|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Blessed Sacrament
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
As Nick Tamen mentions we have differing expectations and differing understandings of what the words 'Real Presence' and even the words 'Holy Communion' mean.
Whether we receive in the hand or on the tongue, whether the consecrated bread is in the form of a wafer or some other form is not too important.
As some posters mention there are differing ideas as to how to show reverence for the Sacred Species. Even with the Host being put directly onto the tongue there can be abuses and sacrilege
but it is important for Catholics anyway to accept that there need not be any sacrilege in receiving Communion in to the hand. Even Episcopal conferences which do not allow Communion in the hand have to accept that there need not be sacrilege.
Episcopal conferences can indeed ban Communion in the hand, but they cannot ban Communion on the tongue.
For me one of the important things is that Communion is offered to the member of the Church.
Bishops ordain priests to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice and to give Communion to the faithful, they ordain deacons also to distribute Communion AND it is with the permission and mandate from the bishop that Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist distribute Communion.
All this is done in the name of the Church community and certainly in the Roman Rite the communicant will say Amen on receiving the Host, thus signifying acceptance and agreement.
My own very personal rule is to receive Communion normally in the hand if standing and to receive on the tongue if kneeling.
So far no-one has mentioned Communion under both signs, bread and wine, normal, of course, for most non- Roman rite Christians, including Catholics but relatively new for Roman Catholics.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adam.:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[qb] Those who hark back to the practise of communciating in the hand in the early Church usually omit to mention that it was very different from the current version of the practise .... For a start, there was customarily a pure linen cloth
I find this hard to believe.
How early is this 'early church'?
Citation please.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Those who hark back to the practise of communciating in the hand in the early Church usually omit to mention that it was very different from the current version of the practise .... For a start, there was customarily a pure linen cloth
I find this hard to believe.
And yet it appears to have been true, at least in the case of women communicants who brought this cloth (the dominica) with them for that very purpose.
At this time of night and after a 20 mile walk, all I have had the energy to find is this short article,* which attests to this practise in the women of the time (though it unfortunately does not cite its source: see p. 7). The article nonetheless makes clear that communion in the hand in the early Church was a country mile away from the current practisc, in both good and what we would now think of as some slightly questionable ways.
Just one quote from this paper from St Cyril which is usually used to justify the current practice: quote:
Approaching therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding “Amen”. Then, carefully sanctifying the eyes by touching them with the holy Body, partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it. For if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones?
It was precisely the greater chance of profanation of the Sacrament through accidental loss or inculcating superstitious sentiments by touching the organs of sense with the Host and smearing them with the Precious Blood that led to the discouragement and elimination of that practice by the Middle Ages.
*If the letters "SSPX" in the url give anyone the heebie-jeebies, don't jump to conclusions - this is merely the best laid-out source of the paper I could find, and the author was but a critical friend rather than an adherent of the Society.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
The most important word I used in my last posting was intimacy. I bow to no-one in my love of the sacraments, but without intimacy they detract from the incarnation they are intending to highlight. It's the contrast between the liturgy of preparations and the intimacy of administration that for me completes the sacrament. None of the actions discussed remove the intimacy but nearly all the attitudes do by making people more scared of getting it wrong than they are joyful about approaching God. I can't help feeling that this is part of the intention when ritualism sets in. The church becomes self sufficient and God literally a token presence.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
So far no-one has mentioned Communion under both signs, bread and wine, normal, of course, for most non- Roman rite Christians, including Catholics but relatively new for Roman Catholics.
I was just thinking about that.
I find it very odd - and, almost, UNreverent - when I witness Communion being offered in only one kind. How did this become the norm for the RCC?
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Kindly refrain from calling Catholic communion "odd" and "unreverent."
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
She didn't; she said she finds it that way. The Church doesn't use quite that language, but I think gets at the same thing by calling communion in one kind less full.
To cite MR3:
quote:
Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Kindly refrain from calling Catholic communion "odd" and "unreverent."
Dear Ceremoniar,
There is no need to engage in 'junior hosting'. If unacceptable comments or terms are used, then rest assured we will deal with them.
At this point, no such transgression has occurred. St Deird is entitled to express her opinions.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
When trained up to deliver the chalice I was instructed that if I suspected someone hadn't consumed the host then I was to give the vicar the nod; on occasion he did plunge into the congregation and tell someone "eat That".
Oh lord. Any other long-term shipmates having a flashback to a notorious historical thread where an ex-shippie created a bit of a flap recounting his experiences of 'Eat it! Eat it now!'? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Ref, recieving the blest bread. I confess to feeling unsettled at the sight of Anglicans Who Should Know Better picking up the bread from their palms to pop into their mouths. It's probably because I was taught - and have usually taught others - to create a 'cross' or 'cradle' with their two hands and put the host direct to their lips. Allowing for those who are perhaps unable to do this, it just seems untidy which gives an impression of the receiver not being aware of what they're actually doing.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I'm going to pursue my theme a little further.
