|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Receiving or taking Communion
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
Right I am after some wisdom, and this seems on source to draw on.
The issue has been raised with me about people wanting to take the bread from the plate at Communion and not to have it placed in their hands.
This is a minor issue, but I see it as the act of receiving Gods grace, rather than the act of us taking it.
Any comments or ideas on this?
[fixed title typo]
[ 09. October 2013, 07:38: Message edited by: seasick ]
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Every practice can have a load of significance attached to it. Which drives which is a fascinating question.
I'm generally, therefore, inclined to advise the following of local practice. As with 'fe' or 'fo', gog
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
There's certainly an idea that only a priest should ever hold a host (but laying it on your hand before taking it with your tongue is OK). So people who follow that tradition would be appalled. I assume this is tied with a strong understanding of transubstantiation.
Health-conscious people might also object. When there's some nasty virus around, it's easy to ensure that everyone distributing cleans their hands with anti-bacterial gel at some appropriate moment. So you don't want anyone else getting their grubby mits in the plate. And it would be best if you didn't have to change how communion is distributed based on current epidemiological advice.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It would be impractical for the person serving to hand bread to each person. Our practice is that the bread is taken from the plate as it is passed around the congregation, although it would be possible for each person to serve the person next to them.
Besides the practical consideration, there is a theological question too. Grace is freely offered by God, but is it forced on people or do we need to also take it? Communion is an ordinance, Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" - is it something we do, or something done to/for us?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hezekiah
Apprentice
# 17157
|
Posted
On the grace issue, it is freely offered by God and accepted by mankind (lest we slip into semi-pelagianism).
On the communion issue - on the tongue only!
--------------------
2 Kings 3:27
Posts: 36 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hezekiah:
On the grace issue, it is freely offered by God and accepted by mankind (lest we slip into semi-pelagianism).
On the communion issue - on the tongue only!
because...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
The issue has been raised with me about people wanting to take the bread from the plate at Communion and not to have it placed in their hands.
Personally, I'm not keen on the vicar / pastor / leader always being the person who distributes the bread and wine. I prefer more egalitarian methods, for example where several people do the serving or (even better, I think) where the bread and wine are passed from person to person until everyone has partaken.
Having the bread given to me makes me feel like I am passively receiving something from the server, rather than actively sharing something with my fellow Christians. It reinforces a hierarchical view, IMO.
So I'd prefer 'sharing' Communion, rather than 'receiving' or 'taking' - which might not be helpful in answering your question, sorry gog!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Communion is, well, "Communion." Communion is best expressed when we share in the act in the sense of the greatest participation possible - spiritually and physically. Passing the bread from one to another or taking the bread is, IMHO, an expression of communion.
Jesus asked us to do "this" in remembrance of him. Jesus broke the bread but, as was Jewish custom, passed the broken pieces around the table to his friends, who, in accordance with the Jewish practice would have broken a piece off for themselves.
They didn't - and we shouldn't - expect soemone to perform that symbolic rite of God's Grace on their behalf. Yes, I appreciate the health roisks but isn't it greater to have a common cup with everyone slobbering in it? I'm not so keen on the rest of christian humanity that I want to exchange a bodily fluid with them each time I participate in communion.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
Sharing the cup from person to person emphasises the communal/shared meal as the central aspect of the Eucharist. This is a very common understanding of the Eucharist, but it is by no means the only one.
If you instead subscribe to the view that the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of the Cross at the hands of the priest, with the body of Christ truly present under the sacramental species, it follows that the distribution should take place in the most dignified and reverent manner possible.
To return to the original post, I personally don't think having a communicant fishing about in a ciborium is reverent or dignified. Or, for that matter, hygenic, especially as neither silver nor alcohol are present as germicides.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
If the problem is taking the piece of bread/wafer from someone else, then logically we may as well leave it in the packet and let everyone help themselves, after the words have been said? Presumably the same for the wine? It sounds merely a question of degree.
Each church has its own customs and usually for very good practical reasons. Tends to be how I see the distribution. I'm not saying there isn't theology involved, of course, but if I'm worried about lessening my awareness of God's grace because some numpty in a frock is walking four steps between table and rail to transport the bread from one place to another, then I should be up at four in the morning baking my own loaf! Or maybe, more realistically, just going to a different church.
