Ship of Fools: Restoration of the Eucharist in Protestant Worship

Thread: Restoration of the Eucharist in Protestant Worship Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026730

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I would say that by far the worst thing about the UMC church I attend is that they only have a Eucharist every other Sunday. Well that and I don't think they take it as seriously as I do. That last could just be my opinion though.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

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...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

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.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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!

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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)

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

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.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

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.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Non-alcoholic wine should always be in wee cuppies for hygiene reasons - there is no alcohol to disinfect a single chalice.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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 ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

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]

)

Angus

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

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.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

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.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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]

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]

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!!! [Mad]

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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)

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

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

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

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]

(For icons I recommend St John's in Perth).

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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 ]

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

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.

Of course - but even so and taking the highest interpretation of these words, I don't see how this is *higher* than Luther.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Here is a link for a very interesting series of Eucharistic Prayers put forth by the Presbyterian Church USA for weekly use during Eastertide: http://www.pcusa.org/resource/eucharisteaster/

You have to open the pdf on the page, which contains the actual prayers.

Sorry: I couldn't get the SoF url encoding feature to work with this for some reason. Anyway, you'll note that weekly celebration of the Eucharist is commended during the Easter season, with this proposed series of EPs proposed for each Sunday in turn.

[ 01. February 2014, 13:12: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Missed the window for further edit, but the pdf document starts off with a lengthy theological and historical rational for frequent celebration of the Eucharist and the mandate of the PCUSA governance for celebrating the Eucharist with greater frequency. It then proceeds on to the series of Eucharistic Prayers

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

It is not me who originates the phrase so I have been looking further and seeing if I can trace it online. What I have turned up is this paper and from my looking through the Institutes today I think he has it right.

My apologies to the Orthodox but I am going to have to borrow their language. So much of John Calvin portrays his as a dry intellectual ascetic, it is often forgotten that he at times is strongly mystical and we have just walked into one of those times.

Without a doubt, Calvin viewed the Eucharist as a mystical union between the participants and Christ. The Spirit was not spiritual but something that is real at least here. Calvin's insistence that God's promises are true, mean that the body and blood have to be eaten through the Eucharist. The Eucharist is part of the heavenly banquet, not only does the Spirit descend but it lifts the believer into the heavenly banquet that is Christ himself.

Jengie

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Non-alcoholic wine should always be in wee cuppies for hygiene reasons - there is no alcohol to disinfect a single chalice.

Alcohol doesn't disinfect a single cup - at least not in the quantity and concentration found in any church.

Provided you're happy with the risk of infection of all sorts of germs, lipstick in the wine, someone grabbing the cup if you drink too much (whatever became of the cup as sign of extravagant grace?), causing alcoholics problems etc atc then by all means stick to one cup.

Small cups whether of fermented or unfermented wine are much more hygienic and since the contents come from one source, then it's one cup.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Calvin's insistence that God's promises are true, mean that the body and blood have to be eaten through the Eucharist. The Eucharist is part of the heavenly banquet, not only does the Spirit descend but it lifts the believer into the heavenly banquet that is Christ himself.

Sure, I understand Calvin's view - hence why I said I'm not sure it's higher than Luther's unless you consider their views to be orthogonal to each other.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

On reflection I think that my earlier post

quote:
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.

misrepresents the 'longer, catholic tradition'. For many years, from the early middle ages or even earlier, although the Eucharist was celebrated frequently, the majority of lay people communicated maybe once or twice a year - hence less often than in post-reformation Scotland.

I don't think (and nor does the contemporary RC or any other church, at least in the Western tradition) that is a good thing. The reformers wanted more frequent communion. Of course, Protestant theology generally stressed the communion aspect of the eucharist, minimising or even denying the sacrificial aspect, so to attend the service without receiving seemed pointless. Hence the tradition of services of the Word as the norm, with occasional celebrations of Communion. But Cranmer, and as far as I know most of the other reformers, wanted to restore the communion of the people as a normal part of weekly worship.

It's only since the twentieth century that Popes have pressed for more frequent communion on the part of the laity, a movement towards convergence which has been matched by the Parish Communion movement in Anglicanism and a similar, though less dramatic, increase in the number of celebrations among other Protestants.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

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.

Broadly speaking the Anglican practice in the Church of Ireland remains as it has done, probably since its establishment. In churches that have the manpower, weekly communion would occur early on a Sunday and midweek; with the rest of the service pattern being morning prayer as the 'main' Sunday worship service three weeks out of four, and parish communion for the other week. Evening prayer, again, the norm - but with a monthly evening holy communion.

Still something of a tendency, I'm afraid, for some parishioners to 'take off' the Sunday it's parish communion. Though the Sunday early morning communion does seem to be very healthily attended, from what I can gather.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It is not me who originates the phrase so I have been looking further and seeing if I can trace it online. What I have turned up is this paper and from my looking through the Institutes today I think he has it right.

My apologies to the Orthodox but I am going to have to borrow their language. So much of John Calvin portrays his as a dry intellectual ascetic, it is often forgotten that he at times is strongly mystical and we have just walked into one of those times.

Without a doubt, Calvin viewed the Eucharist as a mystical union between the participants and Christ. The Spirit was not spiritual but something that is real at least here. Calvin's insistence that God's promises are true, mean that the body and blood have to be eaten through the Eucharist. The Eucharist is part of the heavenly banquet, not only does the Spirit descend but it lifts the believer into the heavenly banquet that is Christ himself.

Jengie

Agreed. In talking of communication - Calvin is as high and as low as it gets.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

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 have heard anecdotally of churches in Indonesia which used rice and palm wine.

I'm sure I've come across something like this in a book about the history of worldwide missionary work. How else would missionaries and church leaders have been able to celebrate Communion in cultures where bread and grape wine weren't commonly available, or were expensive Western imports?

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's only since the twentieth century that Popes have pressed for more frequent communion on the part of the laity, a movement towards convergence which has been matched by the Parish Communion movement in Anglicanism and a similar, though less dramatic, increase in the number of celebrations among other Protestants.

This is very interesting. I wonder why this development has occurred. Putting aside the no doubt profound theological arguments, I suspect that with declining rates of churchgoing in 20th c. Europe emphasising weekly Communion was a way of encouraging people to come to church more often. In the British case that particular goal wasn't met.

[ 01. February 2014, 14:34: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...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.

I'd be interested to know more about this.
I would also make the comment that The salvation Army has quite a highly developed theology of non-provision of the 2 dominical sacraments in worship.

It's not a careless omission and neither does it mean we do not encounter the same grace.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

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.

I've lived in Texas and have visited congregations all across the state. I also tend to worship with congregations who would be considered very strict and it has always been open communion. If anything has been closed it has been the offering. We often make it a point to let visitors know that the collection is not for them and even go so far as avoid passing them the plate unless they somehow indicate they are giving.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Just coming in on the use of "Ribena" or similar in British Methodist contexts - it's not unknown but is completely contrary to the rubrics which require grape juice. I have occasionally had communion stewards (those responsible for preparing for communion) trying to get me to ok the us of ribena or whatever and they always get told that whatever we use it has to be made of grapes! Given we don't use wine (that's a matter of discipline which is out of my hands), I prefer pure grape juice but will live with the non-alcoholic sacramental wines the church suppliers produce. Jesus did not say "I am the true blackcurrant"!

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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.

Wow! We are members of the COC and I've never seen or heard of anything other than a completely open communion. I have heard of some congregations that use just one cup and some use actual wine. Of course, some folks get up tight about it.

[code]

[ 01. February 2014, 17:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
—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."

Now that's funny! It isn't uncommon in our congregation to see everything from suits to blue jeans on the folks serving communion.

quote:
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.

For some reason folks don't seem to ask questions about passing the collection plate every week, do they?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Non-alcoholic wine should always be in wee cuppies for hygiene reasons - there is no alcohol to disinfect a single chalice.
Alcohol doesn't disinfect a single cup - at least not in the quantity and concentration found in any church.

Provided you're happy with the risk of infection of all sorts of germs, lipstick in the wine, someone grabbing the cup if you drink too much (whatever became of the cup as sign of extravagant grace?), causing alcoholics problems etc atc then by all means stick to one cup.

Small cups whether of fermented or unfermented wine are much more hygienic and since the contents come from one source, then it's one cup.

The alcohol and the silver of the chalice together act as natural disinfectants. As for causing problems for alcoholics (totally off-topic btw, I had not said that non-alcoholic Communion wine was wrong after all), I don't see why using one chalice would specifically do that? Alcoholics don't also have problems with chalices, just their contents. Non-alcoholic (albeit fermented) wine is valid matter in the CoE so I don't know why you're assuming I think otherwise.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] The alcohol and the silver of the chalice together act as natural disinfectants.

Nope I wasn't assuming that you didn't agree with non alcoholic wine. I was making a point about people's ability to share given concerns over alcohol, health and those who just can't bring themselves to share a cup with others (not health nor theological reasons - just don't want to go where others have been drooling)

I went to an Anglican service recently: there were different breads to accommodate coeliacs etc, 3 types of wine - chalice with fermented, ditto unfermented, small cups unfermented. the whole thing was a mess. Far better to avoid any issues to go with bread for everyone including coeliacs and small cups with unfermented wine.

Anyway, what's your evidence for the disinfection? The only way it could be true is if the whole lot were disinfected after each person uses it. Doesn't stop dribbling into the wine - and if it was the case why did many Anglican churches stop the shared cup at the time of the Bird Flu scare? Surely if the shared cup was that safe, they'd be encouraging it as an anti flu remedy!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Doesn't stop dribbling into the wine - and if it was the case why did many Anglican churches stop the shared cup at the time of the Bird Flu scare? Surely if the shared cup was that safe, they'd be encouraging it as an anti flu remedy!

I take a service each week at a sheltered housing complex, with Communion once a month. We use real wine mixed with water in a common chalice, and wafers. When the Bird Flu came in we went over to Intinction and the majority of communicants have continued to do this by choice. Of course I have to drink up what's left over so I make sue I don't put in too much to start with!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] The alcohol and the silver of the chalice together act as natural disinfectants.
Nope I wasn't assuming that you didn't agree with non alcoholic wine. I was making a point about people's ability to share given concerns over alcohol, health and those who just can't bring themselves to share a cup with others (not health nor theological reasons - just don't want to go where others have been drooling)

I went to an Anglican service recently: there were different breads to accommodate coeliacs etc, 3 types of wine - chalice with fermented, ditto unfermented, small cups unfermented. the whole thing was a mess. Far better to avoid any issues to go with bread for everyone including coeliacs and small cups with unfermented wine.

Anyway, what's your evidence for the disinfection? The only way it could be true is if the whole lot were disinfected after each person uses it. Doesn't stop dribbling into the wine - and if it was the case why did many Anglican churches stop the shared cup at the time of the Bird Flu scare? Surely if the shared cup was that safe, they'd be encouraging it as an anti flu remedy!

But I have no objection to individual cups and said that non-alcoholic wine should be in them [Confused]

I would prefer alcoholic wine to be in a single chalice because it loses something in the way of symbolism if it's not (one cup, one bread, one body) but it's not a hill I'd die on. I do think people who are precious over sharing a chalice are being rather unreasonable, it's far more hygienic than touching a door handle for instance, unless they have some kind of immune disorder (and in that case they probably wouldn't be in church).