The real scandal of the eucharist occurs when the consecrated elements reach the tongue, however they get there. Then the body of Christ feeds human flesh, the blood of Christ is absorbed into it.
Intimacy indeed. Beyond the reach even of the GIRM and similar publications.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
While in the early church all those present would communicate, others not members of the community would remain outside. They would be present at the Liturgy of the Word, but not at the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Similarly those under ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) would not be allowed to participate until they had been reconciled with the Church.
(In a way it is the same nowadays in the Catholic church, except that those who are not members of the community and those who are conscious of serious sin, while allowed to be present at the Eucharist ,are not encouraged to receive.)
The faithful would receive both the consecrated bread and wine, though when taking Communion to the Sick it would be easier to take only the consecrated bread. Similarly with reservation it was easier only to reserve the consecrated bread.
With a growth of appreciation of the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, came a growing sense of unworthiness to participate in Communion and the Church had to insist that Communion should be received at least once a year 'at Easter or thereabouts' or as Viaticum as one was dying.
We have heard much here about reverence for the Sacred Species and this led to the reception of Communion under the form of bread alone from about the 12th century, due to fear of spillage of the Precious Blood.
Most of the communities who broke away from the Catholic church insisted that Communion should be offered under both signs. The Catholic church said that as Christ was truly present 'Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity' in both signs,
reception under the form of bread alone was more than sufficient.
Just as the Catholics and Orthodox rarely received Communion it was the same for the non-Roman Christians.
We have to come to the 20th century, where in the wake of a real liturgical revival (including the Oxford Movement in the Anglican church) that the Catholic Church in the person of pope Pius X (1903 - 1914) actively encouraged regular reception of Communion. Fast forward to Vatican 2 (1962- 5) which made the rules surrounding the reception of Communion much simpler and more actively encouraged the reception of Communion by the faithful attending Mass. This was followed by the encouragement of reception of Communion under both signs.
Habits and customs being what they are, some older Catholics, as well as those who value pre Vatican 2 practices, will not receive from the Chalice.
Offering the Chalice to the faithful is very common in some countries, but virtually unknown in others and that is not necessarily in the more conservative Catholic countries.
Eastern rite Catholics have always received Communion under both signs, though as you probably know ,Communion is offered ,under the sign of bread already dipped in the Precious Blood and spooned by the priest in a deft movement directly into the mouth.
The revival of regular reception of Communion in the Catholic church has in a ripple effect, just like other effects of Vatican 2, extended to other Christian communities such as the Anglican church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The revival of regular reception of Communion in the Catholic church has in a ripple effect, just like other effects of Vatican 2, extended to other Christian communities such as the Anglican church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
Ditto for this side of the pond. It is particularly interesting how this ripple effect has helped move Presbyterian churches in the direction consistently advocated by Calvin, whose insistence on weekly (at least) communion was rebuffed by the Geneva Council—largely because requiring communion 4 times a year seemed like a big enough step from once a year. Calvin once wrote about the failure to move to weekly communion: "I have taken care to record publicly that our custom is defective, so that those who come after me may be able to correct it the more freely and easily." It's a bit ironic that the Catholics helped us rediscover and move closer to Calvin's ideal.
[ 22. May 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... The revival of regular reception of Communion in the Catholic church has in a ripple effect, just like other effects of Vatican 2, extended to other Christian communities such as the Anglican church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
I'm not convinced that is historically the correct direction of flow for the ripple.
In the mid C20, in most CofE churches, Communion was at 8am, and people were encouraged to attend and communicate at least monthly.
quote:
from the late John Betjeman
Old men who never cheated, never doubted,
Communicated monthly, sit and stare
At the new suburb stretched beyond the runway
Where a young man lands hatless from the air.
In the post war years, well before Vatican II, however, churches were introducing a mid-morning Family Communion service as the Principal Service at least once a month, at which most of those who were confirmed would expect to, and be expected to, communicate.
However, the people who really seemed to have first introduced the idea that the Principal Service should be Communion, at which all who were entitled to receive, would receive, were the Brethren, who were doing this from the mid nineteenth century. They would, though, have called it either 'the Lord's Supper' or the 'Breaking of Bread'.
Whether the RCC was influenced by either of these ripples, I cannot say, but I don't think it can claim that Vatican II was the source from which all others got the idea.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
. . . I don't think it can claim that Vatican II was the source from which all others got the idea.
Given Forthview's earlier reference to "liturgical revival" (in which he included the Oxford Movement—I might add Mercersburg Theology and the Church Service Society as well) and to Pope Pius X, I took him to be referring to the Liturgical Movement that, at least as I understand it, started in the Catholic Church, with parallel movements in the churches of the Reformation, and that could be said to have culminated in Vatican II. Seems fair enough to me.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Of course I accept that the ripple effect goes all ways in ecclesiastical life.
At the time of the Protestant Reformation the different Protestant groups made certain demands and the Catholic Church took stock of its own situation at the Council of Trent.