I have enjoyed communion at other churches where one communicates with one's neighbour, or rips off one's own piece and passes it on etc. So I've nothing against it. But I don't see what's wrong with being handed a piece of bread either as part of a recognized ritual, where I feel secure in my part as recipient of Christ's grace. I suppose, too, there is the debateable point of the priest as imago Christi, which for some Christians would have considerable significance.
In our church, communicants come up and kneel at a rail. It wouldn't be practical for everyone to swarm the table, or help themselves off the paten. And, as it's not their custom, for many if not most, I imagine it would detract from their experience of making the 'cradle' or 'cross' with their hands in order to receive the body of Christ as taught at confirmation.
Christ offers his grace through the communion no matter how many paws it comes into contact with. Presumably the same for the blood of Christ, too. If my host at a dinner party offers me food I'm really not going to get arsey because I wasn't allowed to serve myself. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Sharing the cup from person to person emphasises the communal/shared meal as the central aspect of the Eucharist. This is a very common understanding of the Eucharist, but it is by no means the only one.
If you instead subscribe to the view that the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of the Cross at the hands of the priest, with the body of Christ truly present under the sacramental species, it follows that the distribution should take place in the most dignified and reverent manner possible. ....
I suspect most of us, don't see these as alternatives, and would be uncomfortable with any suggestion that they were.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
....hygenic, especially as neither silver nor alcohol are present as germicides.
Mrs Mark, who has been a nurse for 30+ years will not drink from a common cup.
The reason? Not theological but one of hygiene. Even if the chalice was silver (and many aren't) there's not enough there to kill or inhibit germs: ther strength of the alcohol in the cup isn't high enough to do the job either.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Each to his or her own, but how many people have you, or Mrs M, or anyone else on the Ship, ever known to fall ill as the indisputable or even very likely result of using the common cup?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Sharing the cup from person to person emphasises the communal/shared meal as the central aspect of the Eucharist. This is a very common understanding of the Eucharist, but it is by no means the only one.
If you instead subscribe to the view that the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of the Cross at the hands of the priest, with the body of Christ truly present under the sacramental species, it follows that the distribution should take place in the most dignified and reverent manner possible. ....
I suspect most of us, don't see these as alternatives, and would be uncomfortable with any suggestion that they were.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. "Instead" was a bad word to use. But the different modes give emphases to different aspects.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I have been at informal celebrations where a piece of bread was used and after consecration passed round the circle and each administered to the next. It's a bit clumsy, I find, but does emphasis a one body though many.
I have come across this in bot Anglican and even RC circles, but more at house masses than anything else.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
....hygenic, especially as neither silver nor alcohol are present as germicides.
Mrs Mark, who has been a nurse for 30+ years will not drink from a common cup.
The reason? Not theological but one of hygiene. Even if the chalice was silver (and many aren't) there's not enough there to kill or inhibit germs: ther strength of the alcohol in the cup isn't high enough to do the job either.
This is silly - I drink the remains of the common cup virtually every week as a minister and i haven't even had a cold for over ten years.
--------------------
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
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
Right I am after some wisdom, and this seems on source to draw on.
The issue has been raised with me about people wanting to take the bread from the plate at Communion and not to have it placed in their hands.
This is a minor issue, but I see it as the act of receiving Gods grace, rather than the act of us taking it.
Any comments or ideas on this?
In the churches I serve, by far the most common practice is that the bread is placed in the communicant's hands by the presiding minister or some other person assisting with the distribution. One church has the custom of people receiving in their places, and there the plate is passed and communicants take a piece.
Personally, I would always prefer that people are given communion - it is a means of grace and symbol language about it being given and receiving it seem much more appropriate to me than taking it for ourselves.
I'd be inclined to sit down with the person over a coffee and have a conversation about why this is important to them. It often turns out that the presenting issue isn't the real one...
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
Many thanks for the insights. To add further clarification. This is 1cm cubes of bread on a flat plate (the cubes being another issue which I might look at else where, but please don't get hung up on them here). This goes along side wee cuppies for the wine.
