Thread: Eccles: Receiving or taking Communion Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000954
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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)
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I have never, ever come across the practice of people taking a host off the paten. My initial reaction is one of revulsion.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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?
Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on
:
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!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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?
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
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.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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...
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
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
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Incensed (# 2670) on
:
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!
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
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.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
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>
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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."
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
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.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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 ....
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by KevinL (# 12481) on
:
"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.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
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.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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...!
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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!'
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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 ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
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?
Hmm, am I being theologically inconsistent? Sorry! Let me try again to express my view ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think always having the same person preside over the distribution might teach people that this person is some kind of intermediary between them and God. If one believes this then fine, do Communion like this (and I know in some denominations it has to be this way).
But if one rejects such a view and favours the priesthood of all believers concept (as I do, obviously), then I think there are better ways of doing Communion. Have a different person preside over the distribution each time or invite people to take some bread and pass it around among those they are sitting near.
I guess the fact that we each take bread and wine shows we all experience God directly for ourselves. But the sharing of the elements with one another illustrates that we are a community, mediating God's blessing and grace to each other, rather than it all coming through the priest.
Hope this is a bit more theologically consistent...
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
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.
I confess I did the same recently in That Diocese™. I communed with a colleague at a nearby pub instead. We had to purchase the wine and wafers.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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.
If these risks are maximised then they are still vanishingly small. I have never heard of this happening in 60 years.
And the distinction between professional and amateur is also a red herring. I am happy to believe that the amateur is doing it out of love.
Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on
:
I have experienced communion by passing the elements around a table as part of provincial Anglican commission meetings.
For me it was always a most sacred and spiritual experience as the plate of cubed bread ( not our normal wafers) was then passed on and we placed the bread in the outstretched hand of our neighbour in turn using the words "The body of Christ..." The wine was passed to each as we offered the cup to our neighbour in turn with "The blood of Christ ... "
It was made even more amazing for me in that around the table was at least one Bishop, including my own to whom I offered the bread and wine. This was a very moving experience for me and created a true sense of communion and community focused around the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
I have experienced communion by passing the elements around a table as part of provincial Anglican commission meetings.
For me it was always a most sacred and spiritual experience as the plate of cubed bread ( not our normal wafers) was then passed on and we placed the bread in the outstretched hand of our neighbour in turn using the words "The body of Christ..." The wine was passed to each as we offered the cup to our neighbour in turn with "The blood of Christ ... "
It was made even more amazing for me in that around the table was at least one Bishop, including my own to whom I offered the bread and wine. This was a very moving experience for me and created a true sense of communion and community focused around the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
That sounds very moving. I once experienced something nearly like that on a retreat, where we finished the day with communion in the roundel of the oast house which had become the home of a community of nuns. A priest consecrated the elements, which were then passed round the small group, standing, each person administering to the person on their left. Except me, as I was standing to the right of the priest, and he took the bread (can't remember what sort of bread or wafer) and wine from me and administered to himself. I didn't know if it was because I was a lay person or a woman. (Most of us were women.) How wonderful that your bishop received from you.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think always having the same person preside over the distribution might teach people that this person is some kind of intermediary between them and God. If one believes this then fine, do Communion like this (and I know in some denominations it has to be this way).
But if one rejects such a view and favours the priesthood of all believers concept (as I do, obviously), then I think there are better ways of doing Communion. Have a different person preside over the distribution each time or invite people to take some bread and pass it around among those they are sitting near.
Not really inconsistent; we just have such different ecclesiologies that I'm not sure there's any way to put our praxes into dialogue on this. If you every want to know how have a both-and valuing of both the ordained priesthood and the baptismal priesthood, enriching each other, check Catholicism (in the broadest sense) out!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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.
Which is something I don't understand. IME, for larger groups distribution to the congregation is far quicker than having the congregation come to the front. About the same amount of time for <30 people, plus by having everyone receive in their pews you avoid having a second category of those who are unable to come to the front either not receiving or getting special treatment with the minister and/or assistants coming to them.
Perhaps it's just experience from doing things differently. I'm sure if our congregation were invited forwards it would take a lot longer to serve than for a similar sized congregation where that was the norm, and vice versa. Simply down to people not quite sure what to expect.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Hart
That discourse will only work if you acknowledge there may be something you are not getting about what South Coast Kevin means by "The priesthood of all believers". He seems to me to be taking a strong form even within English non-conformity.
