at the Last Supper or the historic practice of Christians: even for a memorialist, shouldn't this raise issues?
Th idea of creating expectation by infrequent celebration is interesting, though: do you think that's something evangelical clergy have in their minds when they arrange their rotas? I had imagined that they were just trying to do it as infrequently as they felt they could 'get away with' (given CofE canons), but perhaps that does enter into it. It is perhaps analogous to the ancient practice of infrequent reception, despite (or because of...) the Mass being offered daily.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I tend to hang around nonconformist churches, with occasional visits to bigger denominations. I've witnessed a variety of different practices, each of which has its own charms and drawbacks.
At most, communion tends to be either monthly or fortnightly. The idea behind this is that it is a special event which is to be looked forward to, whereas there is a feeling (not one that I necessarily agree with) that having it every week makes it too regular, thus becoming run-of-the-mill. The extreme end of this is that some churches, notably those in Scotland, have it once a year.
Some churches I've been to try to stick to "one cup" though this isn't always practical for larger congregations. At others, the idea of unity is expressed by everyone taking the bread and a small cup (something certainly common in baptist churches) and returning to their seats. Then, when the minister gives the go ahead, all eat at the same time, have a minute or two of silence and then drink at the same time.
Another difference from, say, anglicanism, is that there are no major hangups about communion being administered by someone not ordained. So at one church I was at, each person administered the bread and grape juice to one another. This turned out to be both practical and a wonderful expression of unity, which I liked a lot.
I say grape juice because that tends to be the norm. In the baptist church I grew up in, there were a couple of ex-alcoholics who wanted communion but didn't want to touch alcohol. Out of respect for this, the church made available a non-alcoholic alternative, though it soon became apparent that this was highlighting those who had struggles in this area. So the decision was made to go completely non-alcoholic in order to respect those who struggled, while keeping the unity of the one cup.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Some churches I've been to try to stick to "one cup" though this isn't always practical for larger congregations. At others, the idea of unity is expressed by everyone taking the bread and a small cup (something certainly common in baptist churches) and returning to their seats. Then, when the minister gives the go ahead, all eat at the same time, have a minute or two of silence and then drink at the same time.
What I think you'll find more common in Baptist & URC churches (but not Methodists) is that people stay in their seats and are served there with the Bread and Wine by the Deacons/Elders.
It's rare to use either wafers or alcoholic wine. Traditionally horrible little cubes of white bread were used, now it's quite common to have a large loaf from which folk tear off a small piece. The idea is that the bread should not be special but the ordinary "staff of life".
I have also come across the use of Pitta bread or Matzos. Some churches also provide little snippets of gluten-free beard for coeliacs - great for inclusion and health, bad as a symbol of unity!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I'm not sure about the notion of official Methodist doctrine being simply memorialist. I would have thought receptionist/spiritual presence at least. The old Methodist service of Holy Communion is just about the same (in the USA, at least) as the 1662 BCP (obviously there are now modernised versions). In the UMC, some pastors even vest in chasuble and do restrained gestures that suggest aspects of Eucharistic Sacrifice and Real Presence, though they are no doubt a relative rarity; the more typical vesture for high-churchy UMC clergy is probably alb and stole.
At the risk of getting into Ecclesiantical territory, I might mention that some years ago I encountered a Disciples of Christ pastor vested in alb with lace trim and stole. Things generally seem to be a bit more universally high church at a cosmetic level (ornaments of the church and ministers) this side of the pond, and one would wonder whether or not this may have a creeping effect on theology, including Eucharistic theology. I don't know the answer to that, but perhaps the two tend to go hand in hand or follow one another (i.e., lex orandi lex credendi)
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What I think you'll find more common in Baptist & URC churches (but not Methodists) is that people stay in their seats and are served there with the Bread and Wine by the Deacons/Elders.
That is what I had growing up in a baptist (FIEC) church with a weekly congregation of around 250-300. Partly it was because seen as the elders & housegroup leaders serving the congregation, but it was also very practical, especially as the people were not all on the same floor. Having people go up to the front of the church en masse (pardon the pun) would have been, considering the narrowness of the stairs, a logistical nightmare.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I attend a Methodist church which celebrates the Eucharist about once a month: grape juice and bread, by intinction.
I believe you can find a wide variety of practices: Eucharist once a day, once a week, once a month, once a year, once in a lifetime. For some, it is the essential part of a Christian worship experience, and for others, it is much less important.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
The 2003 Methodist Conference Report on Holy Communion suggest that British Methodism has a more complex attitude to Communion than can be summed up as 'memorialist'. "Do this in remembrance of me" is common across many (all?) churches, but not a good guide to their ever all theology.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Well, for one thing, wafers are made of wheat and water, and are thus Bread, whereas blackcurrant juice is a completely different species of thing, with no relationship whatever (not even that of unfermented grape juice) to the wine drunk at the Last Supper or the historic practice of Christians: even for a memorialist, shouldn't this raise issues?