Service should be held in the language of the people, said the Protestants. 400 years later the Catholic Church accepted this.
Communion should be offered under signs of bread and wine . 400 years the Catholic church agreed with this.
Many Protestants were willing to accept baptism of infants but wished that baptisms should take place in the presence of the whole community. 400 years later, the Catholic Church now encourages this.
If you go into a Catholic church nowadays you will usually find the baptismal font at the entrance to the sanctuary, rather than at the door of the church as was earlier the case.
Anglican churches were and are not still subject to regulations coming from Rome.
You will still, I think, usually find baptismal fonts at the door.
The Council of Trent encouraged the removal of rood screens so that people could see the celebration of Mass clearly. The rood screen was lowered to a small separation wall, generally called after that the communion rail, marking the division between the nave and the choir. Vatican 2 has encouraged the removal of the communion rail also.
An Anglican church will often still have a pulpitum or rood screen, many of them being put in also in Victorian times.
Just like the 8 a.m. service in Anglican churches
Catholics over 100 years ago would generally communicate sacramentally at early Masses. In my childhood church there was Mass on Sundays at 6.00,7.30 and 9.15 and even at 7.30 a simple distribution of Communion from the Tabernacle.
While pope Pius X encouraged more frequent Communion, once a month was considered more than adequate. Of course Pius only set a papal seal on a movement which had been growing for almost 100 years previously.
I applaud the practice of the Brethren to introduce weekly communion or 'breaking of bread' to their services. It is ,however, highly unlikely that Pius X in Rome had ever heard of the Brethren , let alone be influenced by them.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I like your last para! Regarding the one before that, I read recently that early reformers thought they were pushing it to get the general congregation to take communion 4 times a year - up from annual observance in the mediaeval church. I can't find the quote, but Calvin may have written that he'd like it to take place a whole lot more often than that, and that it was up to his successors to push on, and not let traditions which had become fixed in his own time become a new fixed orthopraxy.
[Pushing on with my recent 'religion for dummies' reading my source is 'The reformation - a very short introduction', Marshall, OUP. This whole short book takes our current theme of parallel reformations not only across different protestant approaches but also between and within Catholicism].
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I like your last para! Regarding the one before that, I read recently that early reformers thought they were pushing it to get the general congregation to take communion 4 times a year - up from annual observance in the mediaeval church. I can't find the quote, but Calvin may have written that he'd like it to take place a whole lot more often than that, and that it was up to his successors to push on, and not let traditions which had become fixed in his own time become a new fixed orthopraxy.
The Calvin quote I encounter most often with regard to his desire that his successors push on toward weekly communion is in my previous post, four up from yours. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
There are various other places he speaks to weekly communion. In his Institutes (IV.xvii.44), he says: “No assembly of the Church should be held without the word being preached, prayers being offered, the Lord’s supper administered, and alms given.” In 1537, he wrote to the Great Council of Geneva:
quote:
It would be desirable that the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ be in use at least once every Sunday when the congregation is assembled, in view of the great comfort which the faithful receive from it as well as the fruit of all sorts which it produces . . . . In fact, our Lord did not institute it to be commemorated two or three times a year, but for a frequent exercise of our faith and love which the Christian congregation is to use whenever it is assembled.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The real scandal of the eucharist occurs when the consecrated elements reach the tongue, however they get there. Then the body of Christ feeds human flesh, the blood of Christ is absorbed into it.
No argument from me there.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Intimacy indeed. Beyond the reach even of the GIRM and similar publications.
Beyond even the clutches of Opus Dei, the Inquisition and albino monk assasins too, I would venture to add.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Service should be held in the language of the people, said the Protestants. 400 years later the Catholic Church accepted this.
It didn't. It just happened that way in most places.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Communion should be offered under signs of bread and wine . 400 years the Catholic church agreed with this.
It didn't. An indult is still required.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The Council of Trent encouraged the removal of rood screens.
It didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Vatican 2 has encouraged the removal of the communion rail also.
It didn't.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
This time it is Chesterbelloc who makes me dizzy.
Virtually all Catholic churches of the Roman rite nowadays will celebrate the liturgy in the language used by the people who are participating.
Of course there is a place for the Latin language and there is also a place for the celebration of the Roman Rite using the form of Mass established by the Council of Trent. Within the city of Edinburgh there are 25 Roman rite churches plus a number of convents. I only know of one church where the Latin Mass is celebrated regularly.
It is common in all these churches to offer Communion under the forms of bread and wine. No-one is obliged to receive Communion from the Chalice. A rough and ready estimate would be that about 70% do so. Probably the same percentage receive Communion in the hand.
I accept that there is an Indult but the Indult comes from the highest ecclesiastical authorities.
As I said earlier there are countries where Communion is not normally offered under both signs. Poland,as one would expect,
but it is very rare in France,Spain and Italy.
Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully with the Council of Trent 'encouraging' the removal of rood screens. There may not have been anything written but there was a definite movement at that time to move away from the 'mystery' of the celebration of Mass. Encouraged by the newly formed Jesuit order
rood screens were removed all over Central Europe.