Again many thanks for ideas, and more are welcome
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
A plate with cubes of bread is very different from a plate with wafers. It is practical and more hygenic to take a piece of bread from the plate than to take a wafer. I can't imagine how you would take a wafer without touching others on the plate and risking the others moving all over. Bread, on the other hand, doesn't move around and taking one piece barely even disturbs any other pieces. Serving wafers reliably pretty much needs a person to hand them out one by one. I find the idea of someone handing out individual piecs of bread to be quite a formal and a fairly odd action.
But, to get to the OP, I would say that offering a plate of bread is serving it to them. Yes, they do take the piece but there is still receiving involved as it is directly served to them by another.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
If the problem is taking the piece of bread/wafer from someone else, then logically we may as well leave it in the packet and let everyone help themselves, after the words have been said? Presumably the same for the wine? It sounds merely a question of degree.
Good point, Anselmina - I think you're right that it's a matter of degree. And yet... I do feel that having the priest always distribute the elements can send the unspoken message that we receive from God via the priest, rather than directly ourselves. And it's worth putting quite a lot of thought and effort into avoiding the sending of that message, IMO.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Incensed
Shipmate
# 2670
|
Posted
My preference is for the wafer to be placed straight on to my tongue with the paten held below just in case. I find it distasteful and somewhat disrespectful then to see some people then dunk it in the chalice. I also find it slightly annoying to have the wafer placed on my palm and pressed and held there with especial meaning which is what happened to me yesterday evening. Had he known my name he would also have said it as he placed it there! Just as well that I respected local custom and held out my hands because he might have lost his fingers! Just saying!
Posts: 241 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I once went to a service in a certain Australian state where we were (horrors of horrors) invited to help ourselves to bread and wine as we left the church.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I once went to a service in a certain Australian state where we were (horrors of horrors) invited to help ourselves to bread and wine as we left the church.
Are you sure it was actually wine?
</snark>
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And yet... I do feel that having the priest always distribute the elements can send the unspoken message that we receive from God via the priest, rather than directly ourselves. And it's worth putting quite a lot of thought and effort into avoiding the sending of that message, IMO.
Then what's the point of the priesthood? We receive God in many ways, including through the ministry of priests. Certainly, the Eucharist is first and foremost God's action, but undertaken through priestly ministry. Your argument taken further would lead to: "why receive the elements at all? That can send the message that we receive God through created things and not directly."
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
Vulpior, I really don't know whether it was wine or tomato sauce - I left the building and went elsewhere so that I could receive what I would call proper Holy Communion.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I once went to a service in a certain Australian state where we were (horrors of horrors) invited to help ourselves to bread and wine as we left the church.
My dislike of this would be in the timing of when leaving the church rather than the helping yourself.
I think I may be out of step with others here but I come from a tradition where partaking together is also important.
Although "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" can also be seen to be whole of the church, it seems to me to be strange if the opportunity to be in communion with the local body at communion is not taken up.
This struck me most vividly at my first RC wedding. There was a communion, but the bridegroom could not commune because he was not RC, and the congregation was not invited to either. So it was just the bride by herself, which just seemed weird to me, though it appeared no-one else found it so.
--------------------
'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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
....hygenic, especially as neither silver nor alcohol are present as germicides.
Mrs Mark, who has been a nurse for 30+ years will not drink from a common cup.
The reason? Not theological but one of hygiene. Even if the chalice was silver (and many aren't) there's not enough there to kill or inhibit germs: ther strength of the alcohol in the cup isn't high enough to do the job either.
This is silly - I drink the remains of the common cup virtually every week as a minister and i haven't even had a cold for over ten years.
Aaaah no! I wouldn't call Mrs M silly - you might find yourself ina Bristol Hospital where she practices her fell trade ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bib:
[qb]This struck me most vividly at my first RC wedding. There was a communion, but the bridegroom could not commune because he was not RC, and the congregation was not invited to either. So it was just the bride by herself, which just seemed weird to me, though it appeared no-one else found it so.
Yep it happened to me too but at a funeral. This time (and it wasn't so long ago), the priest took the opportunity to rub it in why we non catholics couldn't partake. Rather took the gloss off the funeral for a 18 y/o who'd died with 2 friends in a car accident.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
[QUOTE]Then what's the point of the priesthood? We receive God in many ways, including through the ministry of priests. Certainly, the Eucharist is first and foremost God's action, but undertaken through priestly ministry.