To me, the whole thing is so stylised and ritualised that it doesn't really have much relationship to 'reality' anyway. Jesus and his friends were having a proper meal; we're not. The reality that matters is the meaning we give to it, not the precise ingredients of the items, nor the receptacles they come in, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Some churches I've been to try to stick to "one cup" though this isn't always practical for larger congregations. At others, the idea of unity is expressed by everyone taking the bread and a small cup (something certainly common in baptist churches) and returning to their seats. Then, when the minister gives the go ahead, all eat at the same time, have a minute or two of silence and then drink at the same time.
The Methodist churches I've come across almost always use little cups. This practice seems more hygienic than the single chalice.
quote:
Another difference from, say, anglicanism, is that there are no major hangups about communion being administered by someone not ordained. So at one church I was at, each person administered the bread and grape juice to one another. This turned out to be both practical and a wonderful expression of unity, which I liked a lot.
I've experienced this, certainly at a Baptist church and also elsewhere, I think. It's a pleasant ritual, but with everyone touching the bread in order to rip a piece off for their neighbour it can't be very hygienic!
I've normally understood the importance of an ordained person as residing in their conducting the liturgy, not in their sharing the bread and wine. This is because in Methodist practice it's usually a lay server who offers the wine; the minister only hands out the bread.
quote:
In the baptist church I grew up in, there were a couple of ex-alcoholics who wanted communion but didn't want to touch alcohol.
Methodists use similar arguments for using only non-alcoholic wine. Also, in a heavily multicultural area it can only be of benefit if Muslim visitors or potential and actual converts don't have to drink alcohol.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Well, for one thing, wafers are made of wheat and water, and are thus Bread, whereas blackcurrant juice is a completely different species of thing, with no relationship whatever (not even that of unfermented grape juice) to the wine drunk at the Last Supper or the historic practice of Christians: even for a memorialist, shouldn't this raise issues?
To me, the whole thing is so stylised and ritualised that it doesn't really have much relationship to 'reality' anyway. Jesus and his friends were having a proper meal; we're not. The reality that matters is the meaning we give to it, not the precise ingredients of the items, nor the receptacles they come in, IMO.
Right. But then why not coke and sticky buns? Why bread if not wine? Where do you draw the line? And how do you justify breaking with so consistent a tradition in favour of your own interpretation? That sounds nothing like the Methodism I know, meaning no offence. [/tangent]
ETA: Code
[ 31. January 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The question, in a sense, is what kind of remembering is going on in the Eucharist. For Churches that emphasise the idea of anamnoesis, the understanding is that this is a species of remembrance that makes the recalled event present in the here-and-now. It is in this sense, at the least, that the Eucharist entails a re-presentation of the true, perfect and sufficient Sacrifice once made. American Methodist scholars that I read seem to agree that the Eucharist entails an aspect of sacrifice in terms of this re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice, made present for us now. In any case, I'm hoping that some of our UMC clergy shippies will toddle along to better inform us of both doctrine and changing patterns of celebration of the Eucharist in their churches.
[ 31. January 2014, 16:04: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've experienced this, certainly at a Baptist church and also elsewhere, I think. It's a pleasant ritual, but with everyone touching the bread in order to rip a piece off for their neighbour it can't be very hygienic!
Depends how it's done: the bread is on a plate, so that is what is passed from hand-to-hand. If one loaf is used, people tend to hold the crust outside and dig their morsel from within. If it's pre-diced (which I detest!) there's no problem at all.
IMO no worse (and possible better) than everyone drinking from one cup, as I don't trust too much in the antiseptic properties of either alcohol or the purificator!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But then why not coke and sticky buns? Why bread if not wine? Where do you draw the line?
I suspect that we're straying very close to the Knacker's yard but ... I have heard anecdotally if churches in Indonesia which used rice and palm wine.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why not coke and sticky buns? Why bread if not wine? Where do you draw the line? And how do you justify breaking with so consistent a tradition in favour of your own interpretation? That sounds nothing like the Methodism I know, meaning no offence.
Well, I'm not the one leading the ritual, so I'm not breaking anyone's traditions!
When I was an undergraduate I did know a Methodist student who wanted to take Communion using an apple instead of bread but I don't think that idea had any traction. I can't imagine there are many Methodists in leadership positions who'd try to innovate in this way.....