As for evidence, it's the reason church chalices are made out of silver and not another material. It's just the reason that's always been given and I've had no reason not to believe it.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Doesn't stop dribbling into the wine - and if it was the case why did many Anglican churches stop the shared cup at the time of the Bird Flu scare? Surely if the shared cup was that safe, they'd be encouraging it as an anti flu remedy!
I take a service each week at a sheltered housing complex, with Communion once a month. We use real wine mixed with water in a common chalice, and wafers. When the Bird Flu came in we went over to Intinction and the majority of communicants have continued to do this by choice. Of course I have to drink up what's left over so I make sue I don't put in too much to start with!

This is what I saw when Bird Flu was around. I never saw chalices being dispensed with entirely, I think the symbolism is just too strong.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Intinction was strongly advised against as hands are just as, if not more, grubby than saliva. Some churches stopped sharing the chalice during the swine flu outbreak, others held that the antiseptic properties were sufficient to avoid concern and continued using it.

The claim that going to wee cuppies and non-alcoholic wine is the right solution is a pretty daft one as it goes against both the practice of the last supper and the tradition of the church. If anyone is deeply concerned about the common cup then the sacrament is still completely valid received in 1 kind only. Having two chalices, one containing non-alcoholic wine or grape juice and the other wine is perfectly reasonable to accommodate those with genuine alcohol issues, and those with hygiene concerns should be more worried about disinfecting the door handle in the toilet.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I'm a little dismayed that this thread has got off into a tangent on the common chalice vs wee cuppies, and pure wheaten wafer-bread vs "real bread" ("as is usual to be eaten"). No one, however, has mentioned the doctrine of concommitance, by which Christ in the fullness of his humanity and divinity is understood to be entirely present under both the outward forms of the consecrated bread and the wine. Interesting that although historically there were arguments in Lutheranism about the propriety/validity of communicating in one kind only, the last time I was recently in a Lutheran church, the service leaflet included the instruction that if one did not wish to receive from the chalice with its alcoholic content, one might receive the Host only, as Christ is understood to be fully present in both species. The thing is, this solution works perfectly well in those Churches that recognise the objective Real Presence. It perhaps doesn't work for pure memorialists, however.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Non-alcoholic (albeit fermented) wine is valid matter in the CoE so I don't know why you're assuming I think otherwise.

I don't think that is right. Where in the canons does it say that it is, may I ask?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Non-alcoholic (albeit fermented) wine is valid matter in the CoE so I don't know why you're assuming I think otherwise.
I don't think that is right. Where in the canons does it say that it is, may I ask?

Mustum is extremely low alcohol content wine in which the fermentation process has been cut short. It's allowable in the RCC under certain circumstances and with the express permission of the Ordinary, I believe. If the CofE canons don't get too specific about the wine, apart from it being the fermented product of grapes, I expect mustum would be permissible. However, there is a very low ETOH content -- about one half of one percent by volume, I think, and possibly up to about 1.5%.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm a little dismayed that this thread has got off into a tangent on the common chalice vs wee cuppies, and pure wheaten wafer-bread vs "real bread" ("as is usual to be eaten"). No one, however, has mentioned the doctrine of concommitance, by which Christ in the fullness of his humanity and divinity is understood to be entirely present under both the outward forms of the consecrated bread and the wine. Interesting that although historically there were arguments in Lutheranism about the propriety/validity of communicating in one kind only, the last time I was recently in a Lutheran church, the service leaflet included the instruction that if one did not wish to receive from the chalice with its alcoholic content, one might receive the Host only, as Christ is understood to be fully present in both species. The thing is, this solution works perfectly well in those Churches that recognise the objective Real Presence. It perhaps doesn't work for pure memorialists, however.

TBH, I've never heard 'the doctrine of concommitance' discussed in a British Protestant context. The issue of Christ being entirely present' in the elements always seems to crop up in relation to the RCC.

As has already been said, individual Protestants in various denominations might take a range of different perspectives about what's happening in the Communion ritual. Church and denominational leaders don't appear to see the topic as something that requires particular attention or explicit teaching.

Concern about 'communicating in only one kind' is something I've only come across on the Ship. There might be health reasons for avoiding either bread or wine, but if the church takes a sufficiently tolerant view, alternatives can be found. This is another reason why I can't be totally hung up on the presence of the grape.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Canon B17:

quote:
the wine [shall be] the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome.

@ SvitlanaV2: I don't think I've heard it called that, but there was an announcement, I think from Archbishop Rowan, at the time of the swine flu outbreak, to that effect.

[ 02. February 2014, 13:36: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm a little dismayed that this thread has got off into a tangent on the common chalice vs wee cuppies, and pure wheaten wafer-bread vs "real bread" ("as is usual to be eaten"). No one, however, has mentioned the doctrine of concommitance, by which Christ in the fullness of his humanity and divinity is understood to be entirely present under both the outward forms of the consecrated bread and the wine. Interesting that although historically there were arguments in Lutheranism about the propriety/validity of communicating in one kind only, the last time I was recently in a Lutheran church, the service leaflet included the instruction that if one did not wish to receive from the chalice with its alcoholic content, one might receive the Host only, as Christ is understood to be fully present in both species. The thing is, this solution works perfectly well in those Churches that recognise the objective Real Presence. It perhaps doesn't work for pure memorialists, however.
TBH, I've never heard 'the doctrine of concommitance' discussed in a British Protestant context. The issue of Christ being entirely present' in the elements always seems to crop up in relation to the RCC.

As has already been said, individual Protestants in various denominations might take a range of different perspectives about what's happening in the Communion ritual. Church and denominational leaders don't appear to see the topic as something that requires particular attention or explicit teaching.

Concern about 'communicating in only one kind' is something I've only come across on the Ship. There might be health reasons for avoiding either bread or wine, but if the church takes a sufficiently tolerant view, alternatives can be found. This is another reason why I can't be totally hung up on the presence of the grape.

Do you know, this type of 'angels on a pin-head' argument really does nothing whatsoever to persuade people like me who don't have sacraments to think, "Hey, you know what, we're missing something really important here!"

The more you lot over think the whole issue the further and further away you get, I'm pretty certain, from the simply Gospel message of 'Christ in you the hope of glory.'

I'm actually rather glad we don't get hung up on all this total nonsense - it sounds all very Pharisaical to be honest and it's no wonder the ordinary man in the street couldn't give a toss about church.

[Disappointed]

[ 02. February 2014, 14:17: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

That's strange, Mudfrog; your opinions on sexuality have me, and possibly others, thinking similar things.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

It occurs to me that my previous post could be seen as a cheap dig. Whilst there was an element of that I'll admit, my broader point was that often what one person consider irrelevant another person considers vital, and there aren't obvious ways to separate them. Certainly the opinion of the world seems a very odd standard by which to decide what Christians should and shouldn't consider important.

Posted by Majorminor (# 17967) on :

But as a fellow Salvationist , Mudfrog, I enjoy taking communion from time to time as an act of communion with our brothers and sisters. Let's not get holier-than-thou about a fellow Christian's style of worship. Signs of grace, a sacrament, can be individual.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Non-alcoholic (albeit fermented) wine is valid matter in the CoE so I don't know why you're assuming I think otherwise.
I don't think that is right. Where in the canons does it say that it is, may I ask?

The canons say Communion wine must be fermented, but that doesn't equal alcoholic.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Surely wine becomes alcoholic when it is 'fermented'.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm a little dismayed that this thread has got off into a tangent on the common chalice vs wee cuppies, and pure wheaten wafer-bread vs "real bread" ("as is usual to be eaten"). No one, however, has mentioned the doctrine of concommitance, by which Christ in the fullness of his humanity and divinity is understood to be entirely present under both the outward forms of the consecrated bread and the wine. Interesting that although historically there were arguments in Lutheranism about the propriety/validity of communicating in one kind only, the last time I was recently in a Lutheran church, the service leaflet included the instruction that if one did not wish to receive from the chalice with its alcoholic content, one might receive the Host only, as Christ is understood to be fully present in both species. The thing is, this solution works perfectly well in those Churches that recognise the objective Real Presence. It perhaps doesn't work for pure memorialists, however.
TBH, I've never heard 'the doctrine of concommitance' discussed in a British Protestant context. The issue of Christ being entirely present' in the elements always seems to crop up in relation to the RCC.

As has already been said, individual Protestants in various denominations might take a range of different perspectives about what's happening in the Communion ritual. Church and denominational leaders don't appear to see the topic as something that requires particular attention or explicit teaching.

Concern about 'communicating in only one kind' is something I've only come across on the Ship. There might be health reasons for avoiding either bread or wine, but if the church takes a sufficiently tolerant view, alternatives can be found. This is another reason why I can't be totally hung up on the presence of the grape.
Do you know, this type of 'angels on a pin-head' argument really does nothing whatsoever to persuade people like me who don't have sacraments to think, "Hey, you know what, we're missing something really important here!"

The more you lot over think the whole issue the further and further away you get, I'm pretty certain, from the simply Gospel message of 'Christ in you the hope of glory.'

I'm actually rather glad we don't get hung up on all this total nonsense - it sounds all very Pharisaical to be honest and it's no wonder the ordinary man in the street couldn't give a toss about church.

Yeah, how dare we want to obey Christ and celebrate the sacraments He gave us. If you think celebrating Communion with due reverence is ridiculous, then you'd better take that up with Jesus, given that He instituted and commanded it. Given those circumstances, I think it's pretty sensible to want to celebrate Communion properly and reverently. Paul warns that there are serious consequences to not receiving in the right way - do you disagree with Paul here?

I would never call SA worship irreverent, so why dismiss sacramentalist worship (which is just as carefully considered and worshipful as yours)?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surely wine becomes alcoholic when it is 'fermented'.

Why the scare quotes around fermented? Fermentation doesn't always result in alcohol, it also results in gases and/or acids.

Posted by Majorminor (# 17967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Yeah, how dare we want to obey Christ and celebrate the sacraments He gave us. If you think celebrating Communion with due reverence is ridiculous, then you'd better take that up with Jesus, given that He instituted and commanded it. Given those circumstances, I think it's pretty sensible to want to celebrate Communion properly and reverently. Paul warns that there are serious consequences to not receiving in the right way - do you disagree with Paul here?

I would never call SA worship irreverent, so why dismiss sacramentalist worship (which is just as carefully considered and worshipful as yours)?

Not all Salvationists are parochial. Apologies.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm not sure about the notion of official Methodist doctrine being simply memorialist. I would have thought receptionist/spiritual presence at least.

Yes, as the Methodist Articles are a fairly modest twigging of the 39, I don't see how this could be either.

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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.
Wow! We are members of the COC and I've never seen or heard of anything other than a completely open communion. I have heard of some congregations that use just one cup and some use actual wine. Of course, some folks get up tight about it.

I am sure there is between the restoration churches, and I'm not surprised your CoC does things differently than seekingsister's "extreme offshoot." On the one hand, the Disciples of Christ seem to be very mainline, nigh United Church. At the other end, a boy friend in high school was the son of an ex-minister in an outfit calling itself the "International" Churches of Christ, which diverge from other restoration churches (and churches in general) so sharply that allegations of cult-like practice have been raised. (And of course, there's the Community of Christ: basically Trinitarian Mormons with a more relaxed view of Dead Horses, following Joseph Smith's original affinity with the Stone-Campbell movement). Alas - to bring it back to the topic - one of the ways they resemble mainline Protestantism more closely than the LDS is in their frequency of Sacrament meetings.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Thirty Nine articles are moderate Reformed. That means at the very least Calvin's doctrines would be acceptable under them. Spiritual Presence/Receptionism would seem to me to be a fairly good take on Calvin's own stance.

Just checked 39 Articles and can see nothing untoward.

Jengie

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Re: LQ's last comment:

(a) the Disciples of Christ had merger discussions with the UCCan; they broke down in 1985 over the possible severing of common links with the DoC in the US and Dead Horses; the UCCan was in the middle of the Great Dead Horses Debate of 1988.