Conversation is not just that you inform us and expect us to adapt but that you allow yourself to be informed and changed by that information.
Jengie
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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.
If these risks are maximised then they are still vanishingly small. I have never heard of this happening in 60 years.
And the distinction between professional and amateur is also a red herring. I am happy to believe that the amateur is doing it out of love.
You people must go to some awfully nice churches. In 20 years of ministry there've probably been about a dozen times when I've been very glad I didn't give "control" of the consecrated elements to the communicant. Admittedly the issue has never been the Host; on every occasion the communicant attempted to force my hand in an attempt to drain the chalice. None of them was a regular communicant at the chuches where the incident happened.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Do you know why they did this?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Do you know why they did this?
I imagine one tries to drain the chalice because one has a liking or a craving for what's in it. Or because one is deliberately trying to disrupt the liturgy. Either way, one isn't going to get away with it if one comes to a church where I'm presiding.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
South Coast Kevin... seems to me to be taking a strong form even within English non-conformity.
Yes, I suppose I am. My ecclesiology is very 'low' indeed so Catholicism feels pretty alien to me, with the strong respect for and submission towards the institution. Likewise, some of the strongly leader-driven evangelical churches (it's not just Catholicism!).
Oh, and I've just realised the fact that my church doesn't actually use wine might have something to do with the lack of trouble at Communion! We certainly have a few people among our number who struggle with alcohol addiction.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Do you know why they did this?
I imagine one tries to drain the chalice because one has a liking or a craving for what's in it. Or because one is deliberately trying to disrupt the liturgy. Either way, one isn't going to get away with it if one comes to a church where I'm presiding.
I once prepared an elderly lady for confirmation who asked me with some trepidation whether she would have to drink the whole chalice, because she didn't actually like wine very much.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Do you know why they did this?
I imagine one tries to drain the chalice because one has a liking or a craving for what's in it. Or because one is deliberately trying to disrupt the liturgy. Either way, one isn't going to get away with it if one comes to a church where I'm presiding.
Which leaves me pondering on the balance between the protection of the body and blood of Christ and the pastoral care of another member of the body of Christ.
Maybe it is not because the people are nice that it has not occurred, but because they know one another.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Which leaves me pondering on the balance between the protection of the body and blood of Christ and the pastoral care of another member of the body of Christ.
Maybe it is not because the people are nice that it has not occurred, but because they know one another.
Very likely. But churches have open doors. Strangers are welcome. And if a stranger presents themself at the altar for communion, I assume their goodwill right up to the point they demonstrate otherwise.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
South Coast Kevin... seems to me to be taking a strong form even within English non-conformity.
Yes, I suppose I am. My ecclesiology is very 'low' indeed so Catholicism feels pretty alien to me, with the strong respect for and submission towards the institution. Likewise, some of the strongly leader-driven evangelical churches (it's not just Catholicism!).
Oh, and I've just realised the fact that my church doesn't actually use wine might have something to do with the lack of trouble at Communion! We certainly have a few people among our number who struggle with alcohol addiction.
Slightly an aside as my church is NF not Anglican but we started using grape juice instead of wine about a year ago because we have several recovering alcoholics in the congregation for whom it was a difficulty. We felt it was important that they were neither tempted by alcohol nor excluded from communion. Grape juice had previously been available for children but to ask for it would have drawn unnecessary attention to themselves (we administer to each other in small groups using a piece of bread and a small chalice).
When I was at St Helen's Bishopsgate nearly 20 years ago we passed a chalice and slice of bread along the row to each other. The movement of the bread and wine was supervised by whichever members were stewarding that day.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I find it peculiar how much higher church people do not trusr the average Joe in thhe congregation. To me where I stand I feel that is anti-incarnational. As Christ said he did not come for the well but the sick. He quite clearly is pointing out there that he is not here for us litugical experts (who are the recipients of that remark), but for those who need the body of Christ. God walks over the divide between us and him, it seems as if the Church often wants to rebuild the divide*.
Firstly such behaviour dis-ables congregants, they come to believe they can't be trusted to behave properly in front of God. They are infantilised. Needless to say if it does they are more likely to behave like infants, so far from protecting the elements you increase the chances of abuse.
