|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Holy Communion considered harmful?
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Honestly as an atheist, I have never heard Holy Communion (other than mostly joking digs at transsubstantiation or comments about crackers) be cited as a remotely harmful part of Christianity. Ritual doesn't put people off - almost the reverse.
The Eucharist is part of the service. A few people come in for the service and the pageantry. A few get bored to tears with it (and prefer much more evangelical low-church worship). But the only people it directly puts off are Christians who migrate to other Christian denominations.
Now Substituionary Atonement puts people off. But that's a subject for a whole different thread.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
And perhaps I am being unduly suspicious, but a ceremony which has been the main rite of the established church for centuries is, I would have thought, unlikely to be there solely for the benefit of the ordinary punters.
The eucharist has also been the main rite of oppressed and persecuted people repeatedly and sustained them: the Greeks under the Turks, the Irish under the English, the Poles under whoever was slicing them up at the times, to name but three.
(Of course there's sacrificial imagery - that doesn't necessarily mean penal substitutionary atonement, which wasn't around at the time the Agnus Dei was introduced into the mass.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"? I was hoping I could pick up the answer from context, but that hasn't worked. It seems to be contentious.
(I do get the possibility that a pun on "ham sandwich" may be involved .... but ![[Confused]](confused.gif) )
It's a mildly derogatory term for, usually protestant, services that tend to alternate between hymns and (often only said by whoever is leading) prayers. Those of us from more sacramental traditions can find them a little flavourless, and without a sense of purpose.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I'm not sure what else the idea of Christ as a sacrificial offering implies, but some form of substitutionary atonement - if He takes away our sins by his sacrifice, then how else do you explain it, other than him being sacrificed on our account, as our substitute in some sense?
A lot of pro-PSA advocates say that sacrifice is a form of substitution. But if you look at the sacrificial rites in Leviticus, very few of them are substitutionary in form. The only one that's explicitly substitutionary is the scapegoat, and the scapegoat doesn't get killed. The scapegoat is not punished. Otherwise, they can only be said to be substitutionary in the most woolly and general of senses in which almost anything can be said to be substitutionary. (Eating is substitutionary because...)
To say that the lamb of God takes away the sin of the world does not of itself say that the lamb of God is punished in our place.
The problem here is that, aside from the eucharist itself, we don't have any sacrificial rites in our society by which to understand what goes on in a sacrifice. I think the essential element of a sacrifice is that something not sacred is made sacred, consecrated to divine use, perhaps by destruction but not always.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...The problem here is that, aside from the eucharist itself, we don't have any sacrificial rites in our society by which to understand what goes on in a sacrifice. I think the essential element of a sacrifice is that something not sacred is made sacred, consecrated to divine use, perhaps by destruction but not always.
Is there not almost always an element of propitiation in sacrifice? OK, the primary function of a sacrifice to the gods is to get them to do something of benefit for the worshippers, but on the other hand, if things are going badly for the people, then perhaps the gods are angry, and then offerings are made to make up with the gods, and to assuage their wrath.
So then why was Jesus sacrificed? The first answer is that he was sacrificed in order to gain the benefit of redemption from our sinfulness; the second that he was sacrificed to propritiate God's wrath at our sinfulness, then because he was God, he was the perfect sacrifice, and because he was Man he was our substitute, etc., etc.
The thing is, I'm not sure how you can properly separate out the two sides of sacrifice; if the worshippers don't sacrifice, then the gods will not look kindly on them versus if they do sacrifice, then the gods will stop being angry with them. They're just two sides of the same coin, IFAICS. You have sacrifice, you get PSA. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
And I still don't see what all this has to do with Jesus's teachings - OK, there is sacrifice in them in the modern sense of the word - making sacrifices of time, money, etc. in order to serve God - but that is sacrifice more in the sense of there being a price for everything, not sacrifice in the old pagan/Jewish sense of burnt offering.