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The 2003 Methodist Conference Report on Holy Communion suggest that British Methodism has a more complex attitude to Communion than can be summed up as 'memorialist'. "Do this in remembrance of me" is common across many (all?) churches, but not a good guide to their ever all theology.
Oh, I'm sure you're right. I used the work 'memoralist' more because it appeared in the OP and seemed to represent something I recognised in my experience of Methodism. But I've never actually heard the term used by Methodists. Nor have I ever heard Methodists debate what Communion means to them. I'm sure there are many different perspectives.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
As an Anglican now exiled to the wilds of Presbytania the biggest thing I've had difficulty with is the infrequency of Holy Communion. Used to weekly or, at worst, biweekly celebration of communion, going to 4 times a year is like being put on a bread and water diet after feasting constantly for years. Even more so when the 4 times a year are spaced so as to not celebrate any traditional feast. So, no communion at Christmas, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost etc. By special request the minister obtained permission to celebrate communion one additional time, allowing for communion on Maundy Thursday. I just can't get my head around it. Even Knox and Calvin favoured at least weekly communion, if memory serves.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I know that is traditional Scottish Presbyterian practice, but I'm amazed that the minister has to ask permission to celebrate communion. Is that just confined to certain geographical areas, or a particular sect? I seem to remember reading that the C of S 'cathedral' in Edinburgh has a weekly Eucharist.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I know that is traditional Scottish Presbyterian practice, but I'm amazed that the minister has to ask permission to celebrate communion. Is that just confined to certain geographical areas, or a particular sect? I seem to remember reading that the C of S 'cathedral' in Edinburgh has a weekly Eucharist.
This is CofS. I don't know the exact rules of who has the right to do what, but whether it is de jure or de facto, the minister can't hold a communion service without the agreement of Kirk Session.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Non-alcoholic wine should always be in wee cuppies for hygiene reasons - there is no alcohol to disinfect a single chalice.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'd like to ask Shippies of different traditions what Eucharistic theology they find currently being taught or believed in their congregations
Taught? None at all explicitly. I can't remember the last time I heard a sermon about, or even much mentioning, the Eucharist in our parish. (I've preached one or two myself but that isn't something I "found". Most of our clergy certainly use language consistent with the Real Presence but its implicit more than explicit.
Some other evangelical Anglican churches I've visited have had sermons from a very low-key memorialist point of view.
But then perhaps the highest doctrine of the Eucharist I ever heard preached was full-blown Temple theology at a Salvation Army conference where the preacher and most of the congregation were SA officers. So denomination counts for little.
Believed? Everything and nothing. I doubt if there is anything like a consensus view in the congregation. I'd guess many of the few who think about it would be low-key memorialises. But at least some have tendencies toward Eucharistic adoration, kneeling and even crossing themselves. I don't think our churches gather themselves together due to shared doctrines.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
There was that beautiful occasion when I was attending the local Methodist for evening worship. I did this regularly at the time. The preacher went on and on about how special the communion was and how right we were to treat the communion table with so much respect.
He did not seem to notice as I and Dot slowly but sure got apoplexy with spasm of stuffed down laughter. What he was indicating as the communion table with every reference was known to every one else there to be the pool table for the Youth Club! The communion table was an insignificant-looking side table tucked into a corner.
These people were the lowest of low Methodists.
As to the last one at my home church I think that was David on the Spiritual Presence according to John Calvin. He does a high reading of John Calvin which places him higher than Martin Luther. This is at least as plausible an interpretation of what he says as memorialism.
Jengie
[ 31. January 2014, 21:03: 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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I seem to remember reading that the C of S 'cathedral' in Edinburgh has a weekly Eucharist.
St Giles Cathedral (why the scare quotes? That's what everyone calls it) has votive candles and icons. I don't think it can be used as an example of the general practices of the Kirk!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Apologies if you or anyone else understood the scare quotes as snarky. It was just that as I understand it the correct title of the church is the High Kirk and wondered if the 'everybody' who calls it a cathedral included committed worshippers in the Presbyterian tradition. Strictly of course it isn't a cathedral, any more than Westminster 'Abbey' is an abbey.
Edinburgh might not be typical, but it is part of the C of S which is why I wondered about 'ministers having to ask permission to hold communion services.' Maybe as Arethosemyfeet implies, such permission is granted locally according to the tradition of each region.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I seem to remember reading that the C of S 'cathedral' in Edinburgh has a weekly Eucharist.
St Giles Cathedral (why the scare quotes? That's what everyone calls it) has votive candles and icons. I don't think it can be used as an example of the general practices of the Kirk!
No bishop, no cathedral surely?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I seem to remember reading that the C of S 'cathedral' in Edinburgh has a weekly Eucharist.