Secondly and this is important it ignores the strong corporate conformity that is in operation within a congregation. Newer members look to older members to see how to behave. Try standing when everyone else is kneeling if you do not believe me. This actually means those who are least expert are likely to be most cautious about doing things right. I have never known someone in my home congregation ask if a visitor should receive communion, I have known visitors ask if they may. Basically I believe the chances of someone grabbing everything when people serve them selves is less than 1 in a million services, I also think the chances of someone dropping on the floor except by accident are equally rare especially if you treat the congregation as responsible people. Actually with a single loaf the problem is not people taking so much but it is so rare for people to take anything beyond the most miniscule amount that a small roll will satisfy a hundred people. If you consume it immediately afterwards you end up with rather a lot to eat!
Thirdly in such circumstance it is us liturgical experts who are offended, not God. It is us who are put out, have to find the extra bread and wine, deal respectfully with what is spilt and so on. God already knew the shit if human life when he came, and even once he had lived it, he still came back. Due to the communal pressure to socially conform I am likely to see such behaviours as that of someone who can't conform. I do not think when that is the case God is that annoyed. I am pretty sure God is more offended by the unnecessarily pointed exclusion from communion of individuals, that we specialists are guilty of, than these behaviours.
Jengie
*I am well aware that upto a hundred and fifty years ago many in my tradition made modern Roman Catholicism look positively liberal so carefully was the table guarded to make sure nobody ate unworthily.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I'm not the least bit offended if, by reason of mental or physical illness, someone behaves in an unexpected way at Communion time. I don't think God is offended either. And in my experience I think illness has usually been the cause of any potential problems. As president in the assembly, I'm not God's policeman, but I am his steward. I'm not there to pander to the more or less refined liturgical tastes of myself or anybody else, but part of my job is to try and ensure good order - about which St Paul makes some rather pointed remarks. And a significant part of "good order" means making sure that the Sacrament is distributed fairly and in a dignified way to everyone who wants to receive it. It's my responsibility to have running through my mind, "Mrs A needs a gluten-free host. Mr B's Parkinson's looks quite bad this morning. Mrs C always wants to receive the host on her tongue. Mr D is unwell and needs me to go to him, rather than him come to the altar ...". It's not that I don't trust the congregation to get these things right if they administer Communion between themselves - but why should they have to be thinking about that sort of thing at the very moment they're making their own Communion?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Because the congregation are taking Communion together. If the members of your congregation are not aware of the needs and problems of those around them such that they can provide extra help to someone with Parkinsons then there is a much bigger problem than whether the bread is given or taken. Communion is not something done by individuals, even individuals receiving at one time. It is something for the congregation, together.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Because the congregation are taking Communion together. If the members of your congregation are not aware of the needs and problems of those around them such that they can provide extra help to someone with Parkinsons then there is a much bigger problem than whether the bread is given or taken. Communion is not something done by individuals, even individuals receiving at one time. It is something for the congregation, together.
Conversely, Mrs A, Mr B, Mrs C and Mr D might be of the opinion that it's nobody's business but theirs and mine what their "special needs" might be at Communion time. And they'd be right - it isn't.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
If they don't want it to be any business of others in the congregation, why should it be your business? What makes one person so special that they need to take on all the cares of the congregation all on their own? We are called to be the Body of Christ - about which St Paul makes some rather pointed remarks (just to borrow your phrase). We should all be caring about each other, especially at Communion where we place prominance to "we are one body, sharing one bread".
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Hart
That discourse will only work if you acknowledge there may be something you are not getting about what South Coast Kevin means by "The priesthood of all believers". He seems to me to be taking a strong form even within English non-conformity.
Conversation is not just that you inform us and expect us to adapt but that you allow yourself to be informed and changed by that information.
Jengie
Look, I'm a big believer in praxis being where we discover, develop and enact our theologies. But, Kevin and I have now had enough of a conversation (both being honest and listening to the other attentively) to discover that we have fundamentally different understandings of how God self-reveals and pours out grace.
These very different understandings undergird our preferred (/actual) praxes for how to administer communion. So, the goal of mutual understanding has been reached. The holy grail of complete agreement was never really on the cards. Continuing to talk about whether or not a priest should administer communion when we don't agree on what a priest is seems like the wrong conversation to be having.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Alan, my point was that if someone is perhaps embarrassed by their illness or infirmity - and many people are - then the fewer people they have to take into their confidence, the better. If there's a single president controlling the administration, then they only have to share their need with that one person. And that should be a person whose trust and confidence can be taken for granted. If the congregation are ministering to each other, then it's whoever happens to be sitting next to them who needs to be told, "I'm sorry, but would you mind...".