OK, you can trace the steps by which the Eucharistic doctrine got there, but surely that is going back to square one, rather than going forward, and a million miles from the idea of eating bread and drinking wine in Jesus's memory, as the earliest accounts hold.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
a million miles from the idea of eating bread and drinking wine in Jesus's memory, as the earliest accounts hold.
Thanks for the memory. But for many of us, it isn't as just a memory. It is entering into an eternal reality.
And that wasn't such an odd idea for the Jews: at the Passover meal they still say " this is the night..." not "that was the night".
And the NT is full of talking about Jesus in language drawn from the sacrificial cult.
I'll post James Allison on sacrifice after the festive season is underway.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Holy Smoke
I don't agree that with sacrifice, you inevitably get PSA. Throughout the world, the notion of sacrifice has been linked to ideas such as self-abandonment, and the idea that those things which are separated, are now brought back together, or reconciled.
But this process involves a sacrifice, for sure, of my own ego-autonomy, and apparent conquest of reality.
And I think this idea (at-one-ment) is not all that alien in Christianity. In fact, see de Caussade, 'Self-Abandonment to Divine Providence', and many other works actually.
Simone Weil has the interesting idea of a double negation - that God withdraws, in order to create the world, and that if we negate ourselves, God returns. Possibly not all that orthodox, but interesting, and with some connections maybe with the Jewish idea of tzimtzum. However, going o/t.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Angloid (4) nice to the marginalized? The homeless, the afflicted, the addicted, the excluded, the angry, the imprisoned, the lonely, the nasty is unchallenging?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the things which occurs to me is that the OP seems to be speaking from within the Reformed tradition. OK, fair enough, but this seems rather parochial to me, and ignores sacramentalism, and also the mystical tradition in Christianity, which describes the idea of sacrifice in many areas. For example, 'The Cloud of Unknowing' argues that we have to sacrifice our own conceptions of God, in order to overcome the separation between us and God. So, there are almost two different languages (or maybe more than two), being spoken here. Well, translation is a difficult art.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So the question's so threatening it just has to be dismissed?
Not threatening, just nonsensical.
It's like saying that sex puts people off marriage.
Or that voting puts people off democracy.
To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial: quote:
As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But if you look at the sacrificial rites in Leviticus, very few of them are substitutionary in form. The only one that's explicitly substitutionary is the scapegoat, and the scapegoat doesn't get killed. The scapegoat is not punished. Otherwise, they can only be said to be substitutionary in the most woolly and general of senses in which almost anything can be said to be substitutionary. (Eating is substitutionary because...)
True, most of the sacrifices are not substitutionary. But some are. There are other sorts of sin-offering. Also the sacrifices at the time of the birth of a first-born son are portrayed as a sort of "redemption" of the child - as if the eldest son was due to be set aside for the LORD just as the first-fruits of any other harvest, and just as the first-born of domestic animals, and the parents somehow "buy them back" by sacrificing an animal.
quote:
The problem here is that, aside from the eucharist itself, we don't have any sacrificial rites in our society by which to understand what goes on in a sacrifice. I think the essential element of a sacrifice is that something not sacred is made sacred, consecrated to divine use, perhaps by destruction but not always.
Yes. We don't do sacrifice, we haven't for almost 1500 years, so it makes little sense to us unless we develop a sort of biblical/liturgical mental toolkit with which to think about it. Just one of many cultural differences that make reading the Bible - or any other text from a radically different culture - sometimes difficult. We don't do ritual cleanliness - as far as I know we didn't even before we we Christianised - so we tend to misread those laws. These days we don't really do deference any more. And we treat formality as socially distancing more than most cultures. (More even than Americans in my experience) Another potential interpretative minefield.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial: quote:
As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.
Except that you know perfectly well that there are at least some Christian churches that never celebrate the Eucharist, and many more that do so only rarely, and many Christians who attend church but abstain from Communion. You can't simly dismiss their experiences because they don't conform to your traditions.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Angloid (4) nice to the marginalized? The homeless, the afflicted, the addicted, the excluded, the angry, the imprisoned, the lonely, the nasty is unchallenging?