(b) Methodism is not memorialist, it's at least Spiritual Presence; that's how the Melville Conference of 1908 was able to produce the Basis of Union for the United Church of Canada.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Thanks, SPK. I didn't want to take my pet detour into the subject of the ill-fated "Church of Christ in Canada," as I was afraid I had already made too many sidebars in one post! But it does demonstrate that the affinity between the DoC and the UCC has not gone unmarked by the bodies themselves.

Of course, we Anglicans were involved early on as well, and unfortunately did not exactly distinguish ourselves with honorable behaviour. I suspect (again, bringing it back to the thread!) that questions of sacramental theology were only one piece of the collapse in negotiations, and outside of self-consciously Anglo-Catholic circles probably not the principal one. Having said that, it's certainly true that this would be around the time we were moving toward the DoC model of "the Lord's service on the Lord's day," which we can now count as a commonality.

In This Anglican Church of Ours Patricia Bays describes her childhood at the then-Ontario Ladies' College (Trafalgar Castle School), which encompassed a fairly "high church" chapel formation under the direction of Stanley Osborne, including weekly Holy Communion.

[ 03. February 2014, 02:18: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm a little dismayed that this thread has got off into a tangent on the common chalice vs wee cuppies, and pure wheaten wafer-bread vs "real bread" ("as is usual to be eaten"). No one, however, has mentioned the doctrine of concommitance, by which Christ in the fullness of his humanity and divinity is understood to be entirely present under both the outward forms of the consecrated bread and the wine. Interesting that although historically there were arguments in Lutheranism about the propriety/validity of communicating in one kind only, the last time I was recently in a Lutheran church, the service leaflet included the instruction that if one did not wish to receive from the chalice with its alcoholic content, one might receive the Host only, as Christ is understood to be fully present in both species. The thing is, this solution works perfectly well in those Churches that recognise the objective Real Presence. It perhaps doesn't work for pure memorialists, however.
TBH, I've never heard 'the doctrine of concommitance' discussed in a British Protestant context. The issue of Christ being entirely present' in the elements always seems to crop up in relation to the RCC.

As has already been said, individual Protestants in various denominations might take a range of different perspectives about what's happening in the Communion ritual. Church and denominational leaders don't appear to see the topic as something that requires particular attention or explicit teaching.

Concern about 'communicating in only one kind' is something I've only come across on the Ship. There might be health reasons for avoiding either bread or wine, but if the church takes a sufficiently tolerant view, alternatives can be found. This is another reason why I can't be totally hung up on the presence of the grape.

The doctrine of concommitance is another one of those scholastic speculations which, whilst it may or may not be true, seems completely irrelevent if you ask me. It seems to me to have come about in order to justify what I would consider an abuse, that is, witholding the chalice from the people. The fulness of the sign is bread and wine.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

[Overused]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

To Majorminor, Jadeconstable and Arethosemyfeet I would just like to say that my view of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is as broad as a lot of people - it's an effective means of grace and my own congregation share in a monthly communion service here at Newcastle where we unite with a Methodist congregation for evening worship. When communion is given it's usual to see that half the communicants are uniformed Salvationists.

So you will get no argument from me about the validity of this sacrament. My own view is basically in line with Salvation Army teaching: God's grace does not depend on specific ceremonies or rituals but is freely available at all times to all people. Salvationists are free to receive the sacrament in a chuch where they are welcome to do so.

Personally I would change that so that Salvationists should be encouraged to receive the sacrament. We do not teach against it, we do not disbelief it, we are not against it. We belief in its efficacy but we do not believe that we, specifically, are called to administer it in our worship; that has more to do with the purpose of The Salvation Army and very little to do with theology.

If anyone asks if TSA provides sacraments I say no, but we're part of a Church that does.

My basic point was this: these detailed, convoluted, divisive arguments seen above actually detract from the simple truth that people encounter Jesus in the sacrament. Bread and wine, a sincere heart and a trusting faith, combined with the ever-available grace of God, are all that are needed to make a sacrament.

Surely the spirit of the sacrament means that every expression is valid - whether it's a magnificent mass performed by the Pope in St Peters down to a small group of believers sharing bread and wine in a simple fellowship in a house.

I simply cannot see that the sacrament should be so finely examined as to its substance, the correct ritual performance whether Christ is present in, through, under or whatever, the elements or whether it's a transubstantiation or a memorial - or even a simple fellowship meal in Christ.

If there is any beauty, any attraction, any grace in the Mass/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Fellowship Meal, it is surely not in the minutiae of divisive and and rather rarified theological detail, but in the simple fact that people gather around an altar/table and share bread and wine in remembrance of him who died, rose again and is coming again.

That's all I was saying.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

As a former (almost) life-long Methodist who left in despair at the way that church was going, I'd like to stick my oar in here!

Both John and Charles Wesley were high-church Anglicans (and high Tories too, though that meant something rather different then to what it does today!) and both firmly believed in the Real Presence; indeed, some of Charles' hymns seem to go well beyond that:

Come, and partake the Gospel feast;
Be saved from sin; in Jesus rest;
O taste the goodness of your God,
And eat His flesh, and drink His blood!

Not, of course that you'll find this verse in a modern Methodist hymn-book. Wesley's heirs seem to have forgotten Wesley!

Posted by Majorminor (# 17967) on :

Mudfrog, I appreciate the clarification, and agree with you. Thanks.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there is any beauty, any attraction, any grace in the Mass/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Fellowship Meal, it is surely not in the minutiae of divisive and and rather rarified theological detail, but in the simple fact that people gather around an altar/table and share bread and wine in remembrance of him who died, rose again and is coming again.

Actually what makes something a sacrament is the Holy Spirit.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Thirty Nine articles are moderate Reformed. That means at the very least Calvin's doctrines would be acceptable under them. Spiritual Presence/Receptionism would seem to me to be a fairly good take on Calvin's own stance.

I'm not sure that Article 18, is entirely intended to be the same as Calvin's spiritual elevator stance. ISTM that the article's concern is to emphasize the spiritual nature of reception, whereas Calvin's concern is to provide a mechanism whereby the whole Christ (both body and spirit) is received in communion - which is why we have to be transported to heaven.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yeah, how dare we want to obey Christ and celebrate the sacraments He gave us. If you think celebrating Communion with due reverence is ridiculous, then you'd better take that up with Jesus, given that He instituted and commanded it. Given those circumstances, I think it's pretty sensible to want to celebrate Communion properly and reverently. Paul warns that there are serious consequences to not receiving in the right way - do you disagree with Paul here?

Well there is a (fairly insignificant, to be sure) stream of opinion that Jesus Christ meant the institution of the 'lord's supper' to last 3 days and not 3000 years. The remembrance was to last until he came again, a fast which he broke with a barbeque on a beach.

As to Paul, there are various possibilities - for example that he was talking about something completely different (communal meals). Or that he was just too tied up with liturgical first-century pharisticial religion to understand the new religion. Or that the writings under discussion were inserted later by institutional structures for their own purposes.

quote:
I would never call SA worship irreverent, so why dismiss sacramentalist worship (which is just as carefully considered and worshipful as yours)?

Is not one able to disagree fundamentally with you? Cannot one believe that the understanding one has is correct and that all others - which appear to deviate from that understanding - are wrong?

You appear to be trying to appeal to a slushy middle - I recognise your religious observance, so you therefore must recognise mine in the same way - which some of us do not subscribe to. On all sides of this debate.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there is any beauty, any attraction, any grace in the Mass/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Fellowship Meal, it is surely not in the minutiae of divisive and and rather rarified theological detail, but in the simple fact that people gather around an altar/table and share bread and wine in remembrance of him who died, rose again and is coming again.
Actually what makes something a sacrament is the Holy Spirit.

And I agree with that - I didn't omit him deliberately [Smile]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yeah, how dare we want to obey Christ and celebrate the sacraments He gave us. If you think celebrating Communion with due reverence is ridiculous, then you'd better take that up with Jesus, given that He instituted and commanded it. Given those circumstances, I think it's pretty sensible to want to celebrate Communion properly and reverently. Paul warns that there are serious consequences to not receiving in the right way - do you disagree with Paul here?
Well there is a (fairly insignificant, to be sure) stream of opinion that Jesus Christ meant the institution of the 'lord's supper' to last 3 days and not 3000 years. The remembrance was to last until he came again, a fast which he broke with a barbeque on a beach.

As to Paul, there are various possibilities - for example that he was talking about something completely different (communal meals). Or that he was just too tied up with liturgical first-century pharisticial religion to understand the new religion. Or that the writings under discussion were inserted later by institutional structures for their own purposes.

quote:
I would never call SA worship irreverent, so why dismiss sacramentalist worship (which is just as carefully considered and worshipful as yours)?
Is not one able to disagree fundamentally with you? Cannot one believe that the understanding one has is correct and that all others - which appear to deviate from that understanding - are wrong?

You appear to be trying to appeal to a slushy middle - I recognise your religious observance, so you therefore must recognise mine in the same way - which some of us do not subscribe to. On all sides of this debate.

This would seem to throw out the living tradition of the Church Catholic over the past two millenia. If one believes that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit lives in the Church, then the evolving Tradition is no mere accident. The Eucharist expresses the faith of the Church, making the merits of Christ and the atoning grace of God - and the eschatological hope of the Church - present in a tangible and specific way. Do erroneous emphases, misleading or ill-advised praxis, creep into the theology and liturgy of the Mass from time to time? Yes, sure. But the Tradition is a living thing and a watchword of the Church is rightly Semper Reformanda. The Holy Spirit, acting through the Church, saves us from falling into irredeamable error, puts right what has gone wrong, and guides the Church into the fullness of truth.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This would seem to throw out the living tradition of the Church Catholic over the past two millenia. If one believes that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit lives in the Church, then the evolving Tradition is no mere accident.

If being the important word. Other honestly held opinions to yours are available.

quote:
The Eucharist expresses the faith of the Church, making the merits of Christ and the atoning grace of God - and the eschatological hope of the Church - present in a tangible and specific way. Do erroneous emphases, misleading or ill-advised praxis, creep into the theology and liturgy of the Mass from time to time? Yes, sure. But the Tradition is a living thing and a watchword of the Church is rightly Semper Reformanda. The Holy Spirit, acting through the Church, saves us from falling into irredeamable error, puts right what has gone wrong, and guides the Church into the fullness of truth.

Some do not see it like that. In fact, some do not hold to any of the things you say here.

[ 03. February 2014, 13:03: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

seekingsister, presterjohn, lsk, lq, etc

It seems very odd and out of place that there would be any restoration movement congregations that would not have an open communion. I read this a good while back in a history book:

quote:
The year was 1809, the place Glasgow, Scotland. The occasion was the semi-annual communion service of the Anti-Burgher Seceder Presbyterian Church. Eight hundred Scots had gathered for the occasion, a service restricted to that particular sect, which fastidiously excluded even other kinds of Presbyterians. But one of them, a 21-year old student at Glasgow University, lately come from Ireland, was troubled with gnawing doubts about breaking bread in such a sectarian atmosphere. Having been examined by the elders and found worthy of communion, he had been given a metal token by which he could gain access to the service. Token in hand, he waited for the last of eight or nine tables to be served, hoping he might resolve his doubts in those last moments.

With doubts still plaguing him, he dropped the token in the plate as it came by, but refused to break the bread or drink the cup, realizing as he did then that it was a communion with Christ from which other believers were barred. He turned away and walked out – and life was never again the same for Alexander Campbell.