It was a more serious version of the same argument that led to the clergy being tasked with hearing confessions. In the early Church, people seem to have done what the Bible said and confessed their sins to each other - right up to the point where I discovered my brother in Christ, Bilious Maximus, had been gossipping my sins all round the Forum on a Monday morning. So the burden was handed to the clergy, with strict sanctions to ensure confidentiality.
And then again, there's the question of newcomers. How would a newcomer know what help I might need? And wouldn't that be an opportunity for embarrassment that might lead to that newcomer never coming back? (In this respect, it's not unrelated to that dismal practice of the congregation all joining hands to say the Lord's Prayer - a more eloquent message of the exclusion of the uninitiated, it would be difficult to imagine.)
I'm not saying there aren't arguments on both sides. I'm not even saying I'm arguing for what I want to do as president - though I confess I'm more than happy to abide by CofE canon law on this. I'm actually describing what I want the president to do for me when I'm sitting in the congregation as a member of the laity.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is something I don't understand. IME, for larger groups distribution to the congregation is far quicker than having the congregation come to the front.
I was thinking of the common practice of having one plate and one cup passed from person to person, each of them serving the next one, and each saying the liturgical words to the next one. So everyone drinks from the same cup, one after the other, and everyone both hears and says "The body of Christ" and "The blood of Christ" or whatever words are used in that church. As described by womanspeak and Penny S above. Its a very usual way of doing things at small meetings and retreats and so on, and not rare in churches with very small congregations.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
I find the sense of communality best expressed when communion is received kneeling at a communion rail and after everyone in line has received the next group come forward. Perhaps that is because the tradition I was brought up in. I find it worst when there is simply one or two (or more lines) of everyone coming forward standing to receive and then returning individually. Some churches of course now offer both ways of receiving which I think is nice.
A couple of years ago I enjoyed the way communion was distributed in St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh. We came forward in small numbers, formed a cicle and the bread and the wine were circulated and then we shared the peace and returned to our seats, followed by the next group, etc. It felt reverential and special.
On the other hand I once visited All Souls Langham Place with a friend when Communion was brought out to the pews and passed along the line - just felt wrong but I can't articulate why (but of course it didn't help that the priest wore no robes, and as far as I remember didn't recite the full EP).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is something I don't understand. IME, for larger groups distribution to the congregation is far quicker than having the congregation come to the front.
I was thinking of the common practice of having one plate and one cup passed from person to person, each of them serving the next one, and each saying the liturgical words to the next one. So everyone drinks from the same cup, one after the other, and everyone both hears and says "The body of Christ" and "The blood of Christ" or whatever words are used in that church. As described by womanspeak and Penny S above. Its a very usual way of doing things at small meetings and retreats and so on, and not rare in churches with very small congregations.
And, my point was that (timewise) it's not that different to each person going forward to a rail and having one person with a plate of bread and another with a cup/tray of glasses, receiving and hearing the same words.
IME, at larger churches when people come forward there are several people serving to speed up the distribution. And, in larger churches where people stay in pews there are several people serving. Even in our church with a congregation of about 20 we have two plates and two cups/trays (we use both shot glasses and common cup, though not at the same time!). Having 4, 8 however many are needed is the norm in larger gatherings. It's been a few years since I got to Greenbelt - how many plates and cups are used there?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Alan, my point was that if someone is perhaps embarrassed by their illness or infirmity - and many people are - then the fewer people they have to take into their confidence, the better. ... If the congregation are ministering to each other, then it's whoever happens to be sitting next to them who needs to be told, "I'm sorry, but would you mind...".
Though, of course, in the vast majority of cases people sit in the same place, next to the same people, every week. Usually with someone who's a relative or considered a close friend in the congregation. So, they wouldn't need to make their needs known.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
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.
I've never seen this in 37 years of weekly church attendance. Is what you describe really "wrong" anyway?
One thing about your reply does concern me - and that's your choice of language. It may be accidental or tongue in cheek but the dualism of your division into "amateurs" and "professionals" is really disquieting. Is that how priests actually see the rest of the fellowship gathering for the most intimate and profound meal we'll ever eat together? If it is, then it's no wonder people struggle with church.
If that is how you do view the whole experience then I'd respectfully refer you to read the whole of 1 Corinthians 11.
