|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Holy Communion considered harmful?
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Alternatively, the body of the bapitized are "the holy priesthood, existing to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2.5) which is articulated for them by a symbolic and representative sacramental priesthood.
There's no need for the baptized to take any notice of clergy when they are talking obvious bollocks or sentimental platitudes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
When I arrived at the small village church where I have been taking Christmas services for the last five years Christmas morning was celebrated with a Family Service (a hymn sandwich) which was followed by a BCP Communion Service for the faithful few. On my first Christmas I changed this to a Family Eucharist (i.e. a Eucharist which was as child friendly as I could make it without completely abandoning the integrity of the thing). The Chirstmas before I came was attended by 45 people, 15 of whom stuck around afterwards for the sacrament. Last year we were just shy of 100 with 63 communicants. Based on that I'd say the Eucharist doesn't put people off.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Whether the church is a democracy is not the point.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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."
Oh, totally. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with having exclusive ceremonies, or with making outsiders a little uncomfortable, just noticing something.
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
.. with the Eucharist ... unsanitary practices.
As a kid I asked about germs and all drinking from one cup and was told it's OK because (1) it's alcohol, which kills germs, and (2) served in silver, which kills germs. But when a "contemporary" service uses pottery instead of silver, does the reasoning hold? And in a church that uses pottery with non-alcoholic grape juice, I can see that would be off-putting to anyone who feels their health is vulnerable.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
.. with the Eucharist ... unsanitary practices.
As a kid I asked about germs and all drinking from one cup and was told it's OK because (1) it's alcohol, which kills germs, and (2) served in silver, which kills germs. But when a "contemporary" service uses pottery instead of silver, does the reasoning hold? And in a church that uses pottery with non-alcoholic grape juice, I can see that would be off-putting to anyone who feels their health is vulnerable.
I don't think that's ever been true about silver and alcohol - just something we believe to make it more acceptable. I think the sharing of the risk of infection is part of the deal. Part of being a community.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
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.
In my tradition we always use the little cups, so I always find the use of the chalice in CofE churches a bit strange. I know a retired nurse who objected to the chalice as unhygienic. Anglicans seem not to mind, though.
The other thing that might put a few people off is the alcohol. Methodists like to think that having non-alcoholic Communion wine makes Communion more inclusive, because recovering alcoholics and others will be able to participate. (But visitors might not realise the wine is non-alcoholic unless they ask, as it's not normally announced.)
I went to a Communion service at one Anglican church where various options were possible: chalice, little cups, alcohol and non-alcoholic. But choosing something that's different from your neighbours will make you stand out; that's okay for regulars, but visitors might not want to seem fussy.
I agree with Mousethief that regular services probably shouldn't try to be inoffensive to visitors. But it depends on the kind of church it is, I suppose.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
.. with the Eucharist ... unsanitary practices.
As a kid I asked about germs and all drinking from one cup and was told it's OK because (1) it's alcohol, which kills germs, and (2) served in silver, which kills germs. But when a "contemporary" service uses pottery instead of silver, does the reasoning hold? And in a church that uses pottery with non-alcoholic grape juice, I can see that would be off-putting to anyone who feels their health is vulnerable.
I don't think that's ever been true about silver and alcohol - just something we believe to make it more acceptable. I think the sharing of the risk of infection is part of the deal. Part of being a community.
Oh - ethanol and silver are both antibacterial etc. in their own rights. If you Google for it you can find loads of scientific backing. What I'm not sure is how effective those agents are in the time between each administration. It's never worried me and I've never heard of anyone going down with anything. If it worries you can intinct or simply take the bread alone.
[ 24. December 2012, 21:37: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
The first place where I drank from a common cup, I remarked on how strong the wine was, and the pastor (a friend) remarked that the wine was indeed stronger than most wines, and this was so that it would serve as a disinfectant.
[ 24. December 2012, 22:04: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I've never heard of anyone going down with anything. If it worries you can intinct or simply take the bread alone.
Would anyone know if a virus they picked up came from sharing a cup -- in or out of church -- or not? Or from shaking hands (passing the peace) with lots of people's unwashed hands and then holding bread before eating it?
If I had a low immune system (like from chemo treatments), I can see avoiding communion. OTOH people who don't feel vulnerable sometimes accept an offer of "the rest of my water bottle" from a companion. We make germ aware decisions all the time, sometimes deciding there's no risk this time, or deciding not to take a risk.