In the baroque mode,instead of looking up to Heaven via dreaming spires, Heaven came down to earth in the baroque churches where the celebration of High Mass was made more visible
by the removal of the screen. What was left to separate nave from choir was as far as lay people would go to receive Communion.
Again Vatican 2 may not have mandated removal of the communion rail, but it certainly 'encouraged' it in the way that I have just explained previously. Now personally I regret the removal of the communion rail, but it has happened in many,many churches.
As a faithful Catholic it would be good for us all to visit many Catholic churches and observe what the people of God are doing.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Virtually all Catholic churches of the Roman rite nowadays will celebrate the liturgy in the language used by the people who are participating.
Whether the Church has "accepted" that worship "should" be in the vernacular is not an issue that can be settled by numbers, really. Vatican II - an official voice of the Church - actually called for the retention of Latin in the Mass. The Church did not "decide" to adopt the vernacular as the normative language of worship; it just happened that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I accept that there is an Indult [for Communion from the chalice] but the Indult comes from the highest ecclesiastical authorities.
All indults do! But my point is that it is an indult - permission for an exception to the stipulated norm. The norm remains - for Latin-Rite churches - communication in one kind only.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully with the Council of Trent 'encouraging' the removal of rood screens.
Since Trent said precisely nothing about rood screens, it simply cannot be said to have encouraged their removal. About the most you could claim was that "the Spirit of Trent" was invoked by those who removed them.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Again Vatican 2 may not have mandated removal of the communion rail, but it certainly 'encouraged' it in the way that I have just explained previously.
No, I don't think that will do - that's too much of a stretch. Again, it said nothing whatsoever about communion/altar rails - a large body of the Fathers of that Council would have had quite a lot to say about that, as with Communion in the hand, if consulted. The most you could claim would be that those who took it upon themselves to interpret the "spirit" of the Council used this as an excuse for their removal. That is all.
Sorry to be picky, but so much terrible damage has been done to the Church by people who claim the that VCII "encourged" or "called for" this or that act of vandalism, to bully others into accepting their personal agendas, that I think it is vital to be precise about this.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
The Calvin quote I encounter most often with regard to his desire that his successors push on toward weekly communion is in my previous post, four up from yours.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I've been reading the book on the reformation I mentioned, which gave my shit memory every opportunity to be sure that quote was in the book (but I couldn't find it, of course..because it was in the f****** thread!)
I'm so sorry.
I once knew someone who told you your own stories back, as if they happened to him. He was either an arse or did too much pot for the good of his memory. Well, I lack the latter excuse...
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I've been reading the book on the reformation I mentioned, which gave my shit memory every opportunity to be sure that quote was in the book (but I couldn't find it, of course..because it was in the f****** thread!)
I'm so sorry.
No problem at all, and no need to apologize. I read your post and thought "Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one who does that sometimes." All is well.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The Church is the mystical Body of Jesus Christ.
It is the People of God on their way towards eternity. The liturgy is the people's work.
I am glad to be part of the community of the People of God. That is where I see the Church.
Don't get me wrong. I love or certainly did love the Tridentine Latin Mass and I am glad to be able to participate in its celebration from time to time.
I also love to see a church which has maintained
the altar rails, the tabernacle in the centre and the traditional six candles. I'm happy to participate also in the (relatively) new way of celebrating the liturgy and am delighted to see more of the faithful able to take a more active part in what is a community celebration.
I accept that the Vatican Council has not been an unmitigated success. Fifty years after the Council we are now able to evaluate it better.
For those who were Catholics before the Council it has been like living through the Reformation period 400 years ago.
However not everything from the pre Conciliar time was wonderful either. Tradition and habits led to some things which seem strange nowadays.
For example, because Communion had to be received fasting from midnight, some people would go to church early, receive Communion from the tabernacle, go home and have breakfast and then come back for the celebration of Mass, a Mass at which they would not receive Communion.
The Second Vatican Council, while certainly not laying aside the idea of 'shewing forth the death of the Lord' wished to emphasise that the Mass is a family meal of the people of God and that as many of the people as possible should have an active role in the celebration.
The removal of the altar rails is something which has tried to lessen the distinction between a clerical caste and the rest of the People of God.
Were things to go back to what they were over 50 years ago I could easily accept it, as long as I were able to remain within the mainstream of the People of God in the Catholic church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
On a different thread there has been some discussion about the difference between 'core' and 'culture'
Is the use of the Latin language in the Catholic church part of the 'core' of the Catholic faith ?
Is the use of the Tridentine rite of Mass part of the 'core' or the 'culture'
Is the use of a rood screen or a communion rail part of the 'core' or the 'culture' ?
IF Latin is 'core' what about the many Catholics who use other rites where Latin has never been used ?
IF Tridentine rite is 'core' and certainly mandated by the Council of Trent what about the other Latin rites, such as Dominican, Ambrosian etc ?