St Giles Cathedral (why the scare quotes? That's what everyone calls it) has votive candles and icons. I don't think it can be used as an example of the general practices of the Kirk!
No bishop, no cathedral surely?
And no abbot, no abbey, as I said before.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've experienced this, certainly at a Baptist church and also elsewhere, I think. It's a pleasant ritual, but with everyone touching the bread in order to rip a piece off for their neighbour it can't be very hygienic!
Depends how it's done: the bread is on a plate, so that is what is passed from hand-to-hand. If one loaf is used, people tend to hold the crust outside and dig their morsel from within. If it's pre-diced (which I detest!) there's no problem at all.
IMO no worse (and possible better) than everyone drinking from one cup, as I don't trust too much in the antiseptic properties of either alcohol or the purificator!
Communal fingers on the bread is very much less hygenic than sharing a common cup, because people have a habit of sticking their fingers in places that they don't usually put their lips to. That's why I don't take the bread at a communion service where this is practiced.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... Some churches also provide little snippets of gluten-free beard for coeliacs ...
Well, most beards are gluten free, unless crumbs have fallen into it... (OK, I'll get my coat. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) )
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
In the Anglican Church of canada when i was confirmed in 1970 the Eucharist was alternated with the service of Morning Prayer.
There would be Eucharist at an earlier service but at the 11 AM service it was an alternating pattern.
Then I drifted and spent 20 years in Evangelical,Baptist circles and there Communion was once a month, or quater.
Then when I came back to ACC Eucharist is the central service . And I find that something to be joyful about.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Apologies if you or anyone else understood the scare quotes as snarky. It was just that as I understand it the correct title of the church is the High Kirk and wondered if the 'everybody' who calls it a cathedral included committed worshippers in the Presbyterian tradition. Strictly of course it isn't a cathedral, any more than Westminster 'Abbey' is an abbey.
It is a topic of endless debate. It wasn't a cathedral at all pre-Reformation because Edinburgh then was part of the diocese of St Andrews: it was Charles I that made it an Episcopalian Cathedral. That lasted a couple of years, then the bishop and the prayerbook were ousted. But we kept the designation! Occasionally Presbyterians of the sterner sort get upset about this, but even so, it is probably best to think of St Giles as both a Cathedral and the High Kirk, and not to worry too much about the Bishop thing (we don't!).
There are other cathedrals in the Church of Scotland too - St Machars, Aberdeen; Brechin; Dornoch; Dunblane; Dunkeld; St Mungo, Glasgow; St Magnus, Kirkwall; and St Moluag, Isle of Lismore. And plenty High Kirks that never claimed to be anything else.
quote:
Edinburgh might not be typical, but it is part of the C of S which is why I wondered about 'ministers having to ask permission to hold communion services.' Maybe as Arethosemyfeet implies, such permission is granted locally according to the tradition of each region.
All Church of Scotland churches are governed at the local level by the Kirk Session, who are ordained to eldership. They are responsible for setting the time and the place of all services. They are also responsible for making sure the sacraments are administered.
It is not so much that the minister must 'ask permission' of the Kirk Session to hold communion: more that the Session, of which the minister is Moderator, decide together when these will take place. (Basically, the minister cannot make a unilateral decision. Indeed, there is in fact very little about which a minister can make a unilateral decision!) I seem to recall that Arethosemyfeet's local church is currently vacant, so it may be a slightly more delicate situation there: certainly, a visiting minister cannot parachute in and declare a communion service, and consultation becomes even more necessary. And yes, it is possible that a very conservative Kirk Session could ignore a minister's wishes and simply refuse to allow more than the minimum twice-yearly communion required by Church Law. But that would be a total breakdown-of-relationships situation.
There is a minimum of Communion Services, but no maximum. Most churches have considerably more - monthly Communions are increasingly common in city churches. In my rural church, I have persuaded the Session to agree to once-every-two-months, plus Maundy Thursday, Easter Day, and Christmas Day. The way it tends to work with us is that I produce a 6-monthly service plan, complete with suggested Communion dates and times. I submit this plan to the Session for tweaking, and then the final version is approved.
In more conservative rural areas, and particularly in the Highlands and Islands, Communion is by custom and theology very infrequent. This is because of a continuing cultural hangover from the old 'Communion Season'. Communion was taken with such deep seriousness, that it necessitated whole-church preparation for at least two full weeks beforehand: elders would visit and catechise every would-be communicant, and the minister would preach repentance from the pulpit. Such a full-on effort couldn't really be done more than twice a year without fatally disrupting the church's other work. But don't make the mistake of assuming that infrequent communion means that communion was or is regarded as less important. Quite the contrary.