Yes, the priesthood of all believers. There's nothing in Jesus' words of institution nor in the intentionality of his actions that says - "this must be done, each time you do it, by a man who does the magic for you."
Quite the reverse actually
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
This struck me most vividly at my first RC wedding. There was a communion, but the bridegroom could not commune because he was not RC, and the congregation was not invited to either. So it was just the bride by herself, which just seemed weird to me, though it appeared no-one else found it so.
I understand that this is not normal practice. I'm not RC, but have been to two fairly recent weddings in Catholic churches, between a Catholic and some other Christian. Neither couple had a mass, and I was given to understand that their priests had recommended this precisely because the husband and wife wouldn't be able to share communion.
The fact that the Roman Catholic church does not offer communion to all comers, and the reasons for it, are I think both well known and firmly in expired equine territory.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
KevinL
Apprentice
# 12481
|
Posted
"Take, eat; this is my body." I receive on the tongue (usually). Either practice has arguments in favor of it, whichever position one takes is, I think, a matter of preference of emphasis. By that I don't mean a frivolous preference, but choosing to emphasize one aspect of communion over another.
Posts: 35 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
It is worth noting that the practice of sharing communion from person to person is often illegal. Certainly it is not permitted under Church of England rules (unless the entire congregation happen to be licensed Eucharistic ministers!), and I doubt it's allowed in the Roman Catholic Church either.
I know a lot of churches don't pay attention to that kind of thing, but some may think it important.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And yet... I do feel that having the priest always distribute the elements can send the unspoken message that we receive from God via the priest, rather than directly ourselves. And it's worth putting quite a lot of thought and effort into avoiding the sending of that message, IMO.
Then what's the point of the priesthood? We receive God in many ways, including through the ministry of priests. Certainly, the Eucharist is first and foremost God's action, but undertaken through priestly ministry. Your argument taken further would lead to: "why receive the elements at all? That can send the message that we receive God through created things and not directly."
Also, what might this argument have to say about the ministry of preaching?
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Then what's the point of the priesthood?
I don't think there is one, except in the 'priesthood of all believers' sense that ExclamationMark has already mentioned. But this is another discussion entirely...!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
To revise slightly my earlier opinion, there are 2 very different but internally consistent understandings of the priesthood and communion being displayed on this thread. There's the 'Presbyterian' self-service at your seat approach, and the 'catholic' given-by-the-priest approach. I would advise anyone to make their mind up and avoids MOTR muddles. Since gog's church seems to be firmly on the Presbyterian side, it sounds like people should take their own bread.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
From a purely practical angle, one possible question here is, who should be in control of an event that is a profound and intense moment in many people's spiritual lives; but at the same time has the potential to go messily wrong?
Suppose, for example, that someone presents themself for communion and decides for whatever reason that they want all the bread? Or decides that the best thing to do with this bread is to take a handful of it and throw it all over the church? Risks like these are surely maximised when the event is in the control, not of one professional, but of many amateurs.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
A plate with cubes of bread is very different from a plate with wafers. It is practical and more hygenic to take a piece of bread from the plate than to take a wafer. I can't imagine how you would take a wafer without touching others on the plate and risking the others moving all over. Bread, on the other hand, doesn't move around and taking one piece barely even disturbs any other pieces. Serving wafers reliably pretty much needs a person to hand them out one by one. I find the idea of someone handing out individual piecs of bread to be quite a formal and a fairly odd action.
It really isn't. The Church of Ireland - who are technically not permitted to use wafers - have been doing it for ever. And when you have a pile of crumbly little bread cubes piled onto a paten or even a broad-bottomed ciborium there is no way you can help yourself to one piece without moving others. All those eager little fingers footling about for their preferred little square? Gordon Bennett, you could grow old waiting....
Especially if the usual practice is followed - partially cut cubes, to be ripped apart by the distributor. It would be farcical to watch what the communicants would do with this situation. But bear in mind I'm talking from a tradition where receiving communion from a priest/minister is not in the least odd or formal, but rather practical and theologically coherent.
As a tradition it may be set aside some time, as many traditions have been through the centuries. But for now, it's practical, sensible and worshipful for those involved - mainly.