If we think that the Tridentine rite is the only mandated rite for Latin Catholics ,then are we allowed to change it as has happened down the centuries with the addition of new Feast Days and the setting aside of others ? If we have been able to change it up to 1962 then why not afterwards if the changes are authorised by the Supreme Pontiff ?
Are rood screens and communion rails of the 'esse' of the Church or simply ,at certain times and places, of the 'bene esse' of the Church ? Even the Byzantine rite Catholic church in Edinburgh has no rood screen/iconostasis.
Whatever is not part of the 'core' of the Church teaching can be changed,whether we think the changes are a good thing or not.
If we believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be then we need have no fear that the Lord will be with us, as He said, to the end of time.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
However not everything from the pre Conciliar time was wonderful either.
I doubt there is anyone who believes that it was.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The Second Vatican Council, while certainly not laying aside the idea of 'shewing forth the death of the Lord' wished to emphasise that the Mass is a family meal of the people of God
This rather clouds over a point of central importance: that whilst the Mass is indeed a sacred ritual meal it is pre-eminently a propitiatory sacrifice, with Christ as both priest and victim, identical with the Sacrifice of Calvary (but for the latter's unbloody nature). That's dogma, that is.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
and that as many of the people as possible should have an active role in the celebration.
If you mean the actuosa participatio called for by the Council, it exhorted that not "as many as possible" but that all should participate in this way. Only, this form of participation does not entail everyone running around and "doing a job" but that everyone should above all have a "full conscious and active" interior participation in the rite.
There are certainly external ways of manifesting that interior participation too: singing the parts proper to the congregation, adopting the postures of kneeling, standing, bowing, making the sign of the Cross, takimg part in processions, and so on. But many of the Council Fathers actually warned against letting it be thought than an "external/doing jobs" interpretation of that phrase was primarily meant. For example, I doubt if anything other than a tiny minority (if any) of the Fathers could have forseen (or would not have been alarmed at the thought of) their decree being used to justify the introduction of innumerable ranks of ubiquitous "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist".
As to your other post, I really think addressing that would take us way out of the remit of Eccles. By all means, put your queries to me on the Purg thread.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Active participation does not necessarily mean running around. Until the 1960s in the UK at least only the altar servers would have answered the priest and singing would have been possibly one hymn in English at a Sunday Sung Mass.
Yes,active participation can be that interior contemplation of the august mystery taking place before our eyes ( thanks to the removal of rood screens in the period after the Council of Trent)
But it is easier to have a more active participation when people can follow more easily in their own language.
Both aspects of the Eucharistic liturgy are important BOTH the propitiatory sacrifice and the family meal. The meal aspect for many centuries was somewhat downplayed. You may think now that it is overemphasised.
In the two main parishes which I regularly attend one priest celebrates the liturgy three times for an attendance figure of 600 +. Were he to distribute Communion personally to all these people it would be a lot of work, particularly were he to offer Communion in both kinds. In a church where all are equally members of the Church
lay ministers (commissioned by the bishop) are necessary.
We have to see the Church as she tries to serve a wider group of people than those who value highly (just as I myself do!) the Latin Mass. That is why I ask you to have faith with those who want to be Catholics and who want to be as inclusive as possible. Don't be afraid to go to a mainstream diocesan church sometime. Things will not be perfect but they will be just as authentically Catholic.
I don't have any queries, so maybe we should let matters rest.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Active participation does not necessarily mean running around. Until the 1960s in the UK at least only the altar servers would have answered the priest and singing would have been possibly one hymn in English at a Sunday Sung Mass.
True, and I'm certainly not suggesting we go back to the pre-1962 UK norm.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Yes, active participation can be that interior contemplation of the august mystery taking place before our eyes.
My point is that it is necessarily (and more importantly) that interior attentiveness. The external participation would mean nothing unless it fostered the inner devotion; the inner devotion would still be valuable without so much as blinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
But it is easier to have a more active participation when people can follow more easily in their own language.
People can follow what's going on (and be attached to it spiritually) in their own language without the rite being celebrated in their own language.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Both aspects of the Eucharistic liturgy are important BOTH the propitiatory sacrifice and the family meal. The meal aspect for many centuries was somewhat downplayed. You may think now that it is overemphasised.
Most of the "family meal" thinking has been pretty much invented in the last 60 years. The meal aspect, from the earliest time, was always sacral and ritual - even from its very origin in the Upper Room.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In the two main parishes which I regularly attend one priest celebrates the liturgy three times for an attendance figure of 600 +. Were he to distribute Communion personally to all these people it would be a lot of work, particularly were he to offer Communion in both kinds. In a church where all are equally members of the Church
lay ministers (commissioned by the bishop) are necessary.
They are pricipally "necessary" because Communion is so frequently distributed in both kinds, almost everyone receives at every Mass, and there is a serious shortage of Ordinary Ministers (i.e., deacons and priests). If you have seen (as you will have) a single priest administer the Host to a large body of people kneeling in a row at an commuinion rail, you will know how little time it acually takes to do so reverently - the moreso with the shorter form of the words of administration ("Corpus Christi"). Also, Communion is a sacred moment - does it have to be over as quickly as possible?