[ 22. February 2013, 13:35: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
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.
Often? In what context? Either it is or it isn't.
There's a lot of things that are illegal in human eyes but licit in God's especially where compassion, justice and inclusion trump legalism.
[ 22. February 2013, 13:38: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I always thought that withinmore catholic churches the requirement was for an ordained minister to preside over Communion. But, once the minister has said the appropriate words then restrictions on who actually assists with the distribution were much less severe. Whether that would extend to anyone at all doing the distribution is another matter, but certainly I've been to lots of Anglican services where there has been a priest saying the words, and usually offering the bread, with one or more other people (rarely ordained ministers) with either a cup or another plate of bread (if the congregation is large enough to warrant two plates).
But, then I'm from a denomination that believes that any Christian can preside at Communion, and only restricts those who do for ecumenical reasons in recognition that other churches would disagree with that position. So, I may have completely the wrong end of the stick.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, my point was that (timewise) it's not that different to each person going forward to a rail and having one person with a plate of bread and another with a cup/tray of glasses, receiving and hearing the same words.
IME, at larger churches when people come forward there are several people serving to speed up the distribution.
Yes, exactly. We're not a large church, but at our main Sunday services we usually have four people serving at the rail. Even at small services there will be two, one with the bread and one with the wine. So, other things being equal, it would be four times faster than the "pass it on" method.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
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.
There's a lot of things that are illegal in human eyes but licit in God's especially where compassion, justice and inclusion trump legalism.
It may well be "illegal" in the CofE, but its not uncommon. I must have seen it dozens of times. Maybe, after all these years, even hundreds. Though in my experience its very unusual at the main service of public worship on a Sunday morning. Nearly all CofE churches that I know of have people going up to the front to take Communion at those services, and some sort of authorised ministers distributing it.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
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.
Often? In what context? Either it is or it isn't.
There's a lot of things that are illegal in human eyes but licit in God's especially where compassion, justice and inclusion trump legalism.
What I mean is that it is illegal in the churches I'm familiar with (Church of England and Church in Wales) and I fancy it is probably illegal in some others.
And "legal" means "allowed under canon law". This matters to some people within those denominations and doesn't matter to some others.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I always thought that within more catholic churches the requirement was for an ordained minister to preside over Communion. But, once the minister has said the appropriate words then restrictions on who actually assists with the distribution were much less severe.
There is an important difference here, you're right. I'll give all my answers in modern Roman Catholic terms. For us it's a theological truth that only ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist. It's not so much a rule, as a fact about reality. If it's not a priest, it might be wonderfully fruitful prayer, but it's not communion.
Distributing is a different order of question. Communion is still communion no matter who distributes it. On this, though, we do have rules and they have theological rationale. The basic rule is this: unless impeded by illness, the priest distributes accompanied by as few laity as are needed for practical purposes. Ideally, these lay people should have undergone special formation for this role, but can be delegated for one occasion on an ad hoc basis.
For a typical Sunday Mass at the basilica, we'll have about 20 people giving out communion.
There are two principles at work here, I think. One is that it's better to administer in both kinds when possible. This needs at least one extra person. On the other hand, the priest's role at mass is to act in the person of Christ who took, blessed, broke and gave. Although the only part of that one four-fold action we regard as necessarily requiring the priest to do is blessing, it is best if he does as much of it as possible. The principle underlying both of these is that fuller symbolism makes clearer what's going on.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
The priest is acting in persona Christi. You should take it from his hands. This attempt to atomize us makes the Church into a bunch of individuals, not the One Body we are meant to be.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Claiming the priest is persona christ does as well
Let me explain a bit further, within the Reformed tradition all public worship is essentially corporate, that means we see the body of Christ not in the minister at the front but shared in the congregation. Participating in the Eucharist is not something I do but is something I join in with. I need my fellow congregants there to do it.
To place this with the priest and make this solely about my interaction with the priest is as much to individualise as is taking it separately. Indeed if my supervisors account is true it does it far more effectively.
Jengie
[ 22. February 2013, 19:02: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Claiming the priest is persona christ does as well
Well, I certainly disagree with that. It's interesting, though, to note how slight the basic ecclesiological differences are that can result in big disagreements like over this statement.
quote:
Let me explain a bit further, within the Reformed tradition all public worship is essentially corporate,
And Catholics* would agree.
quote:
that means we see the body of Christ not in the minister at the front but shared in the congregation.