I wouldn't think the fact that the activity takes place inside a church confers any extra germ protection.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
It is my understanding what little saliva that may come into contact with the common cup is a very poor carrier of infectious diseases/
People with compromised immune systems, though, are cautioned against using the common cup.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
I would assume that it's worse to shake someone's hand, and later get contact between your hand and your mouth.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
About 30 years ago the TEC established and propagated a new prayer book that placed the Eucharist at the heart of Episcopal services. It was a major change in focus for parishes that had used the Eucharist only once a month or perhaps never. It was couched in terms to place it definitely not a Roman Catholic Mass, (I don't remember "Eucharist" used before 1979).
It turned the church around, literally, by putting the alter before the people with the priest facing the people; a physical sign that caused much complaint.
It put the people into community in making common prayers.
And it put the reality of shared beliefs into true reality in the enactment of Christ's Passover Meal.
If people choose not to want some reality to their beliefs, then that is up to them. History has shown that humans gravitate to ritual to express their common beliefs.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It is my understanding what little saliva that may come into contact with the common cup is a very poor carrier of infectious diseases/
Health workers I know won't share in the common cup because of the likelihood of infections being passed on.
Perhaps they know something we don't
[ 26. December 2012, 05:43: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
There's no need for the baptized to take any notice of clergy when they are talking obvious bollocks or sentimental platitudes.
Most, if not all of the time, then.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
.... I've only ever seen children not receive, never a group of adults within the congregation.
I've seen it happen on lots of occasions - and pretty much every time I've been in an Anglican Communion service. That said, I've usually been in the more conservative evangelical places that emphasise the necessity of self examination before partaking. It seems lacking in other traditions which is possibly why take up is more likely to be universal - is the bar set too low?
Interestingly, in the New jerusalem, an open table BUGB church, there are a few people who don't partake.
These days I have reservations about common cups and alcoholic wine and don't always partake in both kinds myself. Mrs Mark never does. That's a practical not a theological issue.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QUOTE] .... was told it's OK because (1) it's alcohol, which kills germs, and (2) served in silver, which kills germs.
Both true but ...
1. It needs a very high concentration of alochol to do this - the wine (port?) in the chalice is watered down
2. You don't get enough contact with silver to do any good - in any case silver is meant for external wound antisepsis, not inyternal consumption.
The argument fails on these 2 general counts and on specific ones for individuals.
Speaking personally, I'm not enamoured of the possibility of people's saliva in my wine, nor am I attracted by lipstick stains and perfume smells all of which can attend common cups. The wrong perfume on a utensil, cutlery etc can make me really gag - my problem I know but it doesn't half put me off the common cup.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
the wine (port?) in the chalice is watered down
Traditionally water is added to the wine at the offertory. But only a tiny drop: not enough to 'water it down' in my experience. Other churches may have a different practice of course.
All the objections to sharing a common cup apply to human togetherness in most situations. Either togetherness out of solidarity or enforced togetherness such as a crowded tube train. I would have thought you are far more likely to catch bugs and infection from your fellow commuter breathing down your neck, or even from family members sneezing and/or snoring during and after Christmas dinner, than from a sip of wine from the chalice. I don't know whether health professionals in general are more likely to abstain, but the evidence doesn't suggest it's a particularly dangerous practice. Anyway, being a Christian is dangerous, and always has been.
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QUOTE] .... was told it's OK because (1) it's alcohol, which kills germs, and (2) served in silver, which kills germs.
Both true but ...
2. You don't get enough contact with silver to do any good - in any case silver is meant for external wound antisepsis, not internal consumption.
The idea was the silver kills any germs that land on the cup itself from the lips of people, and they turn the cup a bit with each person which gives a little time for the silver to work at killing germs before that part of the rim is touched by another person's lips again.
Anyway, having been through a period some years ago of vulnerability to colds and pneumonias, which I seem to have recovered from but don't want to go back to, I can certainly understand others avoiding the common cup, or even avoiding picking up a piece of bread to eat with hands that just finished shaking hands with all sorts of people including some coughing or sneezing into their hands.
I avoid a common cup that is pottery because it newly creeps me out, but that doesn't mean I find holy communion off-putting, which is what the thread was about.
In my youth commonly a third of the congregation didn't go forward, now it's rare for someone to remain in their pew, I'm not sure why the difference.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm sorry to be coming so late to a really interesting thread.
Is the Eucharist off-putting? I hope so. I really do.