He was extremely influential in the early RM so am very surprised that anyone at all associated with a RM congregation would even consider a closed communion. But then, I suppose anyone could put a sign out front of a building and go and do all sorts or stuff that would weird someone out.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This would seem to throw out the living tradition of the Church Catholic over the past two millenia. If one believes that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit lives in the Church, then the evolving Tradition is no mere accident. The Eucharist expresses the faith of the Church, making the merits of Christ and the atoning grace of God - and the eschatological hope of the Church - present in a tangible and specific way. Do erroneous emphases, misleading or ill-advised praxis, creep into the theology and liturgy of the Mass from time to time? Yes, sure. But the Tradition is a living thing and a watchword of the Church is rightly Semper Reformanda. The Holy Spirit, acting through the Church, saves us from falling into irredeamable error, puts right what has gone wrong, and guides the Church into the fullness of truth. [/QB]

This reminds me of that old joke:

quote:
There was an old man sitting on his porch watching the rain fall. Pretty soon the water was coming over the porch and into the house.

The old man was still sitting there when a rescue boat came and the people on board said, "You can't stay here you have to come with us."

The old man replied, "No, God will save me." So the boat left. A little while later the water was up to the second floor, and another rescue boat came, and again told the old man he had to come with them.

The old man again replied, "God will save me." So the boat left him again.

An hour later the water was up to the roof and a third rescue boat approached the old man, and tried to get him to come with them.

Again the old man refused to leave stating that, "God will save him." So the boat left him again.

Soon after, the man drowns and goes to heaven, and when he sees God he asks him, "Why didn't you save me?"

God replied, "You dummy! I tried. I sent three boats after you!!"

If Jesus Himself came back and told RCC leadership to get married and let people use contraception, the leadership would ask Him if He'd read the Catechism carefully enough.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
seekingsister, presterjohn, lsk, lq, etc

It seems very odd and out of place that there would be any restoration movement congregations that would not have an open communion.

As I mentioned I was (unwillingly) part of an extremely conservative branch of the RM that generally does not think most other people who call themselves Christians are actually such. So please don't take my experience as the standard RM/CoC position.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Both John and Charles Wesley were high-church Anglicans (and high Tories too, though that meant something rather different then to what it does today!) and both firmly believed in the Real Presence

There's a possible tangent to be had here - in that certain positions on the Eucharist seem to be more 'stable' than others - though we are talking survivors bias at that point.

Generally in protestant circles, the move is towards some form of memorialism - you rarely get a move in the opposite direction - this is regardless of denomination.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Both John and Charles Wesley were high-church Anglicans (and high Tories too, though that meant something rather different then to what it does today!) and both firmly believed in the Real Presence
There's a possible tangent to be had here - in that certain positions on the Eucharist seem to be more 'stable' than others - though we are talking survivors bias at that point.

Generally in protestant circles, the move is towards some form of memorialism - you rarely get a move in the opposite direction - this is regardless of denomination.

Depends what you consider the ever-problematic Anglicans to be. Receptionist and memorialist tendencies were certainly eroded by the Tractarian/Ritualist/Anglo-Catholic movement. In TEC, I'd say that Eucharistic theology is fuzzy at a church-wide level, but is probably most typically stated in terms of Real Presence and framed in an ambiguous manner somewhat consistent with Lutheran sacramental union, at least in your typical MOTR parish. Amongst TEC Anglo-Catholic parishes clergy and laity will typically confess something consistent with transubstantiation, using that specific term or not, but certainly proclaiming an unambiguous objective Real Presence of Christ under the outward forms of bread and wine.

[ 03. February 2014, 13:53: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To Majorminor, Jadeconstable and Arethosemyfeet I would just like to say that my view of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is as broad as a lot of people - it's an effective means of grace and my own congregation share in a monthly communion service here at Newcastle where we unite with a Methodist congregation for evening worship. When communion is given it's usual to see that half the communicants are uniformed Salvationists.

So you will get no argument from me about the validity of this sacrament. My own view is basically in line with Salvation Army teaching: God's grace does not depend on specific ceremonies or rituals but is freely available at all times to all people. Salvationists are free to receive the sacrament in a chuch where they are welcome to do so.

Personally I would change that so that Salvationists should be encouraged to receive the sacrament. We do not teach against it, we do not disbelief it, we are not against it. We belief in its efficacy but we do not believe that we, specifically, are called to administer it in our worship; that has more to do with the purpose of The Salvation Army and very little to do with theology.

If anyone asks if TSA provides sacraments I say no, but we're part of a Church that does.

My basic point was this: these detailed, convoluted, divisive arguments seen above actually detract from the simple truth that people encounter Jesus in the sacrament. Bread and wine, a sincere heart and a trusting faith, combined with the ever-available grace of God, are all that are needed to make a sacrament.

Surely the spirit of the sacrament means that every expression is valid - whether it's a magnificent mass performed by the Pope in St Peters down to a small group of believers sharing bread and wine in a simple fellowship in a house.

I simply cannot see that the sacrament should be so finely examined as to its substance, the correct ritual performance whether Christ is present in, through, under or whatever, the elements or whether it's a transubstantiation or a memorial - or even a simple fellowship meal in Christ.

If there is any beauty, any attraction, any grace in the Mass/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Fellowship Meal, it is surely not in the minutiae of divisive and and rather rarified theological detail, but in the simple fact that people gather around an altar/table and share bread and wine in remembrance of him who died, rose again and is coming again.

That's all I was saying.

I appreciate that pharasaism regarding the Eucharist is unhelpful, and agree. However, the pickiness is coming from a position of wanting to preserve holiness - and actually the Pharisees were coming from a similar position. Their intentions were actually not bad, it was the taking it to extremes.

My point was more about appreciating others' good intentions.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This would seem to throw out the living tradition of the Church Catholic over the past two millenia. If one believes that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit lives in the Church, then the evolving Tradition is no mere accident.
If being the important word. Other honestly held opinions to yours are available.

quote:
The Eucharist expresses the faith of the Church, making the merits of Christ and the atoning grace of God - and the eschatological hope of the Church - present in a tangible and specific way. Do erroneous emphases, misleading or ill-advised praxis, creep into the theology and liturgy of the Mass from time to time? Yes, sure. But the Tradition is a living thing and a watchword of the Church is rightly Semper Reformanda. The Holy Spirit, acting through the Church, saves us from falling into irredeamable error, puts right what has gone wrong, and guides the Church into the fullness of truth.
Some do not see it like that. In fact, some do not hold to any of the things you say here.

In charity, that's not the faith of the historic Church.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In charity, that's not the faith of the historic Church.

Even if that is true, it makes no odds to me.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
seekingsister, presterjohn, lsk, lq, etc

It seems very odd and out of place that there would be any restoration movement congregations that would not have an open communion.
As I mentioned I was (unwillingly) part of an extremely conservative branch of the RM that generally does not think most other people who call themselves Christians are actually such. So please don't take my experience as the standard RM/CoC position.

Right. It was just something I'd never heard of in the RM. As a side, I'd consider the "extremely conservative" position to have open communion and for members to remember that God is God and we aren't, so we ought not deal in harshness. It seems to me you were hanging with folks who were playing fast and loose.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Just to refocus for a moment: it seems that two related topics have developed on the thread. One is the reassertion of the Eucharist to a position of centrality - and hence more frequent celebration - in protestant worship generally. The other thing being discussed is developments in eucharistic theology amongst protestant denominations. Is it possible that in at least some cases, a "higher" emphasis on the celebration of the Eucharist is paradoxically going hand in hand with a retreat from high eucharistic theology? I could see that this could constitute memorialism or a fuzzy spiritual presence theology by default. I have occasionally seen very ambiguous explanations of the nature of the encounter with Christ in the Eucharist on the websites or service leaflets of TEC parishes - such that just about anything could be inferred (even though I think this runs counter to the general Real Presence trend in TEC), and I've seen some scholarly arguments amongst Lutherans that in the USA amongst both LCMS and ELCA there has been a watering down of the classical Lutheran doctrine of physical Real Presence into more ambiguous phrasings that are subject to being interpreted as indicating only a spiritual presence, notwithstanding the growth of the Eucharist as the principal form of worship in the ELCA especially.

[ 03. February 2014, 14:50: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

what you consider the ever-problematic Anglicans to be. Receptionist and memorialist tendencies were certainly eroded by the Tractarian/Ritualist/Anglo-Catholic movement. In TEC, I'd say that Eucharistic theology is fuzzy at a church-wide level, but is probably most typically stated in terms of Real Presence and framed in an ambiguous manner somewhat consistent with Lutheran sacramental union.

Not entirely sure that anything was eroded by the Oxford Movement/Tractarians in that sense. It was just a restatement of belief by an already existing part of the Anglican church in many ways.

Sacramental Union is an interesting term - it seems to me that the functional way in which it is used is basically a way of fudging over differences. Different Anglicans understand SU different - some even having very memorialist takes on it.

[ 03. February 2014, 16:21: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surely wine becomes alcoholic when it is 'fermented'.
Why the scare quotes around fermented? Fermentation doesn't always result in alcohol, it also results in gases and/or acids.

So do people manufacture fermented but non-alcoholic sacramental wine?

I still think you are misreading the rubric because the Anglican/Methodist reunion scheme floundered on the issue of grape juice (as well as episcopacy) - Colin Morris began in book 'Include me out' with the issue.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

what you consider the ever-problematic Anglicans to be. Receptionist and memorialist tendencies were certainly eroded by the Tractarian/Ritualist/Anglo-Catholic movement. In TEC, I'd say that Eucharistic theology is fuzzy at a church-wide level, but is probably most typically stated in terms of Real Presence and framed in an ambiguous manner somewhat consistent with Lutheran sacramental union.
Not entirely sure that anything was eroded by the Oxford Movement/Tractarians in that sense. It was just a restatement of belief by an already existing part of the Anglican church in many ways.

Sacramental Union is an interesting term - it seems to me that the functional way in which it is used is basically a way of fudging over differences. Different Anglicans understand SU different - some even having very memorialist takes on it.

Not to be argumentative, but the centrality of the Eucharist in Anglican worship had certainly become submerged prior to the Oxford Movement, and apart from the Carolinian Divines and the later stream represented by the Wesleys, Anglican understanding regarding the Holy Communion had no doubt become, at best, largely receptionist during the rationalist 18th Century.

As to sacramental union - sometimes rather erroneously termed "consubstantiation" - I don't see how this notion can be conflated with memorialist interpretations, since the whole point of SU is that incarnationally Christ in his entirety truly becomes present "in, with, and under" the natural bread and wine that have been consecrated in the Eucharist. That's a very different idea to either memorialism or to receptionism. The RP in SU doesn't depend on the mental disposition of the communicant.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surely wine becomes alcoholic when it is 'fermented'.
Why the scare quotes around fermented? Fermentation doesn't always result in alcohol, it also results in gases and/or acids.
So do people manufacture fermented but non-alcoholic sacramental wine?

I still think you are misreading the rubric because the Anglican/Methodist reunion scheme floundered on the issue of grape juice (as well as episcopacy) - Colin Morris began in book 'Include me out' with the issue.

There are certainly fermented but non-alcoholic wines out there, no idea as to whether there are sacramental ones though.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Commercial N/A wines avsilable in North America are products that were fermented and then have the alcohol removed. They have a distinctly flat mouth feel and taste. Then there is mustum for sacramental use, which I've already explained. It is so low in alcohol as to be nonalcoholic for all practical putposes.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Non-Alcoholic Communion Wine, unfortunately in my memory it tastes like out of date strong Ribena.

