|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "If you love the Lord Jesus"
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I personally can't imagine choosing a wedding ritual that would clearly exclude important family members, least of all my mother. But I get along well with my mom -- perhaps you don't.
Well, there are a number of factors in our case. First, the chaplain of my college (where we married) made it clear that he expected a Nuptial Mass. Second, we both wanted God involved in our marriage ceremony. Third, JoannaP's mother wanted us to have a civil ceremony, and so was going to be unhappy come what may. Fourth, my mother is a narcissistic, sociopathic bitch who gets off on hurting people (psychologically), so I really had no interest one way or another (and would have been much happier had she not been there).
I do rather envy people with sane parents...
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The invitation to "all who love the Lord Jesus" is commonly used in Baptist churches; but it may raise a question in the mind of the hearer as to what this might mean (or if their love is "sufficient" to find acceptance).
We often use the first two of these invitations (taken from the Baptist Manual "Gathering for Worship", but not copied here for copyright reasons). I don't know who originally wrote them.
Thanks for these. The church I am ministering in now has a very determined "open" table policy - much to my intense delight.
Personally, I dislike the use of the phrase "love the Lord Jesus", as it is just churchy jargon and so actually rather exclusive (ironically!) But these two examples are very good and I may use them from time to time.
There is also the invitation from the Iona Community worship book:
quote:
Come to this table, you who have much faith
and you who would like to have more;
you who have been here often
and you who have not been for a long time;
you who have tried to follow Jesus,
and you who have failed;
Come.
It is Christ who invites us to meet him here.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Personally, I dislike the use of the phrase "love the Lord Jesus", as it is just churchy jargon and so actually rather exclusive (ironically!)
It isn't ¨just churchy jargon¨ to me.
[ 24. August 2014, 09:15: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I personally can't imagine choosing a wedding ritual that would clearly exclude important family members, least of all my mother. But I get along well with my mom -- perhaps you don't.
Personal factors aside, celebrating a wedding with a ritual that excludes some of the invited guests to me goes against the whole point of a wedding ceremony celebrated with family and friends. If it's just between the couple and God, why have all those people there?
I don't consider a wedding withOUT a nuptial mass to be kosher.
We go to mass at crucial points of our lives, such as death - a requiem.
Maybe it was easier in the older rites when only couple received communion at a nuptial mas and only priest received at a requiem.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
There is also the invitation from the Iona Community worship book:
quote:
Come to this table, you who have much faith
and you who would like to have more;
you who have been here often
and you who have not been for a long time;
you who have tried to follow Jesus,
and you who have failed;
Come.
It is Christ who invites us to meet him here.
Yes, we use that too.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
OtG - I've not seen that invitation to Communion before, but it's beautiful. Breathtakingly so.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
OtG - I've not seen that invitation to Communion before, but it's beautiful. Breathtakingly so.
I like it. But....
There is a problem (for me anyway) in using it. The repeated use of the phrase 'you who have' can be actually rather awkward to say. I used this invitation on Sunday (as a result of this thread, actually!) and found myself tripping up over these words. I think you need to pace this bit of liturgy carefully, so that the words come out cleanly and clearly. If you rush it, the words tend to come out as 'yu-hoo-have'.. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It's an example of how liturgy can read OK on paper but actually work out differently in practice.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233
|
Posted
'There is also the invitation from the Iona Community worship book:
quote:
'Come to this table, you who have much faith
and you who would like to have more;
you who have been here often
and you who have not been for a long time;
you who have tried to follow Jesus,
and you who have failed;
Come.
It is Christ who invites us to meet him here.'
Yes, it is short, to the point and beautiful.
Also spiritually real- and alive.
To me.
--------------------
on the one hand - self doubt
on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes
Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Personal factors aside, celebrating a wedding with a ritual that excludes some of the invited guests to me goes against the whole point of a wedding ceremony celebrated with family and friends.
When my wife and I got married, only a handful of people present received communion. Most of my family are conservative protestants, most of her family are Catholics (this was an Anglican wedding).
I could not possibly have cared less if anyone there felt excluded (I doubt many of them did, but still). Similarly, I've been to half a dozen Catholic weddings, and never have I felt the need to receive communion so I felt 'included' or some damn thing.
Inclusivity may be a theological virtue in the normal course of church, but expecting people to change their wedding rituals to so that everyone's delicate feelings aren't hurt when they can't or don't want to participate is beyond silly.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jon in the Nati: When my wife and I got married, only a handful of people present received communion. Most of my family are conservative protestants, most of her family are Catholics (this was an Anglican wedding).
