Ship of Fools: MW 2778 Compass Church, Goodyear, AZ

Thread: MW 2778 Compass Church, Goodyear, AZ 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=030342

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

I don't understand why there are churches that distribute "Communion" without any kind of prayer or blessing or at least the Words of Institution. The one time I visited the soon-to-be-late Mars Hill in Seattle I found this to be the practice. Where did it come from? It makes no sense to me, especially since I'm sure a lot of these folks pray grace over a meal.

MW report

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

"Well, we don't know why we do this or what it means. But Jesus said to do it, so I guess we gotta."

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Gosh, that was sort of random. Weird to have an event of which the main point is telling you what it is NOT (in our opinion).

[ 14. November 2014, 19:21: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Meh. that was supposed to be "in their opinion."

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

That would be an interesting experience.

I often find communion services very wordy, so it might be instructive to participate in them without all the liturgies. It's to be hoped that this particular church's teachings on communion are easily available elsewhere for people who are interested. For those who aren't especially interested, 50+ years of communion liturgies might not make things much clearer for them anyway.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I often find communion services very wordy, so it might be instructive to participate in them without all the liturgies

Fair point, however I have attended non liturgical worship with communion in the past. They at the very least include a short prayer thanking God for the bread & wine and/or a bible reading (either one of the Gospel narratives of the last supper, or the passage from 1 Corinthians where Paul recounts the events of the last supper). To simply distribute the bread and wine without introduction or explanation strikes me as very odd.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I often find communion services very wordy,

I don't have any experience of "communion services" in that sense so I may be missing the point.

But since typically protestant worship is suspicious of symbolism or ritual as either insincere or idolatrous, and since I gather that corporate silence is rare in that context, surely all protestant worship is wordy. What else can it be? (Congregational vernacular hymns are primarily texts.)

That's why I want a the action of the eucharist.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

...and a 'bog-standard' Common Worship Order Onesaid Eucharist (with hymns and a short homily) is not by any means wordy.

We have such a service once a month in a sheltered housing complex in our parish, and it's a job to make it last more than half-an-hour - but it does indeed include all the action....

Ian J.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

You'd think even a memorialist communion would at least verbally memorialize the Last Supper.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I often find communion services very wordy,
I don't have any experience of "communion services" in that sense so I may be missing the point.

But since typically protestant worship is suspicious of symbolism or ritual as either insincere or idolatrous, and since I gather that corporate silence is rare in that context, surely all protestant worship is wordy. What else can it be? (Congregational vernacular hymns are primarily texts.)

That's why I want a the action of the eucharist.

If the preaching is good I think that's where the wordiness should be, rather than in long formal liturgies (although it could be said that even informal repeated phrases are liturgies in their own right).

What would concern me, I suppose, is that by removing the responsive liturgies these communion services are less participatory than they might otherwise be. I believe there should be more lay engagement in the average service rather than less.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

Surely the problem here is not how wordy or un-wordy it was, but whether it was Communion or not? Leaving aside the invalid matter and intent, about which we shall quibbble till the angels of the apocalypse come home; even in a Protestant context: in what way could this church be said to be doing this in remembrance of Him, who very emphatically took, blessed, brake, and ate it, giving thanks to the Father?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

You could say that if the congregation know they're doing it in remembrance of Jesus then they don't need to recite a liturgy to jog their collective memory each time - the act itself is the reminder.

This only works if the congregation are actually made aware in some other way that communion is an act of remembrance, so the preacher might refer to it in the sermon, or there might be an explanation on the notice sheet.

If it's a church with small groups then the meaning of communion might be explored at in the group meetings. An occasional visitor wouldn't be aware of what happens in these meetings, but if the visitor is already a Christian then he or she will already know what communion is about.

I don't know what a non-Christian visitor would make of it. Most of them don't participate in communion anyway, even if there is a liturgy to explain what it's all about. Maybe they're more likely to participate if the whole thing is very informal.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You'd think even a memorialist communion would at least verbally memorialize the Last Supper.

Agreed. The really weird part was that they served the emblems out of order.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Do I recall correctly that there was a tradition of at least some Lutherans of using only the Verba, perhaps with the sursum corda and Sanctus? I seem to remember that part of Lutheran liturgical renewal that led to the LBW and related books was a focus on restoring use of the Eucharistic prayer.