Jengie

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

What I would wonder is whether wine that has had its alcohol content removed remains valid matter for the Eucharist in more catholic minded traditions. Mustum, however, is different in that it is wine in which the plug was pulled before fermentation gets very far. No idea what the stuff may taste like.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My own view is basically in line with Salvation Army teaching: God's grace does not depend on specific ceremonies or rituals but is freely available at all times to all people. Salvationists are free to receive the sacrament in a chuch where they are welcome to do so.

Personally I would change that so that Salvationists should be encouraged to receive the sacrament.

Your approach is very ecumenical, and moreover, it puts extra bums on the pews of other people's churches at regular intervals. Who would disapprove of that?

[ 03. February 2014, 18:39: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

I realize that I'm not a protestant, (I'm Orthodox) but I thought I'd share something related to this topic.

I grew up taking communion infrequently. or at least once I hit the magic age of 7 it was infrequent, although our Sunday survives are ALWAYS eucharistic. why? because in my jurisdiction (ROCOR) the practice, which grew out of the old Russian practice, was that the eucharist is so special that you have to prepare yourself for it.. most notably by going to confession the night before (fasting as well.. but that's not a big deal on a Sunday am).

People went to confession/communion roughly twice a year as a rule..once during Great Lent, and once usually sometime before Christmas. perhaps one would go more often if one had some particular sin on one's mind that they needed to confess, but otherwise it wasn't common. Yes, there were a few people who would attend every single service, and confess every Saturday to take communion every Sunday, but it was rare.

for unrelated reasons as an adult I switched jurisdiction to OCA. Here the practice is to commune every Sunday, unrelated to confession, unless you feel your soul so burdened by an unconfessed sin that you really don't feel you would be worthy to partake. confession is expected to be regular, roughly once a month.. reality is that people go less often, but MORE often than they did in ROCOR. It's been around 20 years or so that I've been doing this, and I have to say that when I (rarely) find myself attending a ROCOR service where I know I would not be able to partake of the eucharist, I feel as though something very valuable has been taken away from me! I feel almost as if "why even bother coming to church? what's the point, if you can't commune". (I remind myself that I happily attend other services that are not eucharistic and that my feeling are silly... but they are what they are).

I can't imagine a christian church not even offering communion every week. I know that's a high church bias, but given my past experience, and the rather profound sense of loss I feel whenever I a attend a eucharistic service in which I can't participate, I can't help but wonder at churches who even debate offering it. to me it seems like "well, why WOULDN'T they?" even if the view of the eucharist is not the same, it obviously viewed as something important.

Anyhow, that's my experience, for what it's worth. obviously coming from a very different perspective, but I thought it was closely enough related to the topic that someone might find it adds to the discussion.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

For me there is the sense that in s liturgy outside the Eucharist nothing is happening. I know that isn't true for other Christians who draw grace from noneucharistic worship services. Quite apart from my intellectual theology, I'm quite happy to admit I'm weak and depend on the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to sustain my faith.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Not to be argumentative, but the centrality of the Eucharist in Anglican worship had certainly become submerged prior to the Oxford Movement, and apart from the Carolinian Divines and the later stream represented by the Wesleys, Anglican understanding regarding the Holy Communion had no doubt become, at best, largely receptionist during the rationalist 18th Century.

During most of its history prior to the mid-19th century, Anglican views on the Eucharist were at best virtualist for the most part. Even the 1549 rite takes pains never to identify the elements with the Body & Blood of Christ--the closest we get is an association of the act of ingesting those elements with the reception of the Body and Blood.

Without a doubt there were those who believed in an inherent Real Presence in the elements, but that doesn't seem to have been all that common before the Tractarians came along.

[ 03. February 2014, 19:59: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:

I can't help but wonder at churches who even debate offering it. to me it seems like "well, why WOULDN'T they?" even if the view of the eucharist is not the same, it obviously viewed as something important.

We moved to weekly Eucharists about 20 years ago. A bit later a new incumbent pulled back from that, and went to every other week - though in practice rather less as baptisms and various one-off special services tend not to have Communion.

When the vicar was away for a few months I scheduled the services and visiting clergy, and had a Eucharist ever Sunday morning for a while. By about four or five weeks in we were getting complaints. Not many, but some, and from people we paid attention to including the churchwardens. Some Anglicans just don't want weekly Communion.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Ken, it's the way they've been socialised I reckon. I've never attended an Anglican parish in the USA, Canada, or UK that didn't have the Eucharist every Sunday.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

At a rough estimate, of the churches in our deanery I think 4 probably have Communion as the main service every Sunday (and likely call it Mass), another 2 or 3 almost all Sundays, and 3 or 4 alternate with other forms of liturgy.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

But Ken, do some of those places always have an early ( like 8:00 a.m.) Holy Communion?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
But Ken, do some of those places always have an early ( like 8:00 a.m.) Holy Communion?

They ought to, as I understand it, otherwise they're flagrantly breaking canon law.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Bit early ain't it?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Ken, it's the way they've been socialised I reckon. I've never attended an Anglican parish in the USA, Canada, or UK that didn't have the Eucharist every Sunday.

Many rural multi-church parishes here would have a Eucharist at at least one, but perhaps only one. It depends on how the timetable works out. The priest may not be able to get to all churches on the same day, and a Reader or Lay Assistant may take Morning Prayer at any particular church, with that being done at another the following week. But the roster would make sure that there was a Eucharist at least monthly at every church, and at at least one every Sunday. And mid-week ones at nursing homes/retirement villages and so forth, as well as on feasts at the principal church.

[ 04. February 2014, 20:08: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

To be clear, Gee D, what I was referring to was not a situation in which it were impossible to offer the Eucharist at every church in an area every Sunday; rather, responding to Ken's observation that some folks genuinely seemed not to want the Eucharist celebrated every Sunday, having a preference instead for some form of non-eucharistic worship as an alternative on various Sundays. This strikes me as more a matter of socialisation, catechesis or collective theological orientation.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
But Ken, do some of those places always have an early ( like 8:00 a.m.) Holy Communion?

I'm sure some of them do. Though perhaps not as early as 8! And also in evenings. And midweek as well. But it doesn't really matter, does it? An early Communion satisfies the rule-book and any legalists in the parish (a smaller problem in urban than many rural parishes) And might be of use to a handful of pathological early risers. But most church members will never encounter it.

The point is whether or not the church sees Communion as the unique and neccessary vital centre of its public worship, or as one of many possible or optional ingredients. And what happens at eleven o'clock on Sunday morning is a big clue to that.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Ken's observation that some folks genuinely seemed not to want the Eucharist celebrated every Sunday, having a preference instead for some form of non-eucharistic worship as an alternative on various Sundays. This strikes me as more a matter of socialisation, catechesis or collective theological orientation.

Indeed. I am tempted to ask:

Have they been 'taught' the importance of regular communion?

Do they know that Jesus never commanded us NOT to break bread in remembrance of him?

Do they prefer NOT to have sex with their spouse more than once a month? Do they prefer a non-sexual relationship with cocoa instead?

[ 05. February 2014, 18:30: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks for the clarification LSK. Most rural parishes here are multi-church and spread over a large area, and it's quite possible that many parishioners would find it hard to get to a Eucharist every Sunday.

As to the timing of the service. We have 3 Eucharists each Sunday morning at the main church, and 1 at the daughter, a few km away. Most parishes in the diocese would offer at least 1, commonly at 8 or 8.30, but that's not exactly early for everyone. We have gained some parishioners from nearby for whom it is too early and for whom the 9.30 or 10 am services are an unacceptable Family Service, a very light version of Morning Prayer. In our younger days, a 1662 BCP Morning Prayer with monthly communion was the rule in almost all churches in the diocese. No Sunday Lite the.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Sidebar: Leo: I've heard the sex-with-your-spouse metaphor used to great effect by Lutheran pastors I know when trying to persuade pouty Pietist laypeople that weekly Eucharist doesn't make it any "less special" for communicants. (One of my clergy acquaintances, who found himself in a parish with a strong Pietist background, also had to contend with a church council that tried to argue it was "too expensive" to celebrate the Eucharist on a weekly basis. It reminds me of the family-systems axiom that "The issue is never really the issue.")

Anyway...carry on.;-)

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
To be clear, Gee D, what I was referring to was not a situation in which it were impossible to offer the Eucharist at every church in an area every Sunday; rather, responding to Ken's observation that some folks genuinely seemed not to want the Eucharist celebrated every Sunday, having a preference instead for some form of non-eucharistic worship as an alternative on various Sundays. This strikes me as more a matter of socialisation, catechesis or collective theological orientation.

Let me deal with this.

First you are making the same argument as John Calvin made to the civil authorities in Geneva! He did not get his way, nor did John Knox in Scotland.

Now you have realised you are on the side of Calvin and Knox not of some Catholic tradition perhaps it is time to consider your assertion. The preference for quarterly or monthly communion has hung around amongst the people often despite the clergy for four hundred years. The conclusion of everyone with liturgical study has been that it should be weekly. I can cite modern cases, but it has not been an idea that has held any traction with the general members.

The option is either to have a priest only celebration, but that is out for Protestants where the people who sit in the pews are essential to their being a church or to have it less frequently.

Few very few (see Anuyata's post) are willing to do a thorough preparation weekly for communion. So either you prepare less well, or you have it less frequently.

Jengie

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
One of my clergy acquaintances, who found himself in a parish with a strong Pietist background, also had to contend with a church council that tried to argue it was "too expensive" to celebrate the Eucharist on a weekly basis. It reminds me of the family-systems axiom that "The issue is never really the issue."

Actually, as a former church steward I was wondering about this. It must be expensive for churches to have Communion every week. For churches with money problems this may give pause for thought.

If you're not convinced of the theological arguments for weekly Communion it must be hard to justify the expenditure.

[ 08. February 2014, 14:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Sidebar: Leo: I've heard the sex-with-your-spouse metaphor used to great effect by Lutheran pastors I know when trying to persuade pouty Pietist laypeople that weekly Eucharist doesn't make it any "less special" for communicants. (One of my clergy acquaintances, who found himself in a parish with a strong Pietist background, also had to contend with a church council that tried to argue it was "too expensive" to celebrate the Eucharist on a weekly basis.

Expensive? Half a bottle of wine and half a loaf of bread - £10?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

That sounds a bit odd to me too. We are about as poor as they come, but we can swing a few bucks for wafers-in-a-pack (zillions of them, last forever) and some cheap wine. If we couldn't as a church, there's any number of people would be happy to donate them. How large a parish are we talking, here? [Eek!]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

As a tangent to Jengie Jon's interesting observation about people effectively 'voting with their feet' when it came to regular communion ...

I think someone has already observed upthread that even in more broadly Catholic settings - such as pre-Reformation Europe and Orthodox Russia, infrequent communion was always the norm until comparatively recently.

My own tendencies would be to incline towards regular communion but - whilst perhaps not as rigorously as Anyuta and the other Orthodox - I do believe in preparation and so probably could not commit to weekly communion on that basis ...

Conversely, the monthly communion favoured in many non-conformist and some Anglican evangelical settings seems too infrequent ...

Perhaps a fortnightly communion ... or at least a weekly communion for those that want it with someone like myself dipping in fortnightly or so ...

?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My own tendencies would be to incline towards regular communion but - whilst perhaps not as rigorously as Anyuta and the other Orthodox - I do believe in preparation and so probably could not commit to weekly communion on that basis ...

Conversely, the monthly communion favoured in many non-conformist and some Anglican evangelical settings seems too infrequent ...

Many people mistake "regularly" for "frequently" - you do not. After all, Halley's Comet comes round "regularly" every 76 years!!!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Many people mistake "regularly" for "frequently" - you do not. After all, Halley's Comet comes round "regularly" every 76 years!!!