Did the church exclude them, or did they exclude themselves?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Did the church exclude them, or did they exclude themselves?
The church did not exclude them, nor were they explicitly invited to partake. The Catholics knew they were not allowed (extraordinary circumstances excepted) to receive Communion in a schismatic church, and the conservative protestants knew they could not partake because they don't believe that Real Presence garbage anyhow. There were also a handful of non-Christians in attendance.
But really, what does it matter? I knew going in that I was electing a ritual in which most of the people in attendance would be unable to participate, but chose such a ritual anyway. Am I not a jerk, or at least an ungracious host? Should I, as RuthW suggests, simply have declined to invite those who could or would not participate?
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jon in the Nati: But really, what does it matter? I knew going in that I was electing a ritual in which most of the people in attendance would be unable to participate, but chose such a ritual anyway. Am I not a jerk, or at least an ungracious host? Should I, as RuthW suggests, simply have declined to invite those who could or would not participate?
Hm, to me it does make a difference at a wedding service whether a church exludes people (which I'd consider bad form at such a service) or whether people choose not to participate themselves. In the latter case, it's up to them.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Didn't Wesley famously say something about having a very open table because he believed that the eucharist could be a 'converting ordinance'? Not, even now, the CofE/CinW approach but one I like very much.
In Wesley's time, practically everyone was at least nominally Christian. The sort of conversion he refers to is the conversion from a lukewarm, by-the-numbers practice of faith to a vibrant and active one. I'm not aware of Wesley ever having abandoned the BCP's Eucharistic discipline.
When visitors are present in our chapel, I invite baptized Christians to receive the Sacrament. I don't demand baptismal certificates; in the end it's left up to the individual's conscience. If they want to put one over on me, it would be very easy to do so. And in cases where I might have doubts, my rule of thumb is to ask whether I would cause more scandal by administering Communion or by denying it. In the vast majority of cases, I'm pretty sure it'd be the latter.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jon in the Nati: Why would that be bad form? If a church practices close/closed communion, should it practice open communion for a wedding or funeral?
No, if I'd marry in a church that practices closed communion and I'd invite guests that would be excluded from this communion, I'd choose not to have communion at my wedding service.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Oops, looks like the post in which I asked that question got lost in the ether. Sorry about that...
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
RuthW: quote:
Personal factors aside, celebrating a wedding with a ritual that excludes some of the invited guests to me goes against the whole point of a wedding ceremony celebrated with family and friends.
But unless all the members of your family and all your friends share your beliefs, whatever you do is going to exclude or upset somebody. I have a friend who did not have a communion/mass at her wedding, and her parents (who are fairly devout Anglicans) were quite upset. But she was marrying an atheist, quite a lot of her friends were atheists (some had evidently not set foot in a church before) and having the service in the parish church without communion was the best compromise she could come up with.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jane R: I have a friend who did not have a communion/mass at her wedding, and her parents (who are fairly devout Anglicans) were quite upset.
I've been mostly talking about explicitly excluding people from parts of a wedding service. Not having communion doesn't exclude anyone. They might be upset about it, but that's not what the verb 'to exclude' means.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
A church wedding is an explicitly Christian rite. If a Eucharist is included, it shouldn't be very surprising to anyone that the profession of Christian belief and some rite of Christian initiation are prerequisites for participation. In early Church practice, the unbaptized were dismissed before the Offertory. Exclusive? Well, of course; you're either on the bus or you're not.
If you are expecting that the majority of your wedding guests will not be Christians, it's probably better not to have the Eucharist as part of the celebration.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Fr Weber: If you are expecting that the majority of your wedding guests will not be Christians, it's probably better not to have the Eucharist as part of the celebration.
Exactly, this would be my choice (if I were member of a church that practices closed communion).
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
A church wedding is an explicitly Christian rite. If a Eucharist is included, it shouldn't be very surprising to anyone that the profession of Christian belief and some rite of Christian initiation are prerequisites for participation. In early Church practice, the unbaptized were dismissed before the Offertory. Exclusive? Well, of course; you're either on the bus or you're not.
Interestingly, the church where I grew up evolved a modern version of this - pausing the (ASB Rite A, then Common Worship)service at the peace and then resuming (following coffee) with the offertory. This allowed people to attend for the ministry of the word and depart before communion without being conspicuous, and helped ensure that people didn't dash off without communicating (though there was nothing to stop you remaining in your seat if you didn't want to interact with people). It worked well even if it was a little unusual (and a small problem for anyone used to practicing a Eucharistic fast).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
LeRoc: quote:
I've been mostly talking about explicitly excluding people from parts of a wedding service. Not having communion doesn't exclude anyone. They might be upset about it, but that's not what the verb 'to exclude' means.