But I agree that no prayer, no Verba (or Warrant, as we Reformed might say) and only a discourse on what the elements aren't hardly sounds like communion.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I honestly don't understand how a eucharist is wordy. The words are part of an action and secondary to it. That's why the congregation are taking part by standing up, kneeling, sitting down, crossing themselves, shaking hands with each other and above all eating and drinking.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I honestly don't understand how a eucharist is wordy.

I can see some people experiencing some Eucharistic prayers as a bit long. I've heard a few that reminded of the time when we were children and my brother interrupted my grandfather's long, extemporaneous grace with "Amen, already!"

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You could say that if the congregation know they're doing it in remembrance of Jesus then they don't need to recite a liturgy to jog their collective memory each time - the act itself is the reminder.

Except there is no act: the Act of Christ at the Last Supper is not repeated. If it is the case that all this church thinks is necessary is to think about it, why have the 'bread' and 'wine' at all?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I wonder how often they celebrate communion in the first place. Maybe not often. For many churches, the remembering probably is more important than the act.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

My understanding is that they have communion each Sunday.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Really? That's even stranger. Why would you have communion every week unless you were a sacramentalist type of church?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You could say that if the congregation know they're doing it in remembrance of Jesus then they don't need to recite a liturgy to jog their collective memory each time - the act itself is the reminder.

This only works if the congregation are actually made aware in some other way that communion is an act of remembrance, so the preacher might refer to it in the sermon, or there might be an explanation on the notice sheet.

I would say it still doesn't work, if "work" is the right word. The liturgy isn't there to jog the memory. It's there to ritualize, in the deeper sense of the word, the actions of the congregation.

It also seems rather contrary to the biblical models for these things. The Torah, for example, provides the words that are to be used for the offering of first fruits, and these words identify the present action with what is being memorialized. It's the words that give the sacrifice its meaning and allow those making the sacrifice to identify with Abraham and his children. It's in such a context that Jesus's disciples would have understood his command to eat the bread and drink the wine as his memorial.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Really? That's even stranger. Why would you have communion every week unless you were a sacramentalist type of church?

Many Restorationist churches observe the Lord's Supper weekly not because they are sacramentalist but because they see weekly observance as the New Testament model.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Really? That's even stranger. Why would you have communion every week unless you were a sacramentalist type of church?

Perhaps because one believes that weekly communion was a practice of the apostles and the early church and that we have an obligation to follow apostolic example.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I still don't understand why the eucharist is wordy? Can someone explain?

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

Although I do not not know exactly what preceded the distribution of communion in this particular church, I can testify, having spent my childhood in the the Church of Christ's more liberal sister denomination, that the communion portion of their worship generally begins with ex tempore prayers by two (lay) elders; deacons then distributed little rectangles of unleavened bread, followed by individual cups of unfermented grape juice.

Their founder, Alexander Campbell, was trying to re-create the church as it is depicted in the Acts of the Apostles on the American Frontier in the 19th century. Although his understanding of the Eucahrist was not that of the catholic church, he was aware that early Christian worship included communion every Sunday and determined that his followers should do the same.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

This was not a Church of Christ congregation nor, so far as I could determine, an offshoot of same. It was an independent body. I may go again this Sunday just to see if they have communion again and, if so, to refresh my memory as to exactly what was said. Watch this space . . . .

I can't help comparing the experience I had at this church with the one that reporter California Dearmer had at this one, a Disciple of Christ church, where communion included the words of institution, what appears to be (judging from the photo) an elevation of the elements, and the words "His precious body" and "his precious blood" spoken as the elements were given to the congregation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I still don't understand why the eucharist is wordy? Can someone explain?

It's just a personal evaluation, really.

One thing I find slightly irritating in Nonconformist churches is how communion sometimes feels as thought it's been tacked on at the end of a service. As a result, there's a sense that the minister has a lot of words to get through, and sometimes a hymn is dropped in order to fit the liturgy in. I don't like it when hymns are cut!

I don't know if the CofE ever has this problem.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One thing I find slightly irritating in Nonconformist churches is how communion sometimes feels as thought it's been tacked on at the end of a service. As a result, there's a sense that the minister has a lot of words to get through, and sometimes a hymn is dropped in order to fit the liturgy in. I don't like it when hymns are cut!

I don't know if the CofE ever has this problem.

I know of some Episcopal churches that would "tack on" Communion at the end of Morning Prayer if that was the main service on a Sunday morning. It always seemed like an afterthought to me (but it wasn't at all wordy). I haven't heard of that being done in many years but wouldn't be surprised if some places might still do it.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Do I recall correctly that there was a tradition of at least some Lutherans of using only the Verba, perhaps with the sursum corda and Sanctus?