All that means that a church can have a weekly Communion no problem, if that is what the Session and the minister agree to. Nor would you have to go back again and again to ask permission for each one: just one resolution of the Kirk Session would be enough. There is also considerably more freedom for a minister to celebrate communion outside the main Sunday service, and many churches have introduced extra Sunday or midweek services - though again, Session would need to approve. A minister can also take communion outside the church, eg, in a care home or with the housebound. But again, this should be noted in the Kirk Session records, and at least one elder ought to be in attendance.
However, the Session has no say whatsoever in how the minister conducts worship or the sacraments. No specifying of liturgies, or rituals, or hymns, or anything like that.
Oh, and - in reply to Ken - St Giles, with its weekly Communion and votive candles (and icons? not really) is every bit as 'typical' of Presbyterian tradition as the lowest and plainest of wee kirks. The Cathedral leads the way liturgically, and there are many parish churches which operate in a similar, if much less formal style - mine being one of them.
Sorry for the length of this, and I hope it clears up some of your puzzlement.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
At the risk of getting into Ecclesiantical territory, I might mention that some years ago I encountered a Disciples of Christ pastor vested in alb with lace trim and stole. Things generally seem to be a bit more universally high church at a cosmetic level (ornaments of the church and ministers) this side of the pond, and one would wonder whether or not this may have a creeping effect on theology, including Eucharistic theology. I don't know the answer to that, but perhaps the two tend to go hand in hand or follow one another (i.e., lex orandi lex credendi)
That's the Disciples for you—while Restoration churches tend towards the snake-belly low, there are a few ministers who, to quote a friend of mine in charge of a divinity program, "secretly wish they were archbishops." I'll admit, it's uncommon to see thuribles or even the slightest hint of silk or lace, but it's not unheard of; without any sort of binding Tradition, only traditions, you'll see things from all over the spectrum of generally good taste and practice (and, unfortunately, a few things from outside of it). I don't think it indicates that anyone's changing their sacramental theology, though; Restoration churches are about as hard-core memorialist as they come, and, for the Disciples, open communion is the big reason why the denomination exists. I mean, there are others, though I'd argue many of them stem from the importance of open communion. Now, that's not to say that one can't have a high view of the sacraments and open communion—Lord certainly knows the converse isn't true—just that I can't think of too many examples.
As for receiving rarely, I got into any number of discussions on this point in my undergrad days with the reformed/Presbyterian folks at my nominally might have once been Presbyterian university—they, of course, didn't see how you could still respect the Lord's Supper if it was something you did once a week or more (it was no longer a special occasion), while I couldn't imagine it having a chance to become significant if you only got to experience and meditate upon it four times a year. If it never became an integral part of your practice and worship, why would you make it central to your experience of God, the church, and your own life? On the one hand, familiarity breeds contempt and absence makes the heart grow fonder; on the other, there may be something to be said about the force of habit.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The UCCan is officially Receptionist, and that's what I personally believe. Many, many Communion Tables in my experience have "Do this in Remembrance of Me" engraved on them, my current church has one like that. Then there is "This is the Body of Christ, broken for you" at Communion itself.
So there you go.
The United Church of Canada is divided between the "Radicals" who are at best memorialist and at worst atheist/humanist and the "Traditionals" (I'm one) who are vary from Receptionist bordering on Anglican "Real Presence" to Memorialist.
Liturgically, I've "spiked" my congregation by introducing a Sung Communion Service; the settings are in the hymn book and the rest of the service comes from the Service Book, which is surprisingly up the candle. Full Great Thanksgiving, Epiclesis and all based around a Receptionist sacramental theology. My congregation loves it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Legally, the Session or Council controls worship practices and decides the frequency of Communion. The old legal minimum in the Manual was Quarterly, but the Manual 2013 is a complete revision and has so many errors and omissions it is beyond deplorable. The Radicals went at the Manual and tried to delete way too many things like the Eldership. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Dear Cynthia Gunn (United Church Legal Counsel and Keeper of the Manual): I am going to get your woefully ill-informed views of the Eldership, which you imposed on the Manual and thus on the United Church, reversed by General Council. So help me God I swear I will!!!