Of course not. But IMHO we are called to be much more than 'nice' to them. The idea of Christians being a group of Lady and Lord Bountifuls who strut around distributing our largesse is untrue to the reality of most of us and insulting to those on the receiving ends. We are called to live in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, and we can't do this out of any false sense of superiority, only through our solidarity with Jesus Christ. Participation in the Eucharist is par excellence the way to express this.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"? I was hoping I could pick up the answer from context, but that hasn't worked. It seems to be contentious.
(I do get the possibility that a pun on "ham sandwich" may be involved .... but )
It's a mildly derogatory term for, usually protestant, services that tend to alternate between hymns and (often only said by whoever is leading) prayers. Those of us from more sacramental traditions can find them a little flavourless, and without a sense of purpose.
Mmmm. A good job the church fathers and mothers, who spent so much time at vigils, hadn't heard this. You know vigils - those services that alternate hymn or psalm singing with prayer and scripture reading.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial: quote:
As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.
Except that you know perfectly well that there are at least some Christian churches that never celebrate the Eucharist, and many more that do so only rarely, and many Christians who attend church but abstain from Communion. You can't simly dismiss their experiences because they don't conform to your traditions.
No, but it raises the question, why should such churches regard the Eucharist as an optional extra, when for at least the first 1500 years of Christian history it was central. I know there are some understandable reasons for this, but it's not just a question of 'my tradition is as good as yours', rather 'is the traditional understanding inauthentic?'
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial: quote:
As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.
Ah, I see what you're getting at... But an extreme view, surely, even for a Catholic?
HS (brought up on weekly BCP Matins)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial: quote:
As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.
Ah, I see what you're getting at... But an extreme view, surely, even for a Catholic?
HS (brought up on weekly BCP Matins)
I tend to agree. In ecumenical relations, even within a denomination the Eucharist has become an elephant in the room that we don't like to talk about for fear of offending others.
Sacramental Christians feel and believe about the Eucharist as Charismatics feel about being filled with Spirit, or good Reformed Evangelicals about the bible. Central, transformational, a radical encounter with the living God, the highest form of Worship, the one true ongoing sacrifice of a broken spirit.
As an Anglican I may well turn to Wesleyan hymnody to express my experience of the Eucharist:
quote:
To Thee His passion we present,
Who for our ransom dies;
We reach by this great instrument
Th’ eternal sacrifice.
The Lamb His Father now surveys,
As on this altar slain,
Still bleeding and imploring grace
For every soul of man.
...
By faith and hope already there,
Even now the marriage-feast we share,
Even now we by the Lamb are fed;
Our Lord’s celestial joy we prove,
Led by the Spirit of His love,
To springs of living comfort led.
I believe that Eucharistic worship struggles when these beliefs are not communicated, out of doubt or out of politeness.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
...a ceremony which has been the main rite of the established church for centuries is, I would have thought, unlikely to be there solely for the benefit of the ordinary punters. There's just a little too much of 'pay, pray, and obey' about it for my liking...
People ask why people don't go to church any more - there's one possible reason, they realise at some level,...that the church is there for the benefit of the church, and that the rituals of the church serve to reinforce that.
Is Holy Communion itself the cause of thinking the church institution is all about benefiting institution and it's officers (clergy)? Don't clergy dominate non-communion services, too?
In this skeptical of authority age, (in USA) one can reasonably wonder if a doctor is ordering lots of tests for our health benefit or for his profit; of course some also wonder about the motivations of church officials.
What should a church do to convey "we are not focused on centralizing power in clergy and the institution"?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That Holy Communion 'puts some people off' goes back to the time of Jesus - see John 6 where the notion of eating (chewing - lit. meaning of the Greek word) jesus' flesh led to some going away.
If it was good enough for Jesus...