This is correct. The LBW had this as an option: Sursum Corda, Proper Preface, Sanctus, followed by the Words of Institution.

AIUI, it was a Lutheran reaction to what was felt to be over-ornamentation and excess in previous forms of the Mass.

<tangent> And here we have an irregular verb:
I simplify,
you over-simplify,
he is absurdly reductionistic.
<end tangent>

quote:
I seem to remember that part of Lutheran liturgical renewal that led to the LBW and related books was a focus on restoring use of the Eucharistic prayer.

Not quite correct; for Evangelical Lutherans, the new book is "Evangelical Lutheran Worship", which superseded the aforementioned LBW.

Svitlana's comments have got me thinking about words as ornamentation and/or symbols of a respectful attitude in Eucharistic liturgy. I rather like a long Eucharistic prayer in the season of Easter, queen of feasts. At other times, I prefer a simpler form... but maybe not as far as to have only the Words of Institution!

I can appreciate the impulse toward simplicity as well as the one toward extravagance. I don't think either end of the spectrum is more admirable than the other, or ought to judge the other. I think of this in terms of times and seasons.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One thing I find slightly irritating in Nonconformist churches is how communion sometimes feels as thought it's been tacked on at the end of a service. As a result, there's a sense that the minister has a lot of words to get through, and sometimes a hymn is dropped in order to fit the liturgy in. I don't like it when hymns are cut!

I don't know if the CofE ever has this problem.

I think I'm right in saying this comes from the practice of having Communion literally as a separate service, after the "main" service. That first service (I suppose a service of the word) would finish and those not eligible to take Communion would leave and then Communion would begin.

Although I'd imagine that doesn't happen so often now, it can still lead to the feeling of Communion being "tacked on", even though they're now part of the same service. It's amplified by seeing the sermon as the main event in a service, which can lead to Communion seeming to be something of an afterthought.

The worst I experienced was one minister of the Baptist church I grew up in, who put Communion before the sermon, almost as if he wanted to get it out of the way to concentrate on preaching. I do see the sermon as important, but not at the cost of devaluing Communion.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, I'd agree with all that. In many churches there was an actual gap between the "main" service and Communion: it allowed people from the gallery to move downstairs while others went home (we've not done that for years, though!) Perhaps there still is in some Strict Baptist churches, I don't know.

There is also the difference in the "emotional pilgrimage" of the services: in an Anglican service you tend to feel that you are "climbing" through the service until the Eucharist, which is the climax of worship. In a typical Baptist service, the sermon is the high point and you "drop down" into Communion afterwards.

Quite apart from the reasons Stejjie mentions, this still may have something to do with a lingering anti-Romanism, a desire to turn away from the "sacrifice" of the Mass.

[ 16. November 2014, 07:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

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

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
This was not a Church of Christ congregation nor, so far as I could determine, an offshoot of same. It was an independent body. I may go again this Sunday just to see if they have communion again and, if so, to refresh my memory as to exactly what was said. Watch this space . . . .

I can't help comparing the experience I had at this church with the one that reporter California Dearmer had at this one, a Disciple of Christ church, where communion included the words of institution, what appears to be (judging from the photo) an elevation of the elements, and the words "His precious body" and "his precious blood" spoken as the elements were given to the congregation.

I read through bits of this independent congregation's website, and it is clear that they not only believe the "real absence" in the Eucharist, but also that they do not subscribe to baptismal regeneration. They really give a very vague explanation of why one would even practice these "ordinances", since they explicitly say they are not necessary for salvation. Apparently, they have some vague salutary influence on the believer.

Much of the rest of their theology seems fairly standard and orthodox.

I certainly would be interested to read a further report of what was said preceding their form of "communion".

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

The only reasons that you need for practicing the ordinances is that God instituted them for Christians. You do not need to believe in any particular way of them working.

Jengie

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The only reasons that you need for practicing the ordinances is that God instituted them for Christians. You do not need to believe in any particular way of them working.

Jengie

But God must have had some reason for instituting them.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, to keep us centred on the fundamentals of the faith and our spiritual history.

quote:
It is clear that they not only believe the "real absence" in the Eucharist, but also that they do not subscribe to baptismal regeneration. ... they explicitly say they are not necessary for salvation.