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
That is why I ask you to have faith with those who want to be Catholics and who want to be as inclusive as possible.
I keep faith with all my fellow Catholics, but I can't make myself like all that they might want to "include".
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Don't be afraid to go to a mainstream diocesan church sometime.
I do so with great frequency.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Things will not be perfect but they will be just as authentically Catholic.
Some things are objectively less "authentically Catholic" than others and there's a lot of variation out there; so I'm not sure what makes you confident that whatever I encounter will be "authentically Catholic". I've seen plenty of things over decades of Mass attendance that are anything but "authentically Catholic" - abuses and errors aplenty. I would be astonished if you had not also. The old rite is not immune from them either, of course, and I don't pretend that it is; but followed to the letter of the rubrics, there's a lot less room for most types of "liturical abuse".
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I don't have any queries, so maybe we should let matters rest.
Then since it seems that your questions a few posts up were rhetorical, I'm happy to let this be my last contribution to this exchange. Pax tecum.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
They are pricipally "necessary" because Communion is so frequently distributed in both kinds, almost everyone receives at every Mass, and there is a serious shortage of Ordinary Ministers (i.e., deacons and priests). If you have seen (as you will have) a single priest administer the Host to a large body of people kneeling in a row at an commuinion rail, you will know how little time it acually takes to do so reverently - the moreso with the shorter form of the words of administration ("Corpus Christi"). Also, Communion is a sacred moment - does it have to be over as quickly as possible?
Here in the States it is not uncommon to see Communion distributed by the EMHCs while the Deacon sits on a chair in the sanctuary.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
And that speaks volumes.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... I keep faith with all my fellow Catholics, but I can't make myself like all that they might want to "include". ...
As a matter of pious curiosity, do you equally extend to them the privilege of not having to like the things you might want to see included - or for that matter, liking things that you'd prefer to see left out?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... I keep faith with all my fellow Catholics, but I can't make myself like all that they might want to "include". ...
As a matter of pious curiosity, do you equally extend to them the privilege of not having to like the things you might want to see included - or for that matter, liking things that you'd prefer to see left out?
"Extend to them the privilege"? Truly, I don't have so delusive an opinion of myself as that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I recall being intrigued, and not a little puzzled, when I first moved to this area by the Presbyterian practice of celebrating communion on only 4 occasions in the year. My initial assumption was that this formed some part of the direction of either Knox or Calvin, and like others was surprised to find that both had advocated at least weekly celebration. My current understanding is that the infrequency of celebration was partly out of reverence but also because of the extensive process of penitence required in former times. Is anyone able to clarify or expand on this?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
You will still find it fairly customary in a number of the strands of the Free Church to have a week's preparation for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
In the not so distant past there was also a Fast day before the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
As was the tradition in the Catholic church Communion was felt to be so special that it should not be received too often.
Similarly a good number of the parishioners would not approach the Holy Table. Of course in practice the Holy Table was not approached by anyone as Communion was passed round in the form of bread as well as the famous wee cuppies.
Those who were not going to receive would sit in the galleries or if no galleries they would not sit 'in the body of the kirk.
On the other hand some people would go to other parishes to participate in the Lord's Supper there.
It is said that the Fast days which were usually held on the Friday before Communion are the origins of the confusing Monday holidays in Scotland. They were changed from Friday to Monday when it became clear that people were not necessarily fasting on a day free from work, so the holidays were moved away from the Friday.
Are there not any Free churches where you are ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't know about the Kirk, but in the Baptist tradition it was (and still is in some places) common for Communion to be celebrated privately in a separate service after the main service. Only those "in the know" would attend - and in some jurisdictions, non-members are not even told that it was going to happen. The idea of membership-only communion has dwindled in many, but not all, of the various flavours of Baptists in the West if not elsewhere.
I also think it is still uncommon for Baptists to celebrate communion on a very regular basis, usually once or twice a month.
I'd imagine this was originally about purity and purification of the membership to ensure worthiness, but in more recent times I think is more likely to be related to practical and historical precedence/tradition.
On a personal note, I've found this thread really eye-opening, so thank you all for your contributions. There is much here that I had been totally unaware of, particularly relating to RCC practice.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My current understanding is that the infrequency of celebration was partly out of reverence but also because of the extensive process of penitence required in former times. Is anyone able to clarify or expand on this?
The reverence and extensive process of preparation were not really the reasons for quarterly communion to start with, at least not in Geneva, but they were certainly part of the reason that quarterly communion persisted for so long.
The practice in Calvin's Geneva, which formed the basis for practice in Reformed churches elsewhere, has to be considered in the context of the pre-Reformation practice. Prior to the Reformation, the norm would of course have been celebration of the sacrament every Sunday, but most people would only have communed once a year, during Easter. In other words, there was no expectation that the entire congregation would commune at every celebration of the sacrament.