Yes, I noticed that. If you read the rest of my post you might have noticed I told that story as an example of someone who chose *not* to have a part of the ritual in order to avoid excluding people.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jane R: If you read the rest of my post you might have noticed I told that story as an example of someone who chose *not* to have a part of the ritual in order to avoid excluding people.
Um yes, I noticed that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Host Note
I'm very glad JoannaP and Figbash posted to clarify. My thanks to both of you for your courteous responses.
There's a good lesson there for all of us re jumping to conclusions.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jane R: Yes, I noticed that. If you read the rest of my post you might have noticed I told that story as an example of someone who chose *not* to have a part of the ritual in order to avoid excluding people.
This seems to be about different uses of the verb 'to exclude'.
Case A: John and Mary have a wedding in a church. Among the guests they invite there are a substantial number of people who are not members of the church; one of them is Aunt Jackie. Communion is part of the wedding service. The preacher says that people who aren't members of the church aren't allowed to take part.
Case B: John and Mary have a wedding in a church. Among the guests they invite there are a substantial number of people who are not members of the church; one of them is Aunt Jackie. Communion is part of the wedding service. Aunt Jackie decides that she cannot partake since she isn't a member of that church. Maybe she's a member of a different church that doesn't allow inter-communion (or whatever it's called) with this church.
In both cases, you could say that the couple has 'excluded' Aunt Jackie. But that's different uses of the verb 'to exclude'. In Case A, the church (by proxy of the couple) has explicitly excluded her. In Case B, she has excluded herself.
I personally would consider Case A bad form, and my choice would be not to have Communion during the wedding service in this case. I don't consider Case B to be bad form, at least not in the same degree.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
And I agree with you. But for those of us who are members of a church that has closed communion and also believe that communion (mass) should be part of the wedding ceremony, it is a difficult question. And I'm not speaking from my own experience here; I'd describe myself as middle-of-the-road Anglican (I know, I know, everyone thinks they're MOTR) and having a nuptial mass wouldn't be that important to me.
Which is probably a good thing, because however you dress it up (and notwithstanding the Iona Community's call to communion, which is a nice way of putting it) all the Anglican churches I've ever been in do practice what I would describe as closed communion; they don't ask you to show your baptism and confirmation certificates at the altar rail, and they usually give communion to anyone who comes up for it; but the priest says something to the effect that 'if you would normally take communion in your own church, you are welcome to take it here, and anyone else is welcome to come to the altar rail for a blessing'. So that's a kind of combination of your Case A and Case B: the priest says 'These are the rules in our church' but leaves it up to Aunty Jackie's conscience to decide what she's going to do about it.
Personally I think that's as far as you can go without sending the message that the Eucharist isn't really that important; but I realise others feel differently about it, including some very devout Christians who really *don't* think the Eucharist is that important.
[ 03. October 2014, 12:23: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
In our church (Baptist/URC) we explicitly invite anyone who wishes to receive Communion to do so - while also telling them that it's OK not to if they don't wish to. I will say something about "not needing to be a member of this, or any other, church" and stress that it is down to individual's own consciences.
We have often used the Iona invitation (which, to my mind, is a corrective to the old CofS practice of so "fencing the Table" that virtually everyone felt so unworthy before God they did not eat and drink the Sacrament; those who did were, I suspect, accused of the sin of pride!)
In older Baptist practice, the Communion service was virtually a "bolt-on" section after the "main" service; even in churches which were not "closed table" (and there are still some), the understanding was that many people would go home and leave only the faithful remnant to "commune".
BTW, we never (or very, very rarely) include Communion in wedding services. But that is more because we don't consider marriage as a Sacrament, and because we are aware that - unlike on a Sunday morning - the vast majority present would have no idea whatsoever about its meaning.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
At my church the invitation is given to any visitors who would normally receive communion at their own church to receive it here also. Apart from this there is just the usual Anglican invitation to partake of the eucharist.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
And then there is the LDS practice where temple weddings can only be attended by LDS members in good standing. I believe in the UK where the actual civil wedding has to be public and therefore takes place just before the temple wedding little problem. In the US if the couple have a civil non temple wedding, they have to wait a year before getting their temple wedding (which is a very big thing in the religion) (barring rare cases where the couple to be live more than a very long distance from a temple in which case the temple wedding can happen as soon as feasibly possible). It seems that fairly frequently a lot of close relatives including for instance parents can't be invited.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jane R: But for those of us who are members of a church that has closed communion and also believe that communion (mass) should be part of the wedding ceremony, it is a difficult question.