But are we worried that it's not kosher?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aravis
Shipmate
# 13824
|
Posted
It can be socially awkward to invite someone to church when the main service is always a Eucharist. If they have no Christian background whatsoever and simply want to see what a regular church service is like, it's not appropriate for them to receive communion, but on the other hand they may not be comfortable with the alternatives: going up to the rail and receiving a blessing when only the little kids are doing the same; sitting in their seat and waiting for you to come back; sitting with you and feeling they've prevented you going...
I had a Japanese friend who lived in Cardiff for a few years. If we'd had Morning Prayer from time to time she would have been interested in coming to see what the service was like, but she would have found the Eucharist an embarrassment for the above reasons - plus the idea of the communal chalice would have completely freaked her out. So I didn't invite her.
OK, it may seem trivial. But often it's the trivial reasons that stop people giving church a try.
Posts: 689 | From: S Wales | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"? I was hoping I could pick up the answer from context, but that hasn't worked. It seems to be contentious.
(I do get the possibility that a pun on "ham sandwich" may be involved .... but )
It's a mildly derogatory term for, usually protestant, services that tend to alternate between hymns and (often only said by whoever is leading) prayers. Those of us from more sacramental traditions can find them a little flavourless, and without a sense of purpose.
Mmmm. A good job the church fathers and mothers, who spent so much time at vigils, hadn't heard this. You know vigils - those services that alternate hymn or psalm singing with prayer and scripture reading.
These vigils in your misty rear view mirror were vigils for the Divine Liturgy the next day.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
It can be socially awkward to invite someone to church when the main service is always a Eucharist. If they have no Christian background whatsoever and simply want to see what a regular church service is like, it's not appropriate for them to receive communion, but on the other hand they may not be comfortable with the alternatives: going up to the rail and receiving a blessing when only the little kids are doing the same; sitting in their seat and waiting for you to come back; sitting with you and feeling they've prevented you going...
I had a Japanese friend who lived in Cardiff for a few years. If we'd had Morning Prayer from time to time she would have been interested in coming to see what the service was like, but she would have found the Eucharist an embarrassment for the above reasons - plus the idea of the communal chalice would have completely freaked her out. So I didn't invite her.
OK, it may seem trivial. But often it's the trivial reasons that stop people giving church a try.
In your average Orthodox Church on any average week there will be say 1/10th to 1/5th of the congo that do not take communion, for whatever reason. Further there aren't pews, so when other people go up to take communion they don't have to shuffle past a visitor, making them stick out like a painful dactyl. In some Orfie parishes (ours included), a communicant may take some of the antidoron (blessed but not consecrated bread that we munch on after we take communion) and give pieces to visitors and non-communicating regulars. So the feeling of being "left out" isn't as strong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
A point of information, please: What is a "hymn sandwich"? I was hoping I could pick up the answer from context, but that hasn't worked. It seems to be contentious.
(I do get the possibility that a pun on "ham sandwich" may be involved .... but )
It's a mildly derogatory term for, usually protestant, services that tend to alternate between hymns and (often only said by whoever is leading) prayers. Those of us from more sacramental traditions can find them a little flavourless, and without a sense of purpose.
Mmmm. A good job the church fathers and mothers, who spent so much time at vigils, hadn't heard this. You know vigils - those services that alternate hymn or psalm singing with prayer and scripture reading.
These vigils in your misty rear view mirror were vigils for the Divine Liturgy the next day.
Sssh! You'll give it away. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Yes, they usually were, though they were less frequently held for other purposes I understand. The point is really that far from this format being "flavourless and without a sense of purpose", they evidently felt them intrinsically worthwhile. I'm sure they would have thought it somewhat puzzling to find them the sole (or nearly sole) mode of worship though.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
One of our kids described their first visit to a Protestant worship service as a concert interrupted by a lecture.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yes, they usually were, though they were less frequently held for other purposes I understand. The point is really that far from this format being "flavourless and without a sense of purpose", they evidently felt them intrinsically worthwhile. I'm sure they would have thought it somewhat puzzling to find them the sole (or nearly sole) mode of worship though.