No and yes! It's a both-and, not an either/or for us. To be more precise, Catholics actually see four ways in which Christ is present in Eucharistic liturgy: in the person of the priest, in the Word proclaimed, in the consecrated elements, and in the gathered assembly. In Reformed thought, would it be just the middle two?
quote:
Participating in the Eucharist is not something I do but is something I join in with.
Agree! (I feel like Calvin writing his antidote to Trent, half of which he seems to agree with and hence talk very little about). We are participating in the heavenly liturgy.
quote:
I need my fellow congregants there to do it.
Well, this is true for you and me as neither of us are (yet) ordained priests. For those who are, we would agree that it is very much preferable for a congregation to be physically present, but for just cause a Mass can be said physically alone. This would be an instance in what you raise as a necessity, we would agree upon only as a desideratum.
quote:
To place this with the priest and make this solely about my interaction with the priest is as much to individualise as is taking it separately.
This so totally fails to capture the phenomenology of going to Mass for me that I'm struggling with how to respond to it. In two minutes, I'll walk over to go to Mass. I'll sit surrounded by my fellow believers, one of whom has been consecrated for priestly service. Three others will proclaim scripture to us, I'll exchange the peace with all present, and I'll join my voices to theirs in song and verbal response throughout. Ultimately, it will be an encounter with Christ. At some moments, that will be mediated by the priest, at others through the assembly as a whole. Both-and (plus some!).
--
*To the extent I can speak for anyone, I can only speak for Roman Catholics. I suspect there are others who would take similar positions, though, some of whom also claim the title 'Catholic.'
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The priest is acting in persona Christi. You should take it from his hands. This attempt to atomize us makes the Church into a bunch of individuals, not the One Body we are meant to be.
I'd love to sit down with you or Hart and have a good chat about all this, because at the moment I really don't understand the basis of your position!
The statement I've quoted above seems so far away from how I view these things - IMO all Christians are called to be 'in persona Christi' in everything we do, bringing God's presence into the world through His Spirit that resides in us.
And ISTM that, far from atomising us into a bunch of individuals, it brings us together because we're sharing together as equals, on the same terms. I don't understand how the removal of the special role of the priest brings about more atomisation.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, my point was that (timewise) it's not that different to each person going forward to a rail and having one person with a plate of bread and another with a cup/tray of glasses, receiving and hearing the same words.
IME, at larger churches when people come forward there are several people serving to speed up the distribution.
Yes, exactly. We're not a large church, but at our main Sunday services we usually have four people serving at the rail. Even at small services there will be two, one with the bread and one with the wine. So, other things being equal, it would be four times faster than the "pass it on" method.
And, my point is that at our small church we have two people serving, a larger church would easily have four. It takes the same time to pass a plate of bread along a pew as it would take for those people to receive up front, all things being equal (ie: you have the same number of people serving).
If you have a congregation of 100 and four people serving the time taken to receive coming up front is the time taken for 50 people to receive (half go to each pair of servers to get bread and wine).
If you have a congregation of 100 and four people serving the time taken to receive in their pews is the time for 25 people to take bread and then 25 people to get wine (each server would take out the bread to 1/4 of the congregation, then repeat with the wine). Give or take a few secondary factors (eg: time taken to bring elements to members unable to come forward, or as is the practice at one church I've known for one server to take elements through to the creche in a back room) I can't see how the time requirements would be significantly different.
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I always thought that withinmore catholic churches the requirement was for an ordained minister to preside over Communion. But, once the minister has said the appropriate words then restrictions on who actually assists with the distribution were much less severe.
I am RC and not a priest: I occasionally serve as an EM: Extraordinary Minister of communion where I distribute the host to my fellow parishioners.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
that means we see the body of Christ not in the minister at the front but shared in the congregation.
No and yes! It's a both-and, not an either/or for us. To be more precise, Catholics actually see four ways in which Christ is present in Eucharistic liturgy: in the person of the priest, in the Word proclaimed, in the consecrated elements, and in the gathered assembly. In Reformed thought, would it be just the middle two?
Primarily the gathered assembly. Then the Word Proclaimed. Often in Reformed thought Communion would be part of worship on special occasions, and we wuould not claim Christ is less present if there's no Communion. And, when there is Communion his presence is primarily in the people gathered, not the bread and wine. As for the person of the minister, Christ is no more present in him or her than any other member of the congregation.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Hart
That may be the theory but it does not work empirically.