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
That's the Disciples for you—while Restoration churches tend towards the snake-belly low, there are a few ministers who, to quote a friend of mine in charge of a divinity program, "secretly wish they were archbishops." I'll admit, it's uncommon to see thuribles or even the slightest hint of silk or lace, but it's not unheard of; without any sort of binding Tradition, only traditions, you'll see things from all over the spectrum of generally good taste and practice (and, unfortunately, a few things from outside of it). I don't think it indicates that anyone's changing their sacramental theology, though;
Am I correct in thinking that only elders preside at the Table?
quote:
Restoration churches are about as hard-core memorialist as they come, and, for the Disciples, open communion is the big reason why the denomination exists. I mean, there are others, though I'd argue many of them stem from the importance of open communion. Now, that's not to say that one can't have a high view of the sacraments and open communion—Lord certainly knows the converse isn't true—just that I can't think of too many examples.
I thought it was membership for the unimmersed and the Restructure was the reason for the DOC, at least in it's present form since all COC that I am aware of practice open communion. Unless you are referring to the story of Campbell and the communion token.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No bishop, no cathedral surely?
Yeah, but there was a bishop once, and if there was a bishop again maybe they'd be there. (Even John Knox was willing to tolerate bishops who knew their place). So the building is a cathedral even if its present use is not entirely cathedral-like. Though it is a bit cathedral-like.
Everyone seems to call Glasgow Cathedral Glasgow Cathedral. Though they don't mention its dedication as that is too well-known to be mentioned. Unlike Edinburgh, Glasgow stll remembers its patron saint. After all he founded the place. Unlike the accidentslly famous St Giles who never went within 500 miles of Scotland (if he existed at sll)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
Just a question: are wafers okay for coeliacs?
We use ordinary bread prepared by being torn into small pieces (we hate those wee cubes) with a tiny plate containing a few rice wafers.
In my Presbyterian youth Communion was quarterly. Elders visited with cards (previously tokens) and a preparation service was held on the previous Wednesday evening. Nowadays monthly and on special days.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I seem to recall that Arethosemyfeet's local church is currently vacant, so it may be a slightly more delicate situation there: certainly, a visiting minister cannot parachute in and declare a communion service, and consultation becomes even more necessary. And yes, it is possible that a very conservative Kirk Session could ignore a minister's wishes and simply refuse to allow more than the minimum twice-yearly communion required by Church Law. But that would be a total breakdown-of-relationships situation.
Not vacant - the minister was away for about 5 months last year but has now returned. Trying to avoid the latter situation is, I suspect, the issue. There have been instances in the past when some elders have decided to hound out the minister for whatever reason. Consequently careful diplomacy is the only way to effect change.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
All Church of Scotland churches are governed at the local level by the Kirk Session, who are ordained to eldership. They are responsible for setting the time and the place of all services. They are also responsible for making sure the sacraments are administered.
It is not so much that the minister must 'ask permission' of the Kirk Session to hold communion: more that the Session, of which the minister is Moderator, decide together when these will take place. (Basically, the minister cannot make a unilateral decision. Indeed, there is in fact very little about which a minister can make a unilateral decision!) I seem to recall that Arethosemyfeet's local church is currently vacant, so it may be a slightly more delicate situation there: certainly, a visiting minister cannot parachute in and declare a communion service, and consultation becomes even more necessary. And yes, it is possible that a very conservative Kirk Session could ignore a minister's wishes and simply refuse to allow more than the minimum twice-yearly communion required by Church Law. But that would be a total breakdown-of-relationships situation.
Is it still the case that in some parishes the Session is formally in session over the whole Communion season? I seem to recall a sad case some fifty or sixty years ago, when a minister who tried unsuspectingly to conclude the meeting on the Friday was pulled down in mid-blessing.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
All that means that a church can have a weekly Communion no problem, if that is what the Session and the minister agree to. Nor would you have to go back again and again to ask permission for each one: just one resolution of the Kirk Session would be enough. There is also considerably more freedom for a minister to celebrate communion outside the main Sunday service, and many churches have introduced extra Sunday or midweek services - though again, Session would need to approve. A minister can also take communion outside the church, eg, in a care home or with the housebound. But again, this should be noted in the Kirk Session records, and at least one elder ought to be in attendance.
Do hospital and university chaplains need the permission of the Session of the parish? I do recall that in St Andrews many years ago there always was an elder present, but not necessarily of the parish -- it was usually Dan Rutherford who was a member of of Hope Park.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Oh, and - in reply to Ken - St Giles, with its weekly Communion and votive candles (and icons? not really) is every bit as 'typical' of Presbyterian tradition as the lowest and plainest of wee kirks. The Cathedral leads the way liturgically, and there are many parish churches which operate in a similar, if much less formal style - mine being one of them.
When did the Canongate Kirk cede the first place to St Giles? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
(For icons I recommend St John's in Perth).
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Just a question: are wafers okay for coeliacs?
We use ordinary bread prepared by being torn into small pieces (we hate those wee cubes) with a tiny plate containing a few rice wafers.