That's why I'm happy that I'm in a church with open communion ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My biggest gripe is with Case A. To invite people to have a celebration together, and then in one part of the celebration to say "You don't really belong here" sounds rude to me.
quote:
Jane R: So that's a kind of combination of your Case A and Case B: the priest says 'These are the rules in our church' but leaves it up to Aunty Jackie's conscience to decide what she's going to do about it.
Seems like a very Anglican solution to me ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Or you could just restrict communion to the bride and groom.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, that's a sensible solution which IM(limited)E offends no-one.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ad Orientem: Or you could just restrict communion to the bride and groom.
I'm rather happy that my church doesn't have this tradition. I would be completely against it. Communion is about community.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I'm sorry to say that I that much of this discussion seems to me to be terribly petty.If a couple wish to have a Christian wedding,should they only invite other Christians and only those of the same religious denomination for fear some may feel excluded by something which they are not used to in their own church ?
If someone wishes to have a Christian funeral for prayers for the repose of their soul to be said,should the family only invite to the funeral those who agree entirely with this practice ?
Are we not adult enough to accept that there are people with many views who should be able to come and participate as far as they are able ?
Take the example of a Catholic wedding - no doubt there will be a number of non-Catholics or indeed non-practicing and non-believing 'Catholics' present - why don't we just leave it at that and not expect that everyone should go to Communion so that no-one feels 'excluded'
What if there is a marriage where two different languages are used or there are two different nationalities involved.Are those who do not speak one of the languages necessarily 'excluded' just because they can't speak the language or because they don't belong to the same ethnic or national group. There are ways round these difficulties and there are ways round religious difficulties which just involve showing respect for all.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
LeRoc: quote:
Seems like a very Anglican solution to me.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 04. October 2014, 15:48: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I appreciate that 'rites of passage' ceremonies are incredibly important for those intimately involved in them.Why,however, make a major problem out of the possible reception of Communion. ? As well as those of differing Christian communities,when not everyone may be able to receive Communion together,what about friends who do not share your Christian faith,will they not feel 'excluded' if the wedding is in a Christian church ? Or might they not just be glad to be present at a ceremony which celebrates the love of their friends - or indeed on another occasion honours in some way a departed friend.
Would you accept with joy an invitation to a Hindu wedding if the couple were your friends ?
Would you overworry if you were not 100% sure of Hindu rites ? Or would you say 'No,I can't come because this wedding ceremony does not recognise the unique role of Jesus Christ in salvation history and I would feel excluded ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
@Forthview: you're mostly talking about Case B from this post. My problem is with Case A.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
You don't say in Case A whether Aunt Jackie is a member of any church,nor whether she is a regular churchgoer who would feel a need to receive the eucharist.Some Christian communities only celebrate the eucharist infrequently,why make a big thing about going to Communion in a 'strange' church,if you don't often go in your own church ?
Take the example again of a Catholic wedding and an Anglican guest who regularly receives Communion
in a fairly similar celebration in his/her own church.It should NOT be the bride and groom who say 'Non Catholics cannot receive Communion'.It might be the priest who should choose his words carefully to explain the views of the Catholic church that the reception of Communion in a Catholic church expresses one's agreement with the Eucharistic and ecclesial theology of the Church.If one does not agree with the Eucharistic beliefs and ecclesial theology of the Church then no full communion is possible - even if one goes forward to receive the Host.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Forthview: You don't say in Case A whether Aunt Jackie is a member of any church,nor whether she is a regular churchgoer who would feel a need to receive the eucharist.
Er, no. I don't tell the colour of her shoes either. You can make it as complicated as you want.
quote:
Forthview: Take the example again of a Catholic wedding and an Anglican guest who regularly receives Communion
in a fairly similar celebration in his/her own church.It should NOT be the bride and groom who say 'Non Catholics cannot receive Communion'.It might be the priest who should choose his words carefully to explain the views of the Catholic church that the reception of Communion in a Catholic church expresses one's agreement with the Eucharistic and ecclesial theology of the Church.