Well, yes. When you consider that only a miniscule proportion of the country's Christians are willing to attend church every Sunday it seems somewhat pointless to insist that they should all be taking weekly Communion.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

It's not a matter of insisting that the faithful receive Holy Communion weekly, but rather that the Eucharist be offered weekly.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

But must it be offered weekly at every single church? Those of us who live in or near towns or cities will be able to find a church somewhere that offers Communion on any given Sunday, and with ecumenicalism increasingly the norm (except at the strictest evangelical churches and the RCC) visitors from other churches are often welcomed at the Communion rail.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
When you consider that only a miniscule proportion of the country's Christians are willing to attend church every Sunday it seems somewhat pointless to insist that they should all be taking weekly Communion.

Indeed. And those of us from traditions place less emphasis on the Eucharist start to worry that it comes to occupy an almost idolatrous position in worship (as can preaching, liturgy, music or anything else!)

I know little of early church history but I am not sure that the New Testament obviously supports the idea of a weekly Sacrament in the form we offer it today. (Frequent fellowship meals, of course, are a different matter).

(Please understand that I make these comments from a view of both Eucharist and Liturgy which may well be "higher" than that held by the majority of my Baptist colleagues.)

[ 09. February 2014, 14:02: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But must it be offered weekly at every single church? Those of us who live in or near towns or cities will be able to find a church somewhere that offers Communion on any given Sunday,

It's not always that easy to find out... many churches are in the habit of just advertising 'Morning Worship' without specifying the nature of it. Parish websites might or might not give more information but are often badly maintained and out of date.

I can't understand the objection to a weekly eucharist. No-one is forced to receive weekly if they don't want to, but it seems a bit of a dog-in-the-manger attitude to say, 'I don't see the need for communion so you can't have it.' A properly-planned Parish Eucharist allows for plenty of scripture, preaching and intercession as well as the eucharistic prayer and communion, and doesn't take up any more time than the sort of service with repetitive choruses and long-winded notices. Even if people insist on a long 'service of the word', what is to stop the priest from offering the eucharist for those who wish, while those who don't can leave after the Peace?

That is assuming, of course, the availability of a priest (or, depending on tradition, a suitably qualified president). In situations of clergy shortage I'm sure even the most dedicated sacramentalist would accept reality. But frequently clergy are available and just don't seem bothered about those of us for whom the eucharist is central.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And those of us from traditions place less emphasis on the Eucharist start to worry that it comes to occupy an almost idolatrous position in worship (as can preaching, liturgy, music or anything else!)

fair point.. however I have to point out that if you believe that the Eucharist IS Christ, then, um.. how can it be idolatrous? I mean, if it IS Christ, and we are to worship Christ... you get where I'm going with this?

I have always thought the point of the Divine Liturgy was always and must always be the Eucharist. that's what it builds up to. that's what it's all about. there are other services of course, which are not eucharistic which could be served even on Sundays if no communion was desired, I guess. And Divine Liturgy (communion) can of course be offered every single day.. and is in some places (I understand that many RCC churches have at least one Mass with communion every day). so, one could say that offering communion only once a week on Sundays is already a decrease from daily communion as practiced in many places in the past (OK, perhaps mostly monastic communities, but still). talking about not having it every sunday because every sunday is too frequent seems a bit odd in light of this.

as for idolatrous (and I do know what you mean, despite my point above), I find that those places that require very rigorous preparation before communion, and thus the practice that any one person commune very rarely (although always offered) is perhaps more idolatrous. I mean, if you feel it's SOOO special that you have to fast for days beforehand, confess and I believe abstain from all sorts of things before you can be "pure enough" to accept the body and blood of Christ into your own body places the emphasis in the wrong place. to me, the eucharist is what helps you to become more pure, not something you have to be completely pure before you can accept (although I think both are at least partially true).

I definitely FEEL something change in me when I take communion, and I find that doing so weekly (when I have that opportunity) means that that feeling lasts from week to week, and if it's not "renewed" it starts to fade. that sounds much more dramatic written down than it actually is.. I'm not talking about a profound change. but it is real (to me).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can understand that, Anyuta.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But must it be offered weekly at every single church? Those of us who live in or near towns or cities will be able to find a church somewhere that offers Communion on any given Sunday,
It's not always that easy to find out... many churches are in the habit of just advertising 'Morning Worship' without specifying the nature of it. Parish websites might or might not give more information but are often badly maintained and out of date.

The problem, then, is one of communication. I agree that this is something many churches are very poor at, which is a great shame. But I suppose that those who really care about having Communion weekly will make their own investigations.

quote:

I can't understand the objection to a weekly eucharist. No-one is forced to receive weekly if they don't want to, but it seems a bit of a dog-in-the-manger attitude to say, 'I don't see the need for communion so you can't have it.'

My point was that even if one church doesn't provide weekly Communion, that shouldn't prevent individuals from going elsewhere for Communion if they want to. There doesn't have to be a judgemental attitude about it. In certain isolated areas one or two churches might be on their own. In such places I imagine that provision is made.

As for non-compliant clergy, I suppose you'll always have that challenge so long as the CofE remains a broad church. Outside the CofE I don't think weekly Communion ought to be essential.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

There's a bit of confusion that comes from using 'Communion' as the title of the service as well as the act of receiving the sacrament. Weekly eucharist was always the ideal (until the Reformation anyway), but – as Anyuta implies above - many or most people did not receive communion so frequently. While I imagine most of us believe that to fully participate in the eucharist means also to receive communion, Christians in the broad catholic tradition accept that it is better to attend mass even without receiving, than not to attend at all.

I'm one of those frustrated Anglicans who feel the need to search around on alternate Sundays for a church with the Eucharist. While the church is the church is the church, and loyalty to one's own parish shouldn't make us so parochial that we don't acknowledge the wider church, that to my mind is unsatisfactory. I like the people I normally worship with, feel at home in the church, and don't see why I should have to seek the company of strangers simply in order to share in the Lord's own service.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I refer to 'Communion' because this is the term normally used in the Methodist Church, which is the tradition I know best. Methodists don't find this confusing. I hardly feel authorised to refer to 'the Eucharist' - I'd be a fraud, someone pretending to be CofE or Lutheran, or something, who has no right to do so!

In your situation, presumably all you can do is work to convince the rest of your congregation of your theological position so they change their practice. Or to start your own church plant! But we can't always get what we want at church, as I've often been told. It's a bit of a shame, but there you are.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I refer to 'Communion' because this is the term normally used in the Methodist Church, which is the tradition I know best. Methodists don't find this confusing. I hardly feel authorised to refer to 'the Eucharist' - I'd be a fraud, someone pretending to be CofE or Lutheran, or something, who has no right to do so!

In your situation, presumably all you can do is work to convince the rest of your congregation of your theological position so they change their practice. Or to start your own church plant! But we can't always get what we want at church, as I've often been told. It's a bit of a shame, but there you are.

I don't understand why you have an issue with calling it the Eucharist? It means thanksgiving, and I'm assuming that giving thanks for the Body and Blood is done at a Methodist Communion service. The Eucharist is just another name for Communion, I am not aware of the Eucharist specifically implying Real Presence (and wasn't aware that memorialism is required in Methodism). Also many Anglicans use the term Communion, and even go as far as calling it the Lord's Supper. FWIW Wikipedia says that United Methodists in the US encourage weekly Communion (it has no info on British Methodism).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I refer to 'Communion' because this is the term normally used in the Methodist Church...

... and in the Church of England. Or "Holy Communion".

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I refer to 'Communion' because this is the term normally used in the Methodist Church...

... and in the Church of England. Or "Holy Communion".

Yes. I think Holy Communion/Communion is the most widely-used term within the CoE - it's even the most used in cathedrals. More use Eucharist than use Lord's Supper, but it's still a minority overall. Not in this town though [Biased]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

As Gordon the Big Engine said, it's not wrong (to refer to it as the Eucharist) but we just don't do it. The UCCan calls it Holy Communion, Communion or the Lord's Supper.

We respect to the difference between the Eucharist as an offering and Communion as reception, er, no. Just No. One does not benefit in any special way by attending a service and not partaking. The Lord's Supper is celebrated for and with those who receive, it is not a unique sacrifice, it is the Lord made present with us sacramentally.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There's a bit of confusion that comes from using 'Communion' as the title of the service as well as the act of receiving the sacrament. Weekly eucharist was always the ideal (until the Reformation anyway).

Only the prayer said by the priest, not the participation by the laity. The regular partaking of the Eucharist by the laity was one of the things that John Calvin campaigned for.

I think there is an important difference here. The more Protestant of us today see communion as a celebration of the community of the Church, and therefore wide participation when it is celebrated is important. It is not enough that I partake if my brother or sister in Christ does not. What I see as the Catholic approach looks very individualistic to me. (I suspect Roman Catholics are not as individualistic).

Jengie

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I'm quite aware that (Holy) Communion is the commonly used term for the act of worship, in all but RC and Orthodox traditions. The ambiguity remains though, and it serves to mask a theological divide. On the one hand there are those who see the Eucharist as a sacrificial act (a re-presentation of, or better, an entering into, our Lord's sacrifice on the Cross), with communion as the culmination of this. On the other are those (ranging from memorialists to those with a high doctrine of real presence) for whom communion is all and therefore see no point in attending without receiving.

Of course (pace many Orthodox) celebrating the Eucharist while discouraging or even forbidding most people from receiving is an abuse. It was the Reformation attempt to end that abuse by encouraging people to receive weekly, that misfired because people were reluctant to do so. The Scottish 'four times a year' tradition was an extreme way of resolving the problem; in the C of E frequent (even monthly) communion did not become common until the Evangelical and Tractarian revivals.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The fact that memorialists like the Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ partake of Communion every Sunday belies the notion that memorialists will inevitably abandon the practice of weekly celebration of the Holy Communion. The rationale amongst such groups may, of course, be different to that of the more catholic minded denominations or particular congregations within denominations that as a whole tend to less frequently celebrate the Eucharist. In the DoC and CoC, I think the rationale is that they are doing what they understand the Church Primitive to have done, and certainly they are indisputably trying to do what has in some way been the practice of the Church Universal throughout most of her history.

In America you also have protestant-based groups like the Society of St Luke that promote liturgy studies, sacramentalism, and frequent celebration of the Eucharist amongst a variety of denominations; the Society has its roots in American Methodism, but now encompasses Pentecostal denominations and others. This surely involves a range of specific eucharistic theologies, even while promoting some inter-denominational convergence in eucharistic praxis.

One model in American Methodism has historically been the stay-behind Holy Communion service appended to the main hymn sandwich for those who desire more frequent communion, although I think this may be in the process of gradually being superceded by more frequent Holy Communion at principal services, and a few high church Methodists celebrate the Eucharist using all the standard vestments and gestures common to the contemporary RC-Anglican-Lutheran Mass.

So one thing that seems detectable in this discussion is a pond difference, though unfortunately we haven't had a great number of North American visitors to contribute to the discussion here (North Americans seem to hang out somewhat more on Ecclesiantics, and might have been more participatory had I posted there).

One thing that definitely seems to distinguish most of the eucharistically-oriented from those who are not so much, is - I think - that those of us who communicate frequently (normatively weekly or more often), see the Holy Communion both as our spiritual daily bread and as medicine for our souls. This is an attitude that transcends the boundaries of theology in respect to other aspects of the Eucharist, though it no doubt usually depends on a high view of Christ's presence in the Holy Communion (with the exception of the particular memorialist denominations cited above, who have another rationale for the weekly celebration of Communion).