In my Presbyterian youth Communion was quarterly. Elders visited with cards (previously tokens) and a preparation service was held on the previous Wednesday evening. Nowadays monthly and on special days.
GG
You can get gluten-free wafers but they are normally made with wheat. For RCs (and indeed CoE canon law) they must be made of wheat to be part of a valid Eucharist.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Almost certainly technically the case that Kirk Session is in progress through out the act of communion, but most of the time you would not know it. Oh if they are like URCs then Communion season is in fact just the a few hours around the service. Not the full on session like this.
Actually I am beginning to wonder in modern settings whether a reimagining of communion season. I think have a presbytery/district communion annually, which may work alongside other communions held at local churches. It would be a full day affair with teaching, preparation, worship and fellowship including lunch happening during the rest including children's work. At about 4pm on the afternoon a the service would be held with a guest preacher and with a mix of elders and other ministers serving communion. Entry would be by ticket, but ticket would be distributed freely by congregations.
Jengie
[fixed code]
[ 01. February 2014, 10:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Is it still the case that in some parishes the Session is formally in session over the whole Communion season? I seem to recall a sad case some fifty or sixty years ago, when a minister who tried unsuspectingly to conclude the meeting on the Friday was pulled down in mid-blessing.
I've never heard of that. If it is the case anywhere, then I suspect it is only in the remote Highlands and Islands. We don't really do 'Communion Season' anymore, except that at the twice-yearly formal communion, every church member is visited or notified personally by the elders.
quote:
Do hospital and university chaplains need the permission of the Session of the parish? I do recall that in St Andrews many years ago there always was an elder present, but not necessarily of the parish -- it was usually Dan Rutherford who was a member of of Hope Park.
Chaplains are in a different category. They work under the auspices of a Presbytery, not a local church, so even if the hospital (for example) is in another parish, the chaplain works independently of that parish. The Kirk Session is about the governance of the local church, and its authority does not extend beyond these bounds.
So as an ordained minister, I can technically celebrate Communion any time and anywhere I am invited to do so. I can go to a church conference or a university, for example, and celebrate communion there without any say-so from my Session. I just can't do that in my local church or parish without the Session being involved somehow. Also, such instances are effectively private situations: I could not waltz into another minister's parish and declare a public Communion - not without them and their Session being involved.
There is a constant (and creative!) tension between the minister's authority to administer the sacraments and ordinances of religion, and the Session's authority over the local church. An interesting recent issue is the blessing of civil partnerships. Technically, there is (as yet) no church law that forbids me from doing so, and the Kirk Session cannot prevent me. But I could not do so in my local church without the permission of the Session. It would have to be some more private arrangement.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Oh, and - in reply to Ken - St Giles, with its weekly Communion and votive candles (and icons? not really) is every bit as 'typical' of Presbyterian tradition as the lowest and plainest of wee kirks. The Cathedral leads the way liturgically, and there are many parish churches which operate in a similar, if much less formal style - mine being one of them.
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
When did the Canongate Kirk cede the first place to St Giles?
Hah! Oh, the Canongate is superb. But it is still a parish church as opposed to a big processing cathedral: all the major state occasions happen at St Giles. The minister Gilleasbuig MacMillan has just retired after 40 years at St Giles, and he is second-to-none as a liturgist. His fine instinct for liturgy coupled with his sheer depth of knowledge and theological acumen have been enormously influential in the wider church.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Originally posted by Cottontail: quote:
But don't make the mistake of assuming that infrequent communion means that communion was or is regarded as less important. Quite the contrary.
I don't, and I respect that tradition of infrequent communion together with proper preparation. Either you regard it as so important that you celebrate it every week or even daily, which is the longer, catholic tradition; or you mark its importance in the traditional Scottish (and generally Presbyterian?) way.
On the other hand, the casual attitude prevalent in some parts of the C of E trivialises it, IMHO. I mean the practice of advertising 'Morning Worship' rather than the specific type of service, so that a congregation arrives at church not knowing what to expect; sometimes regular schedules (which in any case visitors can't be expected to know) are disregarded and a Communion service can be sprung on people without warning, or abandoned for no apparently good reason.
I don't know whether the majority of non-Anglican Protestant churches tend to follow the Scottish pattern or the above.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
There is a constant tension and rivalry between Edinburgh and Glasgow.We know that the See of Glasgow was founded by St Kentigern(often called Mungo) round about 543 AD and erected into a Metropolitan See (Archbishopric)in 1492.At the time of the Reformation the citizens of Glasgow refused to let the cathedral buildings be destroyed.The church was however divided up into a number of separate parish kirks.Bishops (archbishops)remained until 1688 carrying out administrative functions in the name of the king.