I can't speak for them of course, but that would be pretty much standard doctrine for most Baptists and many others.

[ 16. November 2014, 14:25: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: They really give a very vague explanation of why one would even practice these "ordinances", since they explicitly say they are not necessary for salvation.

Things are only worth practicing if they are necessary for salvation?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The only reasons that you need for practicing the ordinances is that God instituted them for Christians. You do not need to believe in any particular way of them working.

Jengie
But God must have had some reason for instituting them.

So, does not mean he has to tell us them. My view is that a lot of eucharistic theology is purely speculative.

Jengie

[ 16. November 2014, 15:41: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

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

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: They really give a very vague explanation of why one would even practice these "ordinances", since they explicitly say they are not necessary for salvation.
Things are only worth practicing if they are necessary for salvation?

Well, they practice baptism and the Lord's Supper in some fashion, don't they? But in such a tepid, noncommittal way that what I get from the stuff on their website is essentially, "yeah, we do this stuff, but it's not particularly important and certainly unnecessary." Miss Amanda's description in the MW report suggested the pastor went out of his way to assert that the rite was intrinsically meaningless.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The only reasons that you need for practicing the ordinances is that God instituted them for Christians. You do not need to believe in any particular way of them working.

Jengie
But God must have had some reason for instituting them.
So, does not mean he has to tell us them. My view is that a lot of eucharistic theology is purely speculative.

Jengie

I should have added that:

"Mind you I think the same of theories of what the point of the crucifixion was whatever Evangelicals want to say".

Jengie

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, to keep us centred on the fundamentals of the faith and our spiritual history.

quote:
It is clear that they not only believe the "real absence" in the Eucharist, but also that they do not subscribe to baptismal regeneration. ... they explicitly say they are not necessary for salvation.
I can't speak for them of course, but that would be pretty much standard doctrine for most Baptists and many others.

I thought a fundamental Baptist belief is that infant baptism is not valid and that one must be baptised as an outward and visible sign of one's own having come to faith after having attained years old enough to understand what one has believed.

It also doesn't automatically follow that having a 'low' or memorialist understanding of what physically happens at the Mass/Holy Liturgy/Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread Service, means that one does not have a 'high' understanding of its being essential for the believer or of why. I get the impression many Brethren do.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, to keep us centred on the fundamentals of the faith and our spiritual history.

quote:
It is clear that they not only believe the "real absence" in the Eucharist, but also that they do not subscribe to baptismal regeneration. ... they explicitly say they are not necessary for salvation.
I can't speak for them of course, but that would be pretty much standard doctrine for most Baptists and many others.
I thought a fundamental Baptist belief is that infant baptism is not valid and that one must be baptised as an outward and visible sign of one's own having come to faith after having attained years old enough to understand what one has believed.

It also doesn't automatically follow that having a 'low' or memorialist understanding of what physically happens at the Mass/Holy Liturgy/Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread Service, means that one does not have a 'high' understanding of its being essential for the believer or of why. I get the impression many Brethren do.

I thought viewing infant baptism as invalid was an Anabaptist thing? Hence them being called 're-baptisers'? Or has it passed into mainstream Baptist theology?

And I believe you are correct re Brethren and the Breaking of Bread (as they would call it I think).

Worth pointing out that I've been in very low-church Anglican churches (in the CoE) which are definitely memorialist and tend to tack Communion on the end of a service (and Communion is monthly usually). Not the norm for CoE Anglicans but it's certainly the case for a significant minority of churches, especially in conservative evangelical areas like East Sussex.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I thought a fundamental Baptist belief is that infant baptism is not valid and that one must be baptised as an outward and visible sign of one's own having come to faith after having attained years old enough to understand what one has believed.

While I think you've got the Baptist understanding of baptism right, I'm not sure Baptists would speak in terms of "validity," which suggests some effect resulting from baptism. They would not agree that baptism has any effect other than the practical effect of making one a member of the local church, but rather would see it as an act of obedience by which one symbolically confesses his faith and shows that the sinful self has died, been buried and has risen to new life in Christ.

In my experience, Bpatists would simply say that only those who can make a profession of faith are properly baptized and that someone baptized as an infant wasn't really baptized.

[ 16. November 2014, 18:12: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I stopped by Compass Church again this morning but communion wasn't listed in the program and so I didn't stay. I was wrong about their having it every Sunday.