Evidence:
Read Martin Stringer's chapter of Roman Catholic Worship "On the perception of Worship". The individual character of the Roman Catholic worship is very clear. Martin would class himself as Catholic although of the Anglican variety!
Secondly take the evidence of these boards. Who are the ones who want to go to church talk to nobody but the pries, go through the ceremony and then leave. It is not the Protestants.
You know the old practice of women saying the rosary during mass and just stopping for the elevation and to receive. Well I know it is frowned upon, but in actual fact apart from not saying the rosary, that is what you average Mass attender is doing. They are getting on with private devotions in a public space. They are not sharing in a communal act of worship.
The me,the priest and God is very strong in Catholicism and its worship although people are gathered, does not have the same communal elements.
Our worship may be like a concert audience where everyone takes home their own private experience and interpretation of the concert, but they still go through the same act. Most people go to a concert at least to be with other fans of the music. There is an assumption of communality of interest with those around. Yours is more like people in a busy shop, where each is going about their own business, and it is not seen as relating to the others there. Provided they get the good they want then they are satisfied customers.
Jengie
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
You know the old practice of women saying the rosary during mass and just stopping for the elevation and to receive. Well I know it is frowned upon, but in actual fact apart from not saying the rosary, that is what you average Mass attender is doing. They are getting on with private devotions in a public space. They are not sharing in a communal act of worship.
The me,the priest and God is very strong in Catholicism and its worship although people are gathered, does not have the same communal elements.
Our worship may be like a concert audience where everyone takes home their own private experience and interpretation of the concert, but they still go through the same act. Most people go to a concert at least to be with other fans of the music. There is an assumption of communality of interest with those around. Yours is more like people in a busy shop, where each is going about their own business, and it is not seen as relating to the others there. Provided they get the good they want then they are satisfied customers.
Maybe these are things that are less true of the tradition I come from---a fairly modern Anglo-Catholicism, but I recognise very little of what you are saying about Catholic patterns of worship.
I find the beauty of the mass in that it doesn't limit itself to a corporate or individual understanding. It is the nexus of both. It is both an act where the community is vitally important and also an act where each individual is vitally important.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Jengie sorry to interject in the conversation with Hart but he is probably asleep just now what with the time difference.
What you say about 'me, the priest and Catholicism' has a certain truth,of course,but I like your phrase about the 'communality of interest'.I would say that all Catholics are aware of the others who with them make up that part of the Body of Christ.We are saved not simply as individuals,but as part of the Body of Christ.The Church is that mystical Body of Christ.Catholics know that and that is why it is so important to be a living limb of that body.
Whilst it may be true that Catholics in general seem to pay less attention to fellow worshippers than some Reformed christians do it is simply a slightly different way of looking at things.Catholics know that they are surrounded by fellow worshippers who are there in the church with them for the same reasons that they themselves are there.They are aware that not only those who are present in the church but a huge company down through the ages have participated in that same worship.
The priest,who acts in persona Christi is the guarantee of the authenticity of the Church's worship but we do all have a priestly role to fulfil.
I heard an interesting story a few days ago. A Catholic priest,probably not dressed in clericals was present in the body of the church at a Mass celebrated in a large and traditionally minded Catholic church in central London.It came to the moment of the Sign of Peace (when some very traditionalist Catholics will bury their heads in their missal).The priest turned round to offer his hand to a neighbour who said:,Oh,we don't do that sort of thing here'.The priest said'Well I'm Jesus Christ in disguise and I'd like to shake hands with you.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
...
I heard an interesting story a few days ago. A Catholic priest,probably not dressed in clericals was present in the body of the church at a Mass celebrated in a large and traditionally minded Catholic church in central London.It came to the moment of the Sign of Peace (when some very traditionalist Catholics will bury their heads in their missal).The priest turned round to offer his hand to a neighbour who said:,Oh,we don't do that sort of thing here'.The priest said 'Well I'm Jesus Christ in disguise and I'd like to shake hands with you.
Lovely story. I hope it's true. Do we know what happened next?
I hope it was at least 'Oh, all right then', and not 'well if he comes here, he's got to do things our way'.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
You know the old practice of women saying the rosary during mass and just stopping for the elevation and to receive. Well I know it is frowned upon, but in actual fact apart from not saying the rosary, that is what you average Mass attender is doing. They are getting on with private devotions in a public space. They are not sharing in a communal act of worship.