I'm sure they can have a sense of purpose. Indeed the service of 9 lessons and carols is a not dissimilar format but one which has a clear theme and indeed a narrative. Without that distinct purpose, as vigils have, there is little to structure the service around, which is part of why I don't find the format as helpful for Sunday mornings as Holy Communion or, for that matter, Morning Prayer. Formal liturgy is a useful shortcut to structure and purpose, and I find those things helpful. I realise others may have different experiences, I was just trying to explain the rather pejorative use of "hymn sandwich".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the things which occurs to me is that the OP seems to be speaking from within the Reformed tradition. OK, fair enough, but this seems rather parochial to me, and ignores sacramentalism, and also the mystical tradition in Christianity, which describes the idea of sacrifice in many areas. For example, 'The Cloud of Unknowing' argues that we have to sacrifice our own conceptions of God, in order to overcome the separation between us and God. So, there are almost two different languages (or maybe more than two), being spoken here. Well, translation is a difficult art.
The OP was NOT Reformed. Not even close. Just plain loopy, but probably with experience of Anglican worship in a weekly Eucharist setting. It definitely didn't come from a Reformed setting with monthly communion being the highest common frequency.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One of our kids described their first visit to a Protestant worship service as a concert interrupted by a lecture.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) Oh really? My first visit to an Orthodox shack featured a black-robed bearded dude droning on and on and on in a language not understoodeth of the people and popping in and out of this door in a fancy wall.
At least the hymn sandwich features a change of pace.
If you're quite through being facile and gratuitous about Protty services....
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sober Preacher's Kid, speaking as someone who IS a Protestant (just about), mousetheif's experiences line up pretty neatly with my own. While I don't doubt I would have the same first impressions as you of an Orthodox service, there is a decided lack of the numinous within a lot of Protestant services, including low church Anglicanism. I don't think the hymn sandwich format helps this. Charismatic/charevo churches get it better, imo - there's a sense of God being Other, not like us. I don't get that with hymn sandwiches.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
As a church steward, I found that people who weren't regular attenders, or people who were affiliated without being members, were less likely to take Communion than full and active members. (This is in a denomination that urges anyone who wants to to take Communion.)
If you believe that churches should try to make as little distinction as possible between the inner circle and the outer circle, so to speak, then Communion must be somewhat problematic. This is because the reluctance of some people to participate in Communion highlights the divide between inner and outer more than anything else that happens inside a church on a Sunday morning.
Everyone will stand when it's time to sing; everyone will sit quietly when it's time to pray; everyone will try hard to look thoughtful during the sermon. Minds may be wondering during these times, but at least people try to look engaged. However, when people fail to come to the Communion table when called, they're openly defying congregational unity. They're showing everyone that they don't quite fit in, as far as they're concerned. And perhaps that worries us in the mainstream churches, because we're desperate for visitors and casual attenders to feel at home. In a church that has Communion frequently and perhaps has a large fringe group of attenders, or many visitors, this regular display of congregational division might be unnerving for the inner group. It's a thought, anyway. I don't know what could be done about it, though.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
In the Anglican church we don't really have 'membership' like that. Even in Anglican churches with less frequent Eucharistic services (eg monthly), I've only ever seen children not receive, never a group of adults within the congregation.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial: quote:
As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.
Ah, I see what you're getting at... But an extreme view, surely, even for a Catholic?
HS (brought up on weekly BCP Matins)
If baptism is considered a vital part of being a Christian by almost all denominations (whether paedobaptism or credobaptism), why not the Eucharist? While I don't think it has to be weekly, I do think part of being a Christian is receiving the Eucharist at regular intervals, even if said regular interval is yearly (as used to be the norm for RCs). Even sola fide Christians will usually insist on some kind of baptism, so why not the same for the Eucharist?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
The eucharist (love feast, communion, Lord's table, Lord's Supper - call it what you will), is an important part of worship for all believers.