As to a fully articulated theology of the Eucharist in its entirety, I suspect that only some theologically inclined liturgy geeks and amateur theologians like me bother to work out a thought-through theory of what the Church is doing in its celebration of the Eucharist (and I would argue that the Church is always doing the same thing, even when it fails to discern the full meaning of the Eucharist, as I think is the case for many protestants and no doubt for quite a lot of individual large-C Catholics). For most, I suspect there is a far less articulated notion that the Eucharist is simply the centre of corporate Christian worship, what we do as Church, and that the Holy Communion is in some not very clearly defined way a tangible means of encountering Christ and His grace.

In any event, my own observation is that once the Eucharist gains a footing in regular Christian worship, it tends to steadily gain ground because people find that it is what they crave: the more often you receive the Holy Communion, the more regularly you wish to do so, and the more you feel the loss when you miss a Sunday.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

LSK, we are the Order of St. Luke, not "society". Not that I'm being pedantic or anything. No, not me. [Big Grin]

I am United Methodist. As a denomination, we are Wesleyan in our understanding of and doctrine concerning the Eucharist -- meaning that while we reject the ideas of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, we do accept and believe in the Real Presence. We believe that Christ's presence in the consecrated elements of bread and wine remain a great mystery, which will be made clear when Christ returns in glory. However, we do have many pastors, mainly licensed local pastors, who have a memorialist view of Communion. I find that the majority of these were Baptist (or occasionally some other denomination with similar views) and were divorced. It's striking how many Baptist pastors get divorced and suddenly their hearts are strangely warmed...

Anyway, as a denomination, we've moved from quarterly or monthly to more frequent celebrations. In C19, frontier churches were on large circuits that would be lucky to see an elder (our term for an ordained presbyter in full connection) every month; most of the time it was once a quarter or so. Quarterly Communion became the norm, especially in those circuits that had a quarterly camp meeting where all the churches on the circuit would meet at a central location for a (business) conference and revival. Baptisms, weddings, and the Lord's Supper were all celebrated in those instances. But since we have moved to allow licensed local pastors to celebrate the Sacraments within the context of their appointments, there is no longer any real excuse for quarterly Communion. So many have moved to monthly, and a few to weekly. Still, old habits die hard.

I find that churches pastored by those who hold a more memorialist view (or who simply don't care) have Communion less often, and with considerably less liturgy, than churches pastored by those who hold a more sacramental position. Still, I'm quite alarmed at how even many elders, who quite frankly should know better, gloss over the liturgy or simply don't use it. Or they read through it in as bored and flat a monotone as possible, as though using the published denominational standard makes them "too Catholic" or something.

I, however, am working along with my brothers and sisters in the Anglican/Wesleyan Society and the Order of St. Luke (and a few others as well) to try to bring about a higher view of the Sacraments, one more in line with the official denominational stance. I'm also working toward more frequent celebration in my parish, although I have met resistance in the form of "less often is more special" and although I've tried to gracefully counter it every way I can think of, I've made no headway. So we celebrate weekly in Advent and Christmas, and again weekly in Lent and Easter, and monthly the rest of the time.

On a tangential note, I found that the 2008 General Conference did not renew the prohibition on real wine, which means that I am no longer canonically bound to grape juice only. However, given that the UMC has not regularly used real wine in living memory, I hesitate to do so unilaterally. If I do offer it, I will likely offer a second cup of grape juice for those who object as a matter of practice or conscience.

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

It seems that the restoration of weekly communion in ELCA congregations was strongly pushed by graduates of the seminaries in the last 25-30 yrs. our current pastor who arrived in 2000 gradually added communion services for feast days to the then existing schedule of every other week. We now have communion every Sunday. I've seen a wide variety of types of communion services from very simple, brief services to full sung liturgies with some higher up-the-candle congregations incorporating smells and bells, although this is not yet widely practiced. An average Sunday morning at our place looks and sounds very much like what is going on at the RC place down the road.

I haven't noticed any change in the theology associated with discussions of the Eucharist.....yes, we're using that term more and more frequently. Our kids are still being taught the doctrine of Real Presence in Catechism and that in the Eucharistic elements the body of Christ is truly and substantially present "........in, with, and under" the bread and wine.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Ken, it's the way they've been socialised I reckon.

Well yes. But the same is true the other way round. Those who regard Communion as the vital core of public worship learned that somewhere too.

And as has been pointed out, pretty much every well-known lot of reforming clergy there has ever been has wanted frequent regular Communion for the laity. (Except perhaps St Francis). But it somehow never took for most people in these cold northern climes.

Some things did stick. The idea that it makes sense to attend Eucharists but not communicate (other than in extreme circumstances) has long ago vanished from most of our churches. We listened to that teaching. But not the rest of it. Must be some reason.

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

In any event, my own observation is that once the Eucharist gains a footing in regular Christian worship, it tends to steadily gain ground because people find that it is what they crave: the more often you receive the Holy Communion, the more regularly you wish to do so, and the more you feel the loss when you miss a Sunday.

Would have once agreed if I hadn't seen our parish moving away from it, and with popular support too.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
One thing that definitely seems to distinguish most of the eucharistically-oriented from those who are not so much, is - I think - that those of us who communicate frequently (normatively weekly or more often), see the Holy Communion both as our spiritual daily bread and as medicine for our souls. This is an attitude that transcends the boundaries of theology in respect to other aspects of the Eucharist, though it no doubt usually depends on a high view of Christ's presence in the Holy Communion (with the exception of the particular memorialist denominations cited above, who have another rationale for the weekly celebration of Communion).

That bit about "medicine for our souls" is right and picks up what Thomas à Kempis says in the last part of The Imitation , The Reverent Commendation to the Holy Communion. It also hearkens back to what Jengie Jon said upthread about preparation for Communion on a weekly basis. À Kempis says that it is no answer to claim that you're not ready because you're not in a state of grace; if you don't partake, you'll never be ready. It also picks up on some recent comments by South Coast Kevin on other threads about attempting always to live a Christian life, not reserving that as a portion of your life on Sunday mornings. I don't agree with much of what SCK says, but the attempt, whether successful or not, by itself is a part of preparation. To that, I'd add that apart from your personal preparation, participation in the liturgy is part of the preparation, another argument in favour of a set liturgy rather than ex tempore.

On a bit of an aside, the use of "Eucharist" and "Holy Communion" on noticeboards and websites is here a good guide to churchmanship. And if you see "The Lord's Supper" you can be sure that the flavour of the parish is heavily influenced by the Moore College school.

Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on :

For Roman Catholics, "Holy Communion" always used to be the common way of referring to the Eucharist. Though admittedly I've lost contact with my Roman Catholic friends.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
For Roman Catholics, "Holy Communion" always used to be the common way of referring to the Eucharist. Though admittedly I've lost contact with my Roman Catholic friends.

As I understand it one "receives" Holy Communion. One does not "receive" the Eucharist. Instead one "celebrates" or "serves" the Eucharist. In otherwords, Holy Communion is something which happens within the Eucharist.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
For Roman Catholics, "Holy Communion" always used to be the common way of referring to the Eucharist. Though admittedly I've lost contact with my Roman Catholic friends.
As I understand it one "receives" Holy Communion. One does not "receive" the Eucharist. Instead one "celebrates" or "serves" the Eucharist. In otherwords, Holy Communion is something which happens within the Eucharist.

That's the way I would distinguish things, but it does seem that in the last couple of decades Roman Catholics have taken increasingly referring to the consecrated elements themselves as the Eucharist, and hence talk of receiving the Eucharist. Under that influence, I occasionally lapse into the same usage. However, more properly the Holy Eucharist is what is commonly referred to as the Mass. By the same token, one would never refer to the consecrated elements as "the Mass", nor of "receiving the Mass", so that would seem to underscore the nonsense of referring to the consecrated species of the Blessed Sacrament as "the Eucharist" and of receiving Holy Communion as "receiving the Eucharist". An unfortunate conflation and confusion of terms.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

In any event, my own observation is that once the Eucharist gains a footing in regular Christian worship, it tends to steadily gain ground because people find that it is what they crave: the more often you receive the Holy Communion, the more regularly you wish to do so, and the more you feel the loss when you miss a Sunday.
Would have once agreed if I hadn't seen our parish moving away from it, and with popular support too.

This makes me think that there is something afoot in at least some quarter of CofE evangelicalism that is extremely different to trends in TEC, and indeed to some other North American protestant denominations.

I wonder what might explain this. Of course, TEC is far more a niche church and more homogeneous than is the CofE. And Lutheranism hardly exists in the UK. But this only explains things from the North American side and not the internal dynamics of a particular movement within the CofE.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

I wonder what might explain this. Of course, TEC is far more a niche church and more homogeneous than is the CofE. And Lutheranism hardly exists in the UK. But this only explains things from the North American side and not the internal dynamics of a particular movement within the CofE.

I think the insidious 'church growth' propaganda is to blame here. Clergy (especially the higher-ups) see bums-on-pews as the be all and end all, so if they suspect that the masses are not willing to come to mass (to coin an expression) they encourage dumbing down of services to Sunday-school level and depriving them of sacramental content. It's no longer 'the Lord's people at the Lord's Table on the Lord's Day', but 'how many people can we entertain?'

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
There is something afoot in at least some quarter of CofE evangelicalism that is extremely different to trends in TEC, and indeed to some other North American protestant denominations.

I wonder what might explain this. Of course, TEC is far more a niche church and more homogeneous than is the CofE. And Lutheranism hardly exists in the UK. But this only explains things from the North American side and not the internal dynamics of a particular movement within the CofE.

My guess is that because popular evangelicalism is such a powerful force in more recent American religiosity, the historical churches (bar the Baptists, it seems) have leaned in the opposite direction as a way of distinguishing themselves from that. Moving higher up the candle and holding the elements in particular reverence is one obvious way of doing so.

In the UK, meanwhile, evangelicalism is a much weaker force in the culture, and its 'popular' manifestation has increasingly shrivelled away. Working class evangelicalism is now heavily represented by ethnic minorities, while the indigenous variety has become largely middle class. Nonconformist religion in general has declined, and the new churches haven't become sufficiently strong to make up the difference.

All this leaves the CofE free to develop itself in a variety of different directions, without fear of seriously stepping on anyone else's toes, or of being accused of going downmarket (how can you be 'downmarket' if your only serious competitors are a few middle class evangelical independent congregations?) Plus, as a state church the CofE is used to absorbing ideas, practices and energy from other churches, and in the process those ideas and practices become more acceptable than if they'd remained on the fringe. It must be hard for the Eucharist to retain its central position in the CofE when there are so many influences to absorb, and so many niches to fill in a country of closing churches.

Again, British Methodism and the United Methodist Church of the USA are quite distinct but obviously distantly related beasts. For a variety of reasons the British variety seems to be relatively low, on the whole, compared to what I've read about the American type.

Comparisons between some of these denominations in the USA and the UK could probably fill a long essay, if not a thesis!

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

As our perceptive College Chaplain pointed out just before Christmas, one of the interesting things about the various names for Communion / Mass / whatever you want to call it is that they are all appropriate as they all draw attention to a different - but significant - aspect of what is happening.

For example, Mass, in referring to the dismissal of the congregation, points them towards the fact that there is work to be done in the world; Eucharist tells people that this is an occasion to be thankful; Lord's Supper reminds us we are guests at Christ's table; and so on.

Mrs Andras and I had something of a disagreement last night about just what 'high' means in Methodist terms. She referenced an excellent former minister in a local circuit here in Wales who certainly held what I would call a 'high' view of the sacrament - right in the historical Wesley tradition, in fact. She rightly pointed out that his actual practice was certainly 'low'. The usual Methodist amalgam, in other words!