In the mid 1800s the separation walls were torn down and the cathedral has started to look just a little like what it did in medieval times.It is in the care of the State but used by the Church of Scotland as a parish church.It is usually called simply Glasgow cathedral,but can also be called the High Kirk or even St Mungo's cathedral,though many people would then think of the nearby St Mungo's (RC)church.Apart from the cathedral the name St Mungo is well known in Glasgow by the citizens as well as popular legends attached to his name.
By contrast in Edinburgh the name St Giles is well known as the name of the High Kirk,but there is little general attachment to the name of St Giles amongst the citizens .The association of St Giles was removed from the city arms at the time of the Reformation.
Ken is right that the building is known as St Giles' cathedral.Personally I don't use that name as it was created as a seat of a new (Protestant) bishop against the wishes of the citizens.
Whilst St Giles is the centre of the Old Town,the
Canongate Kirk is much more modern,being built a the time when King James VII and II wished to restore the celebration of Catholic rites in the old Abbey church of the Augustinian canons at Holyrood.Holyrood Abbey church was then attacked by Protestants and has since fallen into disrepair.
This means when the Royals are in town of a Sunday they go to the Canongate Kirk up the road.Zara Philip's ( the Princess Royal's daughter) low key
wedding took place in this church,but there is no way that it is a more important church than St Giles,just because of its royal connections.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
As to the last one at my home church I think that was David on the Spiritual Presence according to John Calvin. He does a high reading of John Calvin which places him higher than Martin Luther.
I would mind having this particular thing unpacked a little. It would seem to me that this not even possible - unless you consider Luther and Calvins views to be largely orthogonal to each other.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Right
Most people interpret Calvin's ideas through Zwingli. When Zwingli is dropped from the equation a very different picture appears. Take this passage for instance Calvin's Institutes book IV chapter XVIII section 4
quote:
It is not, therefore the chief function of the sacrament simply and without higher consideration to extend to us the body of Christ. Rather it is to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies his flesh is food indeed and his blood is drink
It is a complex chapter where sign and symbol are seen as more than pointing to. Calvin at this point sounds very postmodern with a complex relationship between sign and reality. The sign that is created of bread and wine is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
That's the Disciples for you—while Restoration churches tend towards the snake-belly low, there are a few ministers who, to quote a friend of mine in charge of a divinity program, "secretly wish they were archbishops." I'll admit, it's uncommon to see thuribles or even the slightest hint of silk or lace, but it's not unheard of; without any sort of binding Tradition, only traditions, you'll see things from all over the spectrum of generally good taste and practice (and, unfortunately, a few things from outside of it). I don't think it indicates that anyone's changing their sacramental theology, though;
Am I correct in thinking that only elders preside at the Table?
quote:
Restoration churches are about as hard-core memorialist as they come, and, for the Disciples, open communion is the big reason why the denomination exists. I mean, there are others, though I'd argue many of them stem from the importance of open communion. Now, that's not to say that one can't have a high view of the sacraments and open communion—Lord certainly knows the converse isn't true—just that I can't think of too many examples.
I thought it was membership for the unimmersed and the Restructure was the reason for the DOC, at least in it's present form since all COC that I am aware of practice open communion. Unless you are referring to the story of Campbell and the communion token.
That's interesting and discordant with what I understood the practice to be amongst CoC, who are a large denomination in West Texas where I spent some years of my adolescence. I got the clear impression that CoC practiced closed communion and required believer's baptism, whereas DoC practice open communion and will accept as baptised those who were baptised as infants, even though they themselves only practice believer's baptism.
Certainly with respect to the Eucharist both CoC and DoC seem to be basic memorialists, though I don't know what ideas any of their contemporary theologians have put forward, and in respect to the DoC specifically, the intellectuality of the DoC ministry may have led to some higher eucharistic thinking amongst their theologians and elite.
Back to the Presbyterians: the practices and theology of Scottish Presbies seems to have got a lot of traction here, but what of Presbyterians in the USA and elsewhere? We've only heard from SPK, I think, and he represents the UCCan merged stream of Methodism and Presbyterianism. I came across one contemporary PCUSA eucharistic liturgy yesterday that struck me as quite amazing: Sursum Corda leading into a lengthy Preface, followed by a rather extended anamnoesis and epiklesis (of both the people and the elements), followed by the Lord's Prayer, and only then followed by the institution narrative and dominical words -- a completely unique ordering of things in my experience, and a truly beautiful prayer composed in contemporary language that left room for interpretation of the eucharistic action and the nature of Christ's presence in the sacrament (rather Anglican fudgey, actually).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