I respect the theological sensibilities of those who worry that somehow being handed their piece of Christ's body the moment before consumption takes away from their personal experience of grace. Personally, the idea of helping myself would just give so many weird messages. As if Jesus had thrown the loaf onto the table and said, 'right lads, off you go!'
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
To revise slightly my earlier opinion, there are 2 very different but internally consistent understandings of the priesthood and communion being displayed on this thread. There's the 'Presbyterian' self-service at your seat approach, and the 'catholic' given-by-the-priest approach. I would advise anyone to make their mind up and avoids MOTR muddles. Since gog's church seems to be firmly on the Presbyterian side, it sounds like people should take their own bread.
I would suggest that in a "priesthood of all believers" congregation the most logically consistent approach is for people to serve their neighbours, rather than serve themselves. So that everyone is actively involved in the distribution and receiving. Though, that does also presume that 'priesthood' is something that is exercised in Communion at all.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
To revise slightly my earlier opinion, there are 2 very different but internally consistent understandings of the priesthood and communion being displayed on this thread. There's the 'Presbyterian' self-service at your seat approach, and the 'catholic' given-by-the-priest approach. I would advise anyone to make their mind up and avoids MOTR muddles. Since gog's church seems to be firmly on the Presbyterian side, it sounds like people should take their own bread.
gog's profile gives denomination as Methodist. My experience in British Methodism is that the presiding minister or another person giving the elements to each communicant is overwhelmingly the most usual pattern. I grew up as a Methodist in West Wales and that is certainly what I grew up with.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ArachnidinElmet
Shipmate
# 17346
|
Posted
From a purely practical standpoint, I'm not sure about the passing the bread from one person to another. For those who have experienced it, does this method (this is a genuine question) have an upper limit of people where it would be awkward to perform? I'm thinking of adults holding babies, several children or non-communicants sitting in a row etc... Is a chalice not more likely to be dropped?
FYI, we use 6 people at a normal Sunday mass, two with bread, 4 with wine. They include whichever priests/deacons are on hand and eucharistic ministers (general lay people with 10 minutes training) to make up numbers. It seems to be very efficient. It is usual, although not exclusively so, for eucharistic ministers rather than priests to take communion to the sick and housebound, unless they're in hospital.
--------------------
'If a pleasant, straight-forward life is not possible then one must try to wriggle through by subtle manoeuvres' - Kafka
Posts: 1887 | From: the rhubarb triangle | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
From a purely practical standpoint, I'm not sure about the passing the bread from one person to another. For those who have experienced it, does this method (this is a genuine question) have an upper limit of people where it would be awkward to perform? I'm thinking of adults holding babies, several children or non-communicants sitting in a row etc... Is a chalice not more likely to be dropped?
That is the practice in our current church.
Assuming the congregation are sitting in rows then all that happens is the plate starts at one end of the row and is passed to the other. It is easiest if you have someone at the end of each row to pass the plate forward (or backwards depending on where you start) to the next row. There is no practical limit to the congregation size, to serve Communion in a reasonable time to a larger congregation you'll need more servers and plates and chalices/trays of wee cups.
Non-communicants (if there are any present, which in my experience is very rare) aren't an issue - they simply pass the plate on without taking anything. We have one elderly gentleman in our church who has very unsteady hands, he sits at the end of a row so the server can help him, although others sitting with him would assist anyway. Likewise, with parents holding young children etc, if they sit to the end of the rows the server can help otherwise the people they sit with can help. Parents of young children usually help their children with the chalice if the common cup is used.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Suppose, for example, that someone presents themself for communion and decides for whatever reason that they want all the bread? Or decides that the best thing to do with this bread is to take a handful of it and throw it all over the church? Risks like these are surely maximised when the event is in the control, not of one professional, but of many amateurs.
Yes, these risks are increased by having the church as a whole group involved in passing the bread and wine around. I think it's a risk worth taking, though, for the symbolism of having everyone involved, rather than one person presiding.