They've planted a daughter church closer to where I live. I'll swing by there some Sunday to see if they handle communion the same way as the parent does.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Bpatists would simply say that only those who can make a profession of faith are properly baptized and that someone baptized as an infant wasn't really baptized.

In this recent MW report of a Baptist church, the preacher is quoted as saying: "Baptism doesn't save; don't baptize infants."

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

As a matter of interest...

I was baptized at three months. In Baptist theology I'm not baptized. Would they regard me as a Christian? Does open communion mean I could receive communion?

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
As a matter of interest...

I was baptized at three months. In Baptist theology I'm not baptized. Would they regard me as a Christian? Does open communion mean I could receive communion?

Can't speak for all Baptists, but...

Yes, I'd imagine more or less all Baptists would regard you as a Christian because we don't regard baptism as conferring salvation - it's only God's grace, received through faith, that can save us; believer's baptism is "just" a sign of that grace that has already saved you and a step of obedience to Christ.

And yes, although each Baptist church would have its own rules & customs about who may or may not receive communion, open communion would mean you'd be welcome to receive.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Indeed, most Baptist churches (BUGB) would be able to accept you as a member (although they might ask one or two searching questions); depending on the particular rules of each congregation, quite a number would allow you to be a Deacon (i.e. a lay leader).

One of the "downsides" of the Baptist tradition is the number of folk in churches who have never been baptised; there are quite a few!

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

I can't help comparing the experience I had at this church with the one that reporter California Dearmer had at this one, a Disciple of Christ church, where communion included the words of institution, what appears to be (judging from the photo) an elevation of the elements, and the words "His precious body" and "his precious blood" spoken as the elements were given to the congregation.

The DoC tend to be higher in their practice than the other Campbell-Stone restorationists. I know of at least one DoC minister who believes in the Real Presence, makes the sign of the cross, and celebrates in a chasuble.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The DoC tend to be higher in their practice than the other Campbell-Stone restorationists. I know of at least one DoC minister who believes in the Real Presence, makes the sign of the cross, and celebrates in a chasuble.

Intriguing. If I understand correctly a chasuble is to be worn specifically for the portions of the mass when the eucharist is blessed and administered. As I understand current DoC practice the Table is usually presided over by lay elders and the Word is left to the ordained minister. I'm curious if this is a new trend.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I stopped by Compass Church again this morning but communion wasn't listed in the program and so I didn't stay. I was wrong about their having it every Sunday.

They've planted a daughter church closer to where I live. I'll swing by there some Sunday to see if they handle communion the same way as the parent does.

It's nice to see a lot of discussion on the thread I started, but I don't see anyone addressing my initial question: where did this practice of just distributing the elements without any prayer or other words come from? Any ideas?

Amanda, if you can find out from them why they do it this way I'm really curious since it goes against pretty much universal Christian tradition.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Gosh, that was sort of random. Weird to have an event of which the main point is telling you what it is NOT (in our opinion).

I understand why low-church Protestants make sure to distinguish their beliefs about the Eucharist from the RC's. This did seem like bending over extra backwards to do so. Most Evangelicals would not hesitate to affirm that the Church "is" the body of Christ, so I don't know why they can't affirm Jesus' words that the bread "is" his body too.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

History lesson, sorry, but some of us are quickly forgetting our heritage.

Formal liturgy did not really exist in England among dissenters and in Scotland in CofS between the 17th and 19th Century. The CofS still held officially with the Knox order, but the papers on it I have read suggest it was honoured in the breach.

Communion basically consisted of the reading of the scriptural warrant and the distributing of the elements. Beyond that what happened was a mixture of local custom and the preference of the celebrant.

This was in English Dissent often a tacked on communion service usually after the main Sunday meeting. The break might be more extreme than Baptist Trainfan indicates,with refreshments happening between the main service and communion. This died out in the second half of the twentieth century among URC churches. However, in Scotland it has been adopted by CofS churches, often for communion services held between quarterly communion*. I believe some Baptists and maybe some Congregationalists still do use this form.

So my suspicion is that the explanation for the liturgy needs no more than a casual glance at the practices of some Independent Congregations who have a fairly low understanding of communion.

Oh my reading of Campbellite Stone is that they originate in a time when the Reformed movement as a whole were rediscovering liturgical practice and their weekly communion reflects this. There are a couple of other interesting things happening liturgically around that time that suggests this.

Jengie

*yes weird, but then height of Eucharistic theology and Height of Eucharistic practice are not correlated in the Reformed tradition. It is only Anglicanism where that seems to happen.