You see, I'm a priest. And on the Last Day, I don't want someone accusing me, "You made it easy for me. Easy to put myself in a place frequented by God - God who is a consuming fire, God into whose hands it is terrible to fall. You just let me walk in to that trap, where he would take me, and seduce me, and put my plans for my life into the shredder. You didn't tell me that Jesus had warned us to count the cost. You didn't tell me he hadn't come to bring peace, but a sword. You didn't tell me that if I dared to call a place my home, or dared to love my family more than Him, or even turned aside to bury my dead - then he wouldn't count me worthy of being a disciple. You made it sound easy, you bastard!"
No. I really don't want that.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
...the body of the bapitized are "the holy priesthood, existing to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2.5) which is articulated for them by a symbolic and representative sacramental priesthood....
That was, I guess, the answer of a Methodist clergy guy, that only he could do the Holy Communion stuff because he represents the church as a whole (by "church" I think he meant the denomination); non clergy can never be seen as representing the church.
Which suggests to me Methodists see clergy as an organizational position only. But if so, why can't anyone could be appointed deputy representative for a day, when needed? Or maybe I've watched too many Westerns where people get appointed deputy sheriff for the purpose of a specific temporary task.
Seems to me an absolute requirement of a specific person means either (1) the spiritual health of the congregation is subject to whims of circumstance -- one traffic accident or waking up with a real flu bug hitting the clergy person, no Eucharist for the whole congregation --
Or, (2) Holy Communion/Eucharist is so unimportant it doesn't merit a backup system. But that would suggest the clergy interest in doing it more and more often, replacing other congregational gatherings such as morning prayer, must be all about them and their role, not about the congregation.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
the wine (port?) in the chalice is watered down
Traditionally water is added to the wine at the offertory. But only a tiny drop: not enough to 'water it down' in my experience. Other churches may have a different practice of course.
Depends who's setting up at our place. One of our readers does half and half, but others just do a little drop. I've often wondered what the water was all about - but not for long enough to go and look it up.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Which suggests to me Methodists see clergy as an organizational position only. But if so, why can't anyone could be appointed deputy representative for a day, when needed? Or maybe I've watched too many Westerns where people get appointed deputy sheriff for the purpose of a specific temporary task.
To answer from my understanding of the Methodist point of view: Not solely organizational, but certainly that among other things. And people can be appointed "licensed local pastor" when needed. Such people can indeed celebrate Communion too. However, such appointments are done with great care. For one thing, you don't randomly appoint to represent the church, if you are wise. (Also, UMC clergy have all the other complex roles that clergy tend to in other denominations, but I don't feel trained enough to explain them.)
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
This is another issue (the president) that I don't want to go into, but since it's mentioned...
I'm a lay person. A eucharist (and it's not just communion) presided over by another lay person would be pointless. I could just do it in my front room with like minded people.
It is provided over by someone sacramentally set aside to represent the whole church in history and space. Their personal qualities are almost irrelevant.
I will probably offend some by this post, but it is my honest opinion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm a lay person. A eucharist (and it's not just communion) presided over by another lay person would be pointless. I could just do it in my front room with like minded people...
I will probably offend some by this post, but it is my honest opinion.
Differences of opinion are the Ship and should not be taken as offense.
I find Holy Communion (for which "Eucharist" is just a fancy non-English word; I grew up in an Episcopal church that used the wording "Holy Communion") more meaningful and spiritually connective to God, others, and the church through history and around the world when done in my living room than in a big formal church.
Which just shows that symbolism and sacramentalism vary by person, there is no universally understood symbolism, nor one limited way of being sacramental.
But I lived for six months in a place with no churches and no clergy -- none! I had to learn a whole different -- not church or clergy dependent -- way to relate to God and to the church universal.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
someone sacramentally set aside to represent the whole church in history and space. Their personal qualities are almost irrelevant.
Absolutely true - so we ARE all included then since Jesus died for us
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Holy Communion (for which "Eucharist" is just a fancy non-English word;
On that basis Holy Communion is two non-English words: one Anglo-saxon, one Latin. Eucharist, though Greek in origin, is just as English.
'Holy Communion' as a title puts all the emphasis on the receiving of the sacrament to the exclusion of the offering/thanksgiving. It probably explains why so many Anglicans have an unbalanced understanding of the Eucharist, and see it as 'something I receive'. Hence if you don't feel like receiving it you don't necessarily want it as your main act of worship.