And you can mitigate the risks simply by explaining the procedure before you start, so people know what's intended / expected. Then you'll just have the risk of something going 'wrong' because of maliciousness or incapacity (e.g. someone who struggles to control their hand movements, as already mentioned). And, again, personally I'm happy for those risks to exist, for the sake of the everyone-sharing-together symbolism.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
In the final analysis it comes down to your church tradition. Anglicans favour the presbyter administering Communion 'into the hands kneeling,; whilst the old-school Presbyterians favour the elders sliding the Bread down Tables for each seated communicant to 'Take.' I cannot say that I find anything particularly offensive about either method, and neither is exactly what Jesus did at the Last Supper. I suspect that what lies behind these differences of practice is whether the notion that 'the Lord's Supper' is a reenactment of the Last Supper, or 'the Lord's Supper as a sacrament' is the dominant idea in your Church's Eucharistic practice.
However, what I would strongly and respectfully suggest is that if your Church's tradition is for one method, and you favour the other do not make a fuss about it. Study why your church does what it does and then either go with the flow, or go somewhere else.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
From a purely practical standpoint, I'm not sure about the passing the bread from one person to another. For those who have experienced it, does this method (this is a genuine question) have an upper limit of people where it would be awkward to perform? and housebound, unless they're in hospital.
We did it once on Maundy Thursday with 90 people and it seemed to take for ever PLUS the loaf smelt of perfume towards the end and there was a lot left over because people were reluctant to break off too big a hunk in case it ran out.
Never again!
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[
I respect the theological sensibilities of those who worry that somehow being handed their piece of Christ's body the moment before consumption takes away from their personal experience of grace. Personally, the idea of helping myself would just give so many weird messages. As if Jesus had thrown the loaf onto the table and said, 'right lads, off you go!'
And indeed is not our experience of God's grace so often mediated through other people?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And indeed is not our experience of God's grace so often mediated through other people?
I truly believe it is God's intention to mediate his grace through others; that we are not meant to be independent of one another in many vital ways; that the person beside me in the pew, at the rail or in the street could be the human sacrament of God's presence in my life, if I'm prepared to receive that.
But that may be lack of faith on my part, I realise.
If I abhorred the priest who handed me the host, or despised the person beside me passing the loaf, I'd still have to wonder at the incredible grace of God - who takes the foolish things of the world to shame the wise - in using them (and me for that matter!) in being part of the process by which I am blessed by Christ.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And, again, personally I'm happy for those risks to exist, for the sake of the everyone-sharing-together symbolism.
So now your position is that we receive God, not directly, but mediated through the community?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
From a purely practical standpoint, I'm not sure about the passing the bread from one person to another. For those who have experienced it, does this method (this is a genuine question) have an upper limit of people where it would be awkward to perform?
Gets a bit slow above 20 or so, and downright tedious if more than about 30. For smaller numbers its fine. I reckon it works well if you can all sit or stand around the table at the same time without any second row. And unless you are King Arthur that's probably putting the upper limit at 20-ish in most church buildings.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Suppose, for example, that someone presents themself for communion and decides for whatever reason that they want all the bread? Or decides that the best thing to do with this bread is to take a handful of it and throw it all over the church?
In nearly 40 forty years of churchgoping I don't remember ever seeing any of these. Or seeing anyone spill the wine.
The only undignified thing I often see is in the sort of anglo-catholic church where they don't let the communicant hold the cup, which can geet wine on the upper lip of the communicant, especially of the server is short and everyone is standing. Worse if they have a moustache which gets accidentally dipped in. Happens to me at certain places. Not at all sure what to do about it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Right, hand to hand passing the bread. No upper limit as far as I am aware, it is how the bread is shared at communion at General Assembly with something over 500 people. Last year Assembly seems to have cubed the bread, but previous years I seem to recall this being loaves that were broken. I wish I could find the picture I recall of the elements set out and ready. The plates are passed from hand to hand.
Now there are four methods of serving elements when it is passed.
- You can be passed the elements and serve yourself
- You can be passed the elements, serve yourself but wait to eat until all are served.
- You can be served the elements and then be passed them
- You can pass the elements and then are served
There are theological reasons for all four and I am not at present up to speed on which precisely means what. The first two (or a mix of them are used in many URC services) but when using a loaf and single cup the last two are quite common. Again sometimes mix and match.
Jengie
edited to correct typing error!
[ 21. February 2013, 17:33: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