The expectation of Calvin and others was weekly celebration and communion by all (or mostly all) present at every celebration. That's what the Geneva city council resisted—they thought it was too big a leap to go from communing once a year to communing every week. Their compromise, then, was communion four times a year. (Calvin got another compromise at one point; he arranged that the four communions Sundays would be different in each congregation in Geneva, so that communion would be celebrated in at least one church every Sunday.)
Preparation for communion would certainly have been part of Calvin's plan, built into the weekly structure. (He suggested the use of tokens, but the Geneva council rejected that as well.) But certainly with time, that preparation became more formalized and extensive, which did reinforce quarterly celebration. And of course, there came a time where "this is how we've always done it" came into play—that and the idea that communion wouldn't be "special" if we did it every week, which is the reverence factor from a different angle.
I can't speak to Scotland, but in the U.S., monthly communion has become the norm for most Presbyterians, and weekly communion can be found. The move toward weekly communion has been officially advocated for 50+ years now.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
At an urban Presby church where I subbed occasionally for the organist, they adopted the practice of 'early communion' -- that is the 8:30 am service involved all (or most) of the congo coming forward and forming a circle around the Holy Table for the communion service (can't remember what they called it) and passing a loaf (on a salver) and a common cup from one to the other. Two of the elders would then serve those who had remained in the pews.
Don't know how common this practice is, though.
Also, on the subject of fasting:
I have the church roll and minute book from my great grandmother's Southern Methodist (US) congo. from about 1880. All the members are listed, together with their 'state in grace,' and on the first page is inscribed 'Remember the Friday before the Quarterly Meeting as a day of fasting and prayer.' Holy Communion would presumably have been observed at that QM.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Nick
One of the reasons clearly stated for favouring the Strasbourg model was that weekly communion did not give adequate time for catechism of the people in preparation. To quote Elsie Ann McKee
quote:
from Christian Worship in Reformed Churches Past and Present pg 19
A particular concern of Calvin's was that right participation in the Lord's Supper necessitated prior repentance, trust in God and reconciliation with one's neighbours. The value placed on preparation and discipline is usually regarded as distinctively Reformed, but in addition its corporate character must also be noted
To pick up McNeill writing of Calvin's first stay in Geneva:
quote:
The History and Character of Calvinism pg 138-139
The reason for the Calvinist discipline is not, as is often supposed, to be discovered in premises of ethical and scriptural legalism but in the sense of 'the holy' and in reverence for the sacrament as the meeting of Christ and his people and of the people as one body in Christ
Barring of people from Communion goes back at least as far as Geneva with the most obvious event being his dispute with the Libertines
I am sorry I have mislaid my copy of Reforming Worship so can not quote from David Cornick's magisterial essay on Communion during the Reformation.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Nick
One of the reasons clearly stated for favouring the Strasbourg model was that weekly communion did not give adequate time for catechism of the people in preparation. . . .
Thanks, Jengie Jon. I stand somewhat corrected; concern for preparation and reverence may indeed have played a bigger part at the start than I gave credit for being the case. There can be a fair amount of interplay, of course, between these concerns and concerns over whether people were ready to move from annual communion to weekly communion.
I would say, though, that Calvin clearly did not view the preparation needed prior to communion to be incompatible with weekly communion.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
At an urban Presby church where I subbed occasionally for the organist, they adopted the practice of 'early communion' -- that is the 8:30 am service involved all (or most) of the congo coming forward and forming a circle around the Holy Table for the communion service (can't remember what they called it) and passing a loaf (on a salver) and a common cup from one to the other. Two of the elders would then serve those who had remained in the pews.
Don't know how common this practice is, though.
Not particularly common for an early morning communion service (a la Episcopalians before the 1979 prayer book), but not so rare as to take anyone by surprise. I've belonged to two congregations that had this practice. I think I read somewhere that perhaps 10% of PC(USA) congregations now have weekly communion, either at at least one Sunday service or at all Sunday services.
One practice that a number of congregations I know of have adopted, or at least tried, is to have communion every Sunday of Easter. This serves both as a time-limited trial run of weekly communion and a counter to services so-solemn-as-to-be-dour that some congregations were used to.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Are there not any Free churches where you are ?
One CofS, one Baptist, one independent house church. The CofS retains the 4 times annually communion (though now with an additional celebration on Maundy Thursday) but the service of preparation on the Friday prior ceased shortly after I arrived here. I gather more frequent celebration is common in many mainland parishes.
Incidentally, I understood that the wee cuppies were a relatively late introduction, around the turn of the last century, and that the CofS used the common cup prior to that. Happy to be corrected if that's not the case.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I think that is pbssiblyly correct about the 'wee cuppies' say I ,who have little personal connection with the Kirk.
Just the other day I was in St Andrew's and St George's (West) in George St. Edinburgh. There was an exhibition of communion cups from the 18th century. You will find such common cups on display in a good many Presbyterian churches.