The title Eucharist encompasses a wider meaning and suggests that it is 'not only right, it is our duty and our joy' to make/enter this offering.
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
If you want a non-fancy, basic four letter Anglo Saxon word for the eucharist, the word the Anglo Saxons actually used is still with us: it is "mass".
I spent over six months working with a Rudolf Steiner community including every Sunday.
On my first day off, I went into the nearest big town and asked for communion from the reserved sacrament, which I gratefully received. That was a service of Holy Communion. It took about five minutes.
I go to a church because then I am in communion with a whole range of people of different backgrounds to myself such as I would meet in my own home. And I am in communion with Christians throughout the world and time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
This is another issue (the president) that I don't want to go into, but since it's mentioned...
I'm a lay person. A eucharist (and it's not just communion) presided over by another lay person would be pointless. I could just do it in my front room with like minded people.
Yes, yes, you could. Indeed that's how it all started.
I don't think you'll offend anyone.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
One might disagree about whether you and I have the same rights to distribute communion that Christ did.
I wasn't referring to the last supper. Sloppy wording on my part, perhaps.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
One might disagree about whether you and I have the same rights to distribute communion that Christ did.
I wasn't referring to the last supper. Sloppy wording on my part, perhaps.
Sloppy theology too? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
One might disagree about whether you and I have the same rights to distribute communion that Christ did.
I wasn't referring to the last supper. Sloppy wording on my part, perhaps.
Sloppy theology too?
back. No, what I was getting at, whilst cajoling child #3 to go and clean her teeth, was that the celebration of the Eucharist in response to Jesus' instructions to do so started in people's front rooms, or whatever folk had in those days, before an organised priesthood and the idea that only an ordained priest could say the magic words had developed.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, what I was getting at, whilst cajoling child #3 to go and clean her teeth, was that the celebration of the Eucharist in response to Jesus' instructions to do so started in people's front rooms, or whatever folk had in those days, before an organised priesthood and the idea that only an ordained priest could say the magic words had developed.
Fair enough. I think the question becomes whether such eucharists were signs of the beginnings of a new church that was still straining to develop things like priests or perhaps the best that could be done while the church could not be open in the world or whether they were what God prefers.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Karl, I hope you realise that the smiley indicated my comment was not intended to be hellish. Of course I understand what you were trying to say, and basically agree. However (and maybe you won't disagree) what was appropriate and relevant in the very early days of the Church when even those who had not met Jesus in the flesh could still feel very close and connected, is much less so once the church had spread into new communities and cultures.
This means that the way of maintaining this closeness and connectedness is guaranteed by ensuring that the Eucharist is always presided over by an ordained priest: i.e.. someone commissioned by the wider church and representing the whole Church... not just the community of present-day Christians but the Church of the ages too. Sadly because of our divisions no one 'church' has the monopoly of this guarantee (though Orthodox and Catholics might disagree), so none of us can afford to get to uptight about this. And clearly many Christian traditions are happy to let a wide range of people preside. That doesn't mean that their Eucharists are inauthentic, IMHO.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I am in favour of having rules about it, but I do think that those rules are parochial; it's perfectly reasonable for the Anglican Church to say "right; within our community we've decided to keep things ordered by saying that the Eucharist can only be celebrated by these people we've ordained to do it." However, in the same way that as an Anglican I feel justified in saying to my friends on the other side of the Tiber "Yah sucks boo to you; our Eucharist is perfectly valid whatever you lot think about our priests" (with of course a sticky out tongue smiley), in the same way the hands in the air bunch down the road with no priesthood at all also "do" a perfectly valid Eucharist whenever they share bread and wine, or more likely Mother's Pride and Ribena.
Which is I think what you were saying.
[ 27. December 2012, 20:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
The first Christians did indeed worship in their homes - although there is plenty of evidence that while they were still an illegal body they had specifice worship spaces (or church buildings as some of us call them) and nobody among them said that was anything other than a natural and desirable thing to do.
And even when they were worshipping in sitting rooms, they would have thought that something as awe-inspiring as the Temple worship was taking place.
When we moved into our new home, we did indeed have a mass at our dining room table: a bishop we know presided in mitre, a priest we know sang the gospel, the choir sang the Byrd 4 part mass and I arranged the order of service from Common Worship in conformity with catholic tradition. We had as much incense as the fire alarm could cope with.
My other half said he was far more moved by this than our post civil partnership blessing in church.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