But, by its nature it is a divisive act. It seperates the church from the world. It can even be a divisive act withn the chuch community when presumption kicks in (status, class etc - perhaps ilustrated by arguments over who can "do the magic" as one CofE Vicar quoted to me).
Paul recognises this in 1 Cor 11 where the context suggests that sharing the elements (as part of a meal or gathering), must be approached in a thoughtful, prayerful and confessional way. In fact, he's also having a go at the rich people in Corinth for being picky and choosy with whom they share the bread and the wine. It's not to be like that - we share one bread because we are one body.
To mean something, communion must be divisive: it implies that the death of Christ drew a line across history that people will come down on one side or another. At the same time it is inclusive: ikt is for all who believe - not in the church or any branch of it but in him.
Quite the worst expression of a divide came at the funeral of a good friend, a teacher who died from cancer in her early 50's. Over 400 people sat in a High Anglican Church at a Requiem Mass that is the norm for funerals at this place. Probably only 10 received: there was little encouragement to do so. I know that there were many more believers in the congregation but they did not go forward. A standard liturgy but no homily or suggestion of hope. How appropriate was that?
A more inclusive expression is found where it's all explained and an invitation is offered on behalf of God.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
ISTM there are three ways of looking at it.
[1] The Eucharist is the main (and divinely-instituted) means for us to become involved in the act of redemption.
or
[2] it is enough just to listen to readings and sermons about the act of our redemption.
or
[3] Christianity is not really about redemption at all but about the moral example of Jesus Christ, and so church should either be about moral guidance or, less challengingly, encouraging each other to be nice.
Angloid, which of those are you advocating?
On the question whether sacrifices are substitutionary, they are all representative. The person offering the animal placed their hands on it. Whether there is any difference in that context that is actually significant, between being representative or substitutionary, I am happy to leave to others who get more steamed up about this issue than I do.
As far as I am concerned, substitution is part of the way we explain atonement; it helps many people relate to it. The point when a person takes leave of scripture and tradition is when he or she says it is either the whole story or no part of it. Both those statements are equally wrong, in a very, very similar way.
Going back to the OP, I suspect some people find sacrificial ideas and the term 'the sacrifice of the Mass' more helpful in the way they understand Holy Communion/the Eucharist/the Mass/the Lord's Supper/the Holy Liturgy/the Breaking of Bread service (take your pick as to favoured term) than others do. It may be as much a matter of temperament, which Myers-Briggs/Belben/Enneagram etc (again take your pick) you are, as whether your theology is pukka.
That may even affect how strongly for you the Eucharist prevails over preaching, hymns, repetitive choruses or the Cathedral Psalter.
quote:
also posted by Angloid
We are called to live in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, and we can't do this out of any false sense of superiority, only through our solidarity with Jesus Christ. Participation in the Eucharist is par excellence the way to express this.
Participation in the Eucharist is solidarity with Jesus Christ. I'd query whether it might be a bit far fetched to say that it is expressing our solidarity with the poor and oppressed. Do the homeless in this city, yet alone the poor, oppressed and marginalised in Africa or Asia get a strong feeling that I am identifying with them when I go to the midnight service tonight?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I was the first person here to use the term "hymn sandwich". I had thought it was the sort of harmless joky phrase used here, like "higher up the candle". I had seen it used by ken, so did not imagine it would be regarded as necessarily critical.
I did not say the format was necessarily patronising.
I regret if I started a round of boo sucks.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But if you look at the sacrificial rites in Leviticus, very few of them are substitutionary in form.
True, most of the sacrifices are not substitutionary. But some are. There are other sorts of sin-offering. Also the sacrifices at the time of the birth of a first-born son are portrayed as a sort of "redemption" of the child - as if the eldest son was due to be set aside for the LORD just as the first-fruits of any other harvest, and just as the first-born of domestic animals, and the parents somehow "buy them back" by sacrificing an animal.