I'd still find it rude, no matter how carefully he explains it. My preference would be not to have Communion at the service.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Of course that might be your preference,but what if it is not your wedding.Should the bride and groom forego the opportunity to receive Communion at their wedding because some of the guests cannot receive ? If,and that is an important 'if', the bride and groom are regular communicants, should they be denied the grace of Communion at their wedding service,just because one or more of the guests would like to partake of communion at a service the validity of which they do not accept ?
Again one must ask the question - what should the bride and groom do,to make people who are not Christians feel comfortable with a service which is alien to them ? There is no way round this.The guests are there to support the bride and groom,
not to dissect their religious beliefs on the day of their wedding.
If Communion is really important for the bride and groom,they could have a private Communion before the marriage ceremony,but it still doesn't solve the problem of guests who feel uncomfortable and 'excluded' in any church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Forthview: Should the bride and groom forego the opportunity to receive Communion at their wedding because some of the guests cannot receive ?
I would forego it. Better to miss something that's important for my faith than explicitly telling people they're excluded from something to which they have been invited.
quote:
Forthview: Again one must ask the question - what should the bride and groom do,to make people who are not Christians feel comfortable with a service which is alien to them ?
Don't explicitly exclude someone. The rest is Case B.
quote:
Forthview: If Communion is really important for the bride and groom,they could have a private Communion before the marriage ceremony,but it still doesn't solve the problem of guests who feel uncomfortable and 'excluded' in any church.
Having a private ceremony (with other church members) would be a good solution. Guests feeling uncomfortable and excluded are case B.
[ 04. October 2014, 17:47: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Le Roc I think that a desire to receive the eucharist is an important preparative step to actually receiving.Although we mortal human beings cannot always have a really deep understanding of exactly what the sacred Mysteries are,I would say that in normal circumstances,at least for a non=handicapped adult, an ability to distinguish between the eucharist and ordinary bread is a pre requisite.
I didn't ask what Aunt Jackie was wearing because that is not important,but if she has no knowledge and no desire for the eucharist what is the point of going forward.At best it is a meaningless gesture and at worst a mockery of the Holy Sacrament.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Forthview: I didn't ask what Aunt Jackie was wearing because that is not important,but if she has no knowledge and no desire for the eucharist what is the point of going forward.At best it is a meaningless gesture and at worst a mockery of the Holy Sacrament.
So, don't have a Holy Sacrament at an event you're inviting Aunt Jackie to.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Forthview: I didn't ask what Aunt Jackie was wearing because that is not important,but if she has no knowledge and no desire for the eucharist what is the point of going forward.At best it is a meaningless gesture and at worst a mockery of the Holy Sacrament.
So, don't have a Holy Sacrament at an event you're inviting Aunt Jackie to.
Sorry, but I reckon that's the worst reasoning ever.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ad Orientem: Sorry, but I reckon that's the worst reasoning ever.
Are you going to tell me why?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
It's just a crappy reason not to have the sacrament, because some people aren't able to partake of it. It's absurd. Shall we stop having the sacrament altogether so as not to upset the catechumens and penitents?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Seems to me we've got it backwards. If we are in a non-open-communion context in which we also want people to not be offended (assuming, for the moment, that people are offended by this, which I doubt), then the answer that is obvious to me is that we must ensure that no one who is unable to partake in the Eucharist ever attends a celebration of the Eucharist.
"The doors, the doors!"
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I'm pretty much with Forthview on this.
It seems to me that the "don't invite people to an event they can't participate in" reasoning misses a couple of things.
One, a church service is not a social party at which the bride and groom are the hosts. It's a religious event that's important to the bride and groom. For those who don't think weddings should have closed communion, do you also think a member of a closed communion church should not invite a friend to come to church with her to a communion service?
Two, there are lots of parts of a wedding, or any religious service, that not everyone gets to do the same thing as everyone else. The congregation doesn't go up in the pulpit to read the preacher's notes. At a funeral, while several people may be chosen to give remembrances, it's the rare funeral where everyone is then invited to share their own remembrances during the service (although I have experienced it). At most weddings I've been at, the congregation doesn't process down the aisle with the wedding party.
So it seems to me that there's something about what communion represents that leads to a position that it's wrong to have a wedding with communion where not everyone is permitted to take communion, that makes communion the flashpoint for "it's wrong to invite people to a service with a part that they're not allowed to participate in."
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ad Orientem: It's just a crappy reason not to have the sacrament, because some people aren't able to partake of it. It's absurd. Shall we stop having the sacrament altogether so as not to upset the catechumens and penitents?
I don't know who the catechuments and the penitents are.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