[ 17. November 2014, 17:58: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The DoC tend to be higher in their practice than the other Campbell-Stone restorationists. I know of at least one DoC minister who believes in the Real Presence, makes the sign of the cross, and celebrates in a chasuble.
Intriguing. If I understand correctly a chasuble is to be worn specifically for the portions of the mass when the eucharist is blessed and administered.

Chasubles are worn for the whole service - word, sermon and prayers, through to the eucharistic prayer and up to the dismissal at the end.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Indeed, most Baptist churches (BUGB) would be able to accept you as a member (although they might ask one or two searching questions); depending on the particular rules of each congregation, quite a number would allow you to be a Deacon (i.e. a lay leader).

Interesting. It's the rare Southern Baptist church over here that will accept someone as a member without believer's baptism by immersion.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Most (non-Strict) Baptist churches will let you be a member without having being baptised by immersion.

Some say that you must have been so baptised to be a Deacon; others only that a majority of Deacons at any one time shall have been so baptised.

Some of this is long-standing, some comes down to the recognition that not all people in Baptist churches are life-long Baptists but may have come from traditions which do things differently.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

As these examples attest, anomalies in the time of administering communion can occur in very different situations.

Following a Sunday morning service of the word at a Methodist church which I recently visited, worshipers were invited to receive communion in the narthex.

To accommodate the large number of communicants at the Roman Catholic church which a friend attended in in the 1950's, the administration of the Sacrament began during the Epistle, and continued during the rest of the Mass.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
History lesson, sorry, but some of us are quickly forgetting our heritage.

Formal liturgy did not really exist in England among dissenters and in Scotland in CofS between the 17th and 19th Century. The CofS still held officially with the Knox order, but the papers on it I have read suggest it was honoured in the breach.

Communion basically consisted of the reading of the scriptural warrant and the distributing of the elements. Beyond that what happened was a mixture of local custom and the preference of the celebrant.

This was in English Dissent often a tacked on communion service usually after the main Sunday meeting. The break might be more extreme than Baptist Trainfan indicates,with refreshments happening between the main service and communion. This died out in the second half of the twentieth century among URC churches. However, in Scotland it has been adopted by CofS churches, often for communion services held between quarterly communion*. I believe some Baptists and maybe some Congregationalists still do use this form.

Did they eat right before Communion to show disrespect to the Eucharistic Fast to prove they did not believe in the Real Presence, or was it just a coincidence?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
Did they eat right before Communion to show disrespect to the Eucharistic Fast to prove they did not believe in the Real Presence, or was it just a coincidence?

So far as I know, the Eucharistic fast was never a Protestant discipline, even among those who do believe in the Real Presence (whether physical or spiritual). I doubt these people knew what the Eucharistic fast was, much less intended disrespect. These Communion celebrations made for very long days; I suspect they were just making sure no one keeled over.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
Did they eat right before Communion to show disrespect to the Eucharistic Fast to prove they did not believe in the Real Presence, or was it just a coincidence?
So far as I know, the Eucharistic fast was never a Protestant discipline, even among those who do believe in the Real Presence (whether physical or spiritual). I doubt these people knew what the Eucharistic fast was, much less intended disrespect. These Communion celebrations made for very long days; I suspect they were just making sure no one keeled over.

It makes one wonder how on earth people ever managed much stricter fasts in ages past, or do we just have it too cushy?

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So far as I know, the Eucharistic fast was never a Protestant discipline, even among those who do believe in the Real Presence (whether physical or spiritual). I doubt these people knew what the Eucharistic fast was, much less intended disrespect. These Communion celebrations made for very long days; I suspect they were just making sure no one keeled over.

The Church Of England definitely had the Eucharistic fast, and I'm assuming the Scottish Episcopal Church did as well. The dissenters must have known about their "popish" practices, otherwise what were they dissenting against?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Against the Church by Law Established and in some (but perhaps not all) cases the very concept of a Church by Law Established.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

But the CofS is by law established. In Scotland, it's the Piskies who are dissenters.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Indeed. Thought of adding that after I'd posted, but too late.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
The Church Of England definitely had the Eucharistic fast, and I'm assuming the Scottish Episcopal Church did as well.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been a little more specific and focused on Protestants of the Reformed variety, for whom, so far as I know, the Eucharistic fast was never part of what otherwise could be a quite vigorous preparation for communion.

[ 03. July 2015, 17:46: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0