Good point. Although I don't think that sacrifice has ever been used as a model for the atonement, or the eucharist for that matter. After all, Jesus himself had that sacrifice made on his behalf. I think my wider point stands: a sacrificial theology of the atonement or the eucharist does not imply a penal substitutionary theology.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Is there not almost always an element of propitiation in sacrifice? OK, the primary function of a sacrifice to the gods is to get them to do something of benefit for the worshippers, but on the other hand, if things are going badly for the people, then perhaps the gods are angry, and then offerings are made to make up with the gods, and to assuage their wrath.
I don't think either is the primary purpose of sacrifice. At least not by those who find sacrifice meaningful. You get some such explanation of sacrifice in Greek mythology by writers who probably no longer quite believe in the gods - my impression is that it's an unsympethetic outsiders' or post-practitioners' explanation.
It's worth pointing out that our understanding of sacrifice is coloured by centuries worth of anti-Jewish and anti-pagan polemic, and then by nearly five centuries of anti-Catholic polemic. And even the Roman Catholic world is disenchanted in a way that makes it difficult to understand how earlier societies related to the sacred. Anthropologists trying to understand religious practice outside Western Europe (or even within Western Europe) have generally not found this kind of post-Protestant understanding helpful.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
In the Anglican church we don't really have 'membership' like that. Even in Anglican churches with less frequent Eucharistic services (eg monthly), I've only ever seen children not receive, never a group of adults within the congregation.
I realise that Anglicans don't have membership. But you certainly have regulars. Are casual visitors and people who only turn up occasionally as eager to receive as the regulars? I doubt it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
also posted by Angloid
We are called to live in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, and we can't do this out of any false sense of superiority, only through our solidarity with Jesus Christ. Participation in the Eucharist is par excellence the way to express this.
Participation in the Eucharist is solidarity with Jesus Christ. I'd query whether it might be a bit far fetched to say that it is expressing our solidarity with the poor and oppressed. Do the homeless in this city, yet alone the poor, oppressed and marginalised in Africa or Asia get a strong feeling that I am identifying with them when I go to the midnight service tonight?
I'm sure those people who are out on the streets handing out soup or inviting the homeless to Christmas parties, instead of going to church, are showing solidarity in a much more immediate and real way. Those of us who shamefacedly slip past the Big Issue sellers hoping not to be confronted, or send a token donation to Crisis or Shelter, need to assess how our faith is being worked out in life. However, each of us has our distinct responsibilities and vocation in life and not everybody can or should be so directly involved. But as members of the Body of Christ 'we are all members one of another', and it's in the Eucharist that this is most profoundly expressed.
What I was criticising in my third point above was the sort of Christianity that is all about morality and 'doing good'. It can be very pharisaical in its implication that Christians are by definition 'better' people than others, and pelagian in suggesting that we can earn our salvation by good works.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... Although I don't think that sacrifice has ever been used as a model for the atonement, or the eucharist for that matter. ...
Are you sure of that? Have you read Hebrews recently? Or what do you think John the Baptist meant by 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world?' Or what the BCP is referring to in quote:
"made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world: and did institute and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again".
Admittedly the third example is from only part of Christendom, but it's quite a large part.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Sacrifice is right at the centre of THE big Jewish temple atonement ritual, Yom Kippur (the day of atonement).
It is of course the goat of God that takes away the sin of the world in this context (John is combining two symbologies). But in no way is sacrifice being offered to appease a deity.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I think that one reason the Eucharist puts of outsiders is because it's fundamentally an insider thing, I think, even for churches that practice open communion. It's Jesus sharing himself with his disciples. If you weren't a disciple, it probably would be an awkward occasion.
Analogies to sex come to mind, but that might be a hyperbole. Perhaps compare it to having family dinner with folks whom you're not particularly familiar with.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I can only think of my experience as a teenager, dragooned into a confirmation class against my will. 'Church', which had rarely figured in my life up to then, meant Morning Prayer and was utterly off-putting. It was attending my first (low-key MOTR) Holy Communion service that made me think, 'there is something real going on here and I want to be part of it.'