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Here is an example of high Eucharistic liturgy in the United Methodist Church. This is in an outlying suburb of Dallas, Texas. This pastor has a number of videos posted on youtube, several with the Sursum Corda and Preface chanted, though this celebration is mostly spoken. Thought it made an interesting example of what I would think is a liturgically advanced Eucharist in the UMC.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Yes, I know of him. He's the guy that does online Communion. I believe he's in the OSL, and perhaps the Wesleyan/Anglican Society as well.

Sadly, most Methodists around here (assuming they know of him) think he's "too Catholic". Which is unfortunate.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

That's about the height of the candle my church gets up to. [Big Grin]

Our current communion service has a Sung Kyrie, Sanctus & Benedictus, Memorial Acclamation and Great Amen. It's Communion Setting B on Voices United p. 934, with the Lord's Prayer chant from p. 960. The congregation and choir sings everything.

The minister wears a cassock-alb with stole.

I might be further up the candle than that UMC minister. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I don't want to veer off too much into purely Ecclesiantical territory, but I wonder if there are any places in the world of UK Methodism that approach that level of high Eucharistic liturgy. Obviously that has implications for Eucharistic theology, given Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That's about the height of the candle my church gets up to.

Our current communion service has a Sung Kyrie, Sanctus & Benedictus, Memorial Acclamation and Great Amen. It's Communion Setting B on Voices United p. 934, with the Lord's Prayer chant from p. 960. The congregation and choir sings everything.

The minister wears a cassock-alb with stole.

I might be further up the candle than that UMC minister.

Hmm, I don't know, SPK--I've seen another video where the guy makes the sign of the cross over the people at the absolution following the confession. There are candles, and then there are candles... [Smile]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't want to veer off too much into purely Ecclesiantical territory, but I wonder if there are any places in the world of UK Methodism that approach that level of high Eucharistic liturgy. Obviously that has implications for Eucharistic theology, given Lex orandi, lex credendi.

What do you mean by 'high Eucharistic liturgy'? British Methodists have their own liturgies, which I understand are distantly related to the BCP. If these aren't 'high' enough, then I presume you're referring to something else.

The Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies (see Googlebooks) makes this interesting comment about the UMC when compared to the British church:

quote:
A peculiarity of the United Methodist Worship Book of Worship (1992) was the inclusion of full eucharistic prayers ('Great Thanksgivings') composed according to liturgical season or occasion.

It's possible that some British Methodist churches would look for variety by occasionally borrowing or adapting eucharistic liturgies from some other tradition, or individual clergy might pen their own. But I can't imagine this happening often, unless there are particular historical and local reasons for doing so.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Correction: the United Methodist Book of Worship (1992)

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The formal liturgy for Holy Communion in the UMC used to be a quite direct descendent of that found in the 1662 BCP. I've seen it in the pew racks of large UMC churches at least as late as the later 1970s, and suppose the combo hymnal/books of worship that contained it were in print at least through the 1960s. The trouble was, this BCP-based liturgy was apparently considered too ponderous and formal by many Methodist congregations and clergy, so various lite options were formulated, possibly on a rather local, ad hoc basis. I suspect, however, that in more recent years modern Eucharistic liturgies have gained ground with their contemporary language.

The example I posted featured several aspects that I would say reflect higher qualities: structure of the Eucharistic Prayer per se, with a more developed anamnoesis, and epiklesis of both the elements and the congregation(liturgy);and gestures and vesture(ceremonial)-- all these (IMO) tending to emphasise the nature of the Eucharistic action in its fullness.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Historically, Methodism drew much of its theology from the High Anglican tradition but much of its practice from European pietism - the Wesleys were accused during their lifetime of 'leaving the Church of England by two doors at once.'

The Communion Service in the old Book of Offices, which was the standard Methodist text from the time of Union on until twenty years or so ago, stated truthfully that it drew its text from 'the earliest traditions in English' (or words to that effect), which meant that it was almost pure wonderful Cranmer.

However, the BoCP rubrics were generally passed by, with little or no care often being taken about the reverent use of the unconsumed elements, for instance, and - as has been noted already - wine was never used, being substituted by grape juice or, in the Wesleyan Reform and some other traditions, by such non-canonical substitutes as Ribena.

In the 1980s in the church which I then attended there was a very gradual movement 'upwards'; candles made an appearance (despite some angry objections that they were 'Catholic'!) together with banners (also objected to on the same grounds), and there was generally a more relaxed attitude to a set liturgy in non-Communion services; and the Methodist Sacramental Fellowship was actively moving the practice upwards wherever its influence was felt.

Oddly, this movement tended to coincide with a popular understanding of the Eucharist as Memorialist rather than anything else; indeed, one minister commented to me that most of his congregations were practical Unitarians but were unaware of the fact!

When I finally became totally disillusioned with the way Methodism was going, I happily reverted to the High Anglicanism of my youth, and Mrs Andras, who grew up in the Wesleyan Reform movement, has been delighted to join me there.

Interestingly, several other couples from the same Methodist church have gone in exactly the same direction; in one case, the move has been all the way from Assemblies of God to High Church. And yet I have to admit that for all the general sloppiness that I had come to dislike in Methodism, I know that Christ was as present in the elements there as he is in any other Eucharist.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Word and Table I (the standard service, covering everything from entrance to blessing) is markedly similar to TEC's Rite II. The Eucharistic prayers are similar, although there are a few differences. The whole thing comes out of our analysis of Vatican II, and was written and explored by Dr. Albert Outler and others at Perkins Theological Seminary at SMU in Dallas in the 1970s. It was formally adopted in the early 80s, and then when the 1989 United Methodist Hymnal came out, it was included as the default standard. The older service (Word and Table IV) was tweaked and put in as a sort of analog to TEC's Rite I.

I've also noticed that ours shares similarities with Novus Ordo and the ELCA's official liturgy.

The thing about different Great Thanksgiving prayers for each season is that it replaces the Preface. It's actually more of an expanded preface that makes reference to the season. The responses, Words of Institution, Epiclesis, and so forth all remain the same.

The Hymnal also includes Word and Table II and III, which are shorter versions of I. II is the absolute bare minimum for a valid Eucharist, and III is designed to be used with the changeable Great Thanksgivings (it only has the congregational responses).

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Another thought. The older United Methodist Eucharist service contains no Epiclesis. Adding one was one of the tweaks that was done when it was updated and put in the newest Hymnal. But it's not in the original version printed in The Methodist Hymnal (1964), nor is it in previous Hymnals.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:

In the 1980s in the church which I then attended there was a very gradual movement 'upwards'; candles made an appearance (despite some angry objections that they were 'Catholic'!) together with banners (also objected to on the same grounds), and there was generally a more relaxed attitude to a set liturgy in non-Communion services; and the Methodist Sacramental Fellowship was actively moving the practice upwards wherever its influence was felt.

Oddly, this movement tended to coincide with a popular understanding of the Eucharist as Memorialist rather than anything else[....]

When I finally became totally disillusioned with the way Methodism was going, I happily reverted to the High Anglicanism of my youth, and Mrs Andras, who grew up in the Wesleyan Reform movement, has been delighted to join me there.

Interestingly, several other couples from the same Methodist church have gone in exactly the same direction; in one case, the move has been all the way from Assemblies of God to High Church.

Would you say it was only your congregation that was moving upwards, or was this a feature of the whole circuit?

From my POV, the basic problem with British Methodism moving up the candle is that in our culture, there are some pretty obvious alternatives to Methodism if you want that sort of thing. Since Methodism will never be able to offer the 'complete experience' people who are going in that direction are likely to end up leaving Methodism. That's fine for the individual, of course, but not for the Methodist Church, which is already in decline for other reasons.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Another thought. The older United Methodist Eucharist service contains no Epiclesis.

Nor did the RC Tridentine rite nor the C of E's BCP

[ 12. February 2014, 16:58: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I knew the 1662 BCP did not. I wasn't aware that the Tridentine didn't, either.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

As most liturgy geeks know, the Episcopal Church in the newly indepedent USA got the epiklesis in its eucharistic prayer from the Scottish Episcopal Church, as a result of +Samuel Seabury's consecration by SEC bishops. The Methodist eucharistic rite in America, on the other hand, seems to have come directly from the CofE 1662 BCP, until the advent of the more recent UMC rites for celebrating the Eucharist.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Right. Wesley took the BCP and shortened it down to the Sunday Service, which he published for the work in America. We brought it over and promptly forgot it until the 1950s or so.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Would you say it was only your congregation that was moving upwards, or was this a feature of the whole circuit?

From my POV, the basic problem with British Methodism moving up the candle is that in our culture, there are some pretty obvious alternatives to Methodism if you want that sort of thing. Since Methodism will never be able to offer the 'complete experience' people who are going in that direction are likely to end up leaving Methodism. That's fine for the individual, of course, but not for the Methodist Church, which is already in decline for other reasons.

This is moving away from the thrust of this thread, but as it asks for an answer, here it is!

The slight (and it was slight) upward movement was really just in that one church rather than the rest of the circuit, and it was mostly driven by some of the more active members of the congregation there; within a couple of months everything had settled down anyway and all objections had ceased - indeed, as far as the banners were concerned even the most 'conservative' members who'd objected at first were soon enthusiastic about new ones, especially when the Sunday School became active in creating them.

In this particular church I don't think that any of those who've left actually did so because they were looking for something higher up the candle; each of them separately felt forced out by the unfortunate conduct of the Superintendent Minister allied to the continuing managerial nonsense emanating from Methodist Church House, and since the only other English-language options available locally were on the high side, that's where they ended up; and having gone there, they found that they rather liked it.

From the point of view of Methodism, that sort of thing is a catastrophe, since all of these people were active, committed members who'd served the church faithfully for decades, and they included a number of local preachers of considerable talent and spirituality.

Mrs Andras and I left for similar reasons, but in our case there were other circumstances as well, also relating to the Circuit Super and Methodist Church House. No names, no pack-drill, but they know who they are!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Thanks. It's interesting that the other English-speaking alternatives in the area were 'on the high side'.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Another thought. The older United Methodist Eucharist service contains no Epiclesis.
Nor did the RC Tridentine rite nor the C of E's BCP

Nowadays the lack of of an explicit epiclesis in the ancient Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman Rite (the Roman Canon) is often considered a sign of its great antiquity.

From here:

quote:
It has been noted that the lack of an explicit epiclesis (i.e., invocation of the Holy Spirit) may well be a sign of the Roman Canon's great antiquity. It could be that explicit mention of the Holy Spirit only became part of eucharistic praying in the mid-fourth century when theological debates about the Trinity were in full swing.

Fr. Hunwicke agrees:

quote:
Dear old Fortescue's The Mass records the long debates of liturgists a century ago about where the epiclesis of the Roman Rite originally was before it ... er ... "dropped out". Their assumption, of course, was that the epiclesis was original to Christian liturgy and that the Oriental rites which preserve it were more 'primitive' than the Roman Rite. Now, happily, we know better. We see the Oriental epiclesis as a comparatively late fad in the evolving liturgical tradition. Rather than seeking traces of a lost epiclesis in the Canon Romanus, we realise that the prayer Supplices te rogamus, in which we pray that our offerings be taken to the Heavenly Altar, represents an earlier and lovelier expression of the linkage between our offering and the eternal oblation of the Eternal Son at the Heavenly Altar. Patrimony liturgists such as E C Ratcliffe played a large role here, not to mention Dom Gregory.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Cor! The mid 4th Century is so modern.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0