I've never seen a display of 'wee cuppies' only seen them being used at an actual Lord's Supper.
There are quite often in older churches displays also of communion tokens which have been mentioned on this thread.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Sorry about misspelling of 'possibly'
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
"Wee Cuppies" are liturgically a recent innovation wherever they occur. They grew in popularity during Victorian health scares iirc.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know about the Kirk, but in the Baptist tradition it was (and still is in some places) common for Communion to be celebrated privately in a separate service after the main service. Only those "in the know" would attend - and in some jurisdictions, non-members are not even told that it was going to happen. The idea of membership-only communion has dwindled in many, but not all, of the various flavours of Baptists in the West if not elsewhere.
I also think it is still uncommon for Baptists to celebrate communion on a very regular basis, usually once or twice a month.
I'd imagine this was originally about purity and purification of the membership to ensure worthiness, but in more recent times I think is more likely to be related to practical and historical precedence/tradition.
On a personal note, I've found this thread really eye-opening, so thank you all for your contributions. There is much here that I had been totally unaware of, particularly relating to RCC practice.
The practice of a separate communion service has ceased in Baptist Churches - at least in those in covenant through the Baptist Union of Great Britain. I can't recall it happening (much) since the late 1980's.
The last time I can remember it happening was in a Baptist Church in Scotland (part of the BU) where communion followed the service. We were invited to stay provided we had a recommendation from the Minister.
There are still some independent Baptist Churches (Grace Baptist - once known as Strict and Particular Baptist Churches) who still have separate communion services. In one case in Bedfordshire the practice until 2010 of so was to hold a Sunday afternoon Communion Service, with the doors locked.
In our own fellowship, membership of the local church is not yardstick for entry to communion. Our invitation to share is open to all who know, love and serve Christ. People are served where they sit and I usually go into the Creche and other classes to pray there too. I will also go up to and pray for any children in the church who don't receive communion. [We share communion as an full all age community about once a quarter].
We have communion twice a month - although it is available for the housebound and those in hospital. Some of our home groups will also share communion as part of a common meal.
The "wee cups" idea reflects a historic link between many Non Conformist churches and the temperance movement. Many church deeds prohibit the drinking of any alcohol on church premises, the church being very conscious of the position of various people in the congregation who have had or do have issues with alcohol dependency. No alcohol means that, for health and hygiene reasons, the small cups are used.
In actual fact, it is incorrect to claim as some do that the presence of alcohol serves as a disinfectant once in the chalice. The abv of the wine used in most churches is way below that of an alcohol gel as used in hand wash and you are therefore open to infection by using a shared cup. Worse still if people intinct.
My wife and daughter who are both nurses would never use a shared cup - health concerns overriding theological principles. My daughter - a specialist infection control nurse - points out the potential hazards inherent in the practice
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Not trying to be awkward, but how do we identify those who 'know, love and serve Christ'?
A Mormon or a JW would claim to do that.
How do any of us - in whatever tradition - go about determining the credentials of anyone who approaches the Lord's Table?
Ultimately, it seems to me, we have to take any of these things on trust.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It is interesting but it is an invitation and if you feel you are addressed by that invitation you are welcome to come up.
It has problems, not just that but the whole subjective nature of it makes it hard for individuals to decide what side of the line they fall. It can exclude those it is intended to include (e.g. believing Christians of other congregations who are not happy with the "loving Jesus" terminology) and include those it is intended to exclude.
There is no foolproof way of deciding who can come to communion and who cannot. I suspect that is because we are asking the wrong questions around communion.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
There is no foolproof way of deciding who can come to communion and who cannot. I suspect that is because we are asking the wrong questions around communion.
As you may know, the way the Grace Baptists (who are confusingly not a denomination, but rather an association of like-minded independent congregations) and other types of Independent Baptist/Evangelical churches do this is to only have Communion with people they actually know have been determined to be suitable. Which usually means people who are members of the church or at a stretch people who are members of another local congregation they know well.
Is it foolproof? Well, no, I guess a very deceptive person could say all the right things whilst being a "wolf in sheep's clothing".
But I guess a Grace Baptist - and others who think like this - would say that they've done everything possible to ensure that the Lord's Supper is not partaken dishonourably or extended to people who should not be taking it.
I guess there is quite a dramatic contrast to practice in (much of) the Anglican church where the Eucharist is extended as widely as possible.
I have to say that I'm much more inclined to the latter way of thinking than the former, albeit that I'd prefer if more Anglican churches encouraged confirmation before people took Communion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
"Wee Cuppies" are liturgically a recent innovation wherever they occur. They grew in popularity during Victorian health scares iirc.
Jengie
Coincidentally, reading Daniel Owen's novel Rhys Lewis (published 1885) last night I found a description of a Calvinistic Methodist communion service in NE Wales c 1850s (at a guess) using the shared cup. And Owen, as a chapel elder and sometime candidate for the ministry, knew what he was writing about.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