If 'outsiders' never encounter what turns us on as a Christian community, then they will always stay on the fringe unless, more likely, they are put off from the start.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... Although I don't think that sacrifice has ever been used as a model for the atonement, or the eucharist for that matter. ...
Are you sure of that? Have you read Hebrews recently? Or what do you think John the Baptist meant by 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world?'
Sorry - what I wrote was ambiguous. 'That sacrifice' in my sentence mean 'the particular sacrifice ken and I were talking about'. I don't think the particular sacrifice ken and I were talking about - the redemption of the first-born - has ever been used as a model for the atonement. Clearly, sacrifice in general has been used as a model in some way.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh really? My first visit to an Orthodox shack featured a black-robed bearded dude droning on and on and on in a language not understoodeth of the people and popping in and out of this door in a fancy wall.
Then you did not go to a Liturgy (he would have had gold on), and went to an ethnic church's non-English service. It may be that they had a service that was in English, but you went to the "wrong" one. And indeed how do you know which people it was not understanded of? It was not understanded of YOU, but you weren't, I presume, the only person there?
But your description, if you were intending it to be insulting, is too milquetoast by half. One of our most famous authors described her impression of her first visit to an Orthodox church as, "robed people popping in and out of the wall like the figures on a cuckoo clock." Which is funnier and more acerbic by far.
At any rate my relaying of my son's experience was meant to convey what people mean by "hymn sandwich." And whether you like it or not, people do feel that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm sure those people who are out on the streets handing out soup or inviting the homeless to Christmas parties, instead of going to church, are showing solidarity in a much more immediate and real way.
Absolutely. One of our most beloved 20th century saints, Maria of Paris, was a scandal in her day because she was constantly leaving worship services to tend to poor people who turned up at the monastery door.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
from Hebrews
"made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world: and did institute and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again".
Admittedly the third example is from only part of Christendom, but it's quite a large part.
There is nothing in there about substitution.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I think that one reason the Eucharist puts of outsiders is because it's fundamentally an insider thing, I think, even for churches that practice open communion.
But are all our services meant to be inoffensive, outreach services? The church must also feed its flock. Our Lord didn't say to Peter, "Leave off feeding my sheep because it might make visitors feel left out."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...To quote one of the early Christian martyrs at her trial: quote:
As if a Christian could exist without the eucharist. The eucharist is what constitutes a Christian.
Ah, I see what you're getting at... But an extreme view, surely, even for a Catholic?
HS (brought up on weekly BCP Matins)
She was 2nd Century so 'catholic' is a bit of an anachronism.
(I was a choirboy brought up on 10am Choral mattins and 1115 Sung Eucharist! (And Evensong))
[ 24. December 2012, 16:49: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
Sr Wendy, the hermit, asked for 'a refridgerated Tabernacle' as her luxuary on Desert Island Discs.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is nothing in there about substitution.
I wasn't commenting on substitution in that post. I was commenting on sacrifice, having misunderstood Dafyd and thought he was talking about sacrifice generally, rather than the redemption of the firstborn.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
I think Ramarius hit the nail on the head about its value a few posts back...
the formal Eucharist shows, tells and even somehow embodies the whole Gospel, the whole of the Good news -in a way that almost transcends language.
From our expressing sorrow and recieving forgiveness and reconciliation, to the story of the last supper, and the origin of the Eucharist itself, to the Lord's Prayer which all Christians share and then the reception of that 'Daily Bread' which is the bread of Life...
It's got more of the core Christian theology than a thousand different sermons, and in an interactive and deeply spiritual way.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think some people are less than comfortable with the Eucharist as ritual cannibalism, and others with unsanitary practices. It is also treated as a Big Deal (c) which emphasizes the role of the officiant and thus the non-democratic nature of the event.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I think some people are less than comfortable with the Eucharist as ritual cannibalism, and others with unsanitary practices. It is also treated as a Big Deal (c) which emphasizes the role of the officiant and thus the non-democratic nature of the event.
The Church is not a democracy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