The me,the priest and God is very strong in Catholicism and its worship although people are gathered, does not have the same communal elements.
Our worship may be like a concert audience where everyone takes home their own private experience and interpretation of the concert, but they still go through the same act. Most people go to a concert at least to be with other fans of the music. There is an assumption of communality of interest with those around. Yours is more like people in a busy shop, where each is going about their own business, and it is not seen as relating to the others there. Provided they get the good they want then they are satisfied customers.
Maybe these are things that are less true of the tradition I come from---a fairly modern Anglo-Catholicism, but I recognise very little of what you are saying about Catholic patterns of worship.
I find the beauty of the mass in that it doesn't limit itself to a corporate or individual understanding. It is the nexus of both. It is both an act where the community is vitally important and also an act where each individual is vitally important.
Indeed. I suppose that I (also a fairly modern A-C of an affcath kind) am one of those who might appear to an observer like Jengie to be engaging in individual worship when I go to Mass. But one of the very special things about it is that I am not doing it on my own- I'm surrounded by a various and indeed sometimes apparently random group of other worshippers, some of whom I know and others of whom I don't. That context is very important precisely because, as Basilica says, it puts me at the nexus of the collective and the individual.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't see how the time requirements would be significantly different.
Because one cup is being passed from hand to hand around a circle of people all standing or sitting round the table. No-one is sitting in the pews (if indeed there are any pews)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't see how the time requirements would be significantly different.
Because one cup is being passed from hand to hand around a circle of people all standing or sitting round the table. No-one is sitting in the pews (if indeed there are any pews)
I'm either totally failing to understand what you are saying, or neither of us have experienced Communion administered in the way we seem to be talking about.
Broadly, within the context of a main service (ie: ignoring special occasions, retreats etc) I have experienced Communion administered in two groups of ways.
1) In Anglican and Methodist churches where I've shared Communion, and in Catholic churches where I have observed, the pattern is for people to come forward. A minister/priest and one or more people assist in distribution. In large congregations there will be more than one plate of bread and cups/trays of wine.
2) In the URC, where I currently find my home, and other places the congregation stay in their pews/seats. One or more plates of bread are passed round (usually at least two as the standard layout would be two groups of pews either side of a central aisle), followed by the same number of cups or trays. There is only usually one cup used in very small contexts (congregations/groups less than 15).
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The priest is acting in persona Christi. You should take it from his hands. This attempt to atomize us makes the Church into a bunch of individuals, not the One Body we are meant to be.
I'd love to sit down with you or Hart and have a good chat about all this, because at the moment I really don't understand the basis of your position!
The statement I've quoted above seems so far away from how I view these things - IMO all Christians are called to be 'in persona Christi' in everything we do, bringing God's presence into the world through His Spirit that resides in us.
And ISTM that, far from atomising us into a bunch of individuals, it brings us together because we're sharing together as equals, on the same terms. I don't understand how the removal of the special role of the priest brings about more atomisation.
Yes,we are all called to live the Gospel, but you appear to have missed the nuance. When the priest presides at Communion,he is acting in the person of Jesus Christ in a very peculiar way, and a way in which Christ specifically designated to the Apostles (and their successors, the Bishops and Presbyters). I am not making this up - it has been the understanding since the Early Church. He acts out this role during Confession, too.
I am not an Anglo Catholic, I am merely asserting the orthodox catholic faith asserted by the Church from the very beginning, which forms the doctrine of the Church of England, properly understood.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't see how the time requirements would be significantly different.
Because one cup is being passed from hand to hand around a circle of people all standing or sitting round the table. No-one is sitting in the pews (if indeed there are any pews)
I'm either totally failing to understand what you are saying, or neither of us have experienced Communion administered in the way we seem to be talking about.
Broadly, within the context of a main service (ie: ignoring special occasions, retreats etc) I have experienced Communion administered in two groups of ways.
1) In Anglican and Methodist churches where I've shared Communion, and in Catholic churches where I have observed, the pattern is for people to come forward. A minister/priest and one or more people assist in distribution. In large congregations there will be more than one plate of bread and cups/trays of wine.
2) In the URC, where I currently find my home, and other places the congregation stay in their pews/seats. One or more plates of bread are passed round (usually at least two as the standard layout would be two groups of pews either side of a central aisle), followed by the same number of cups or trays. There is only usually one cup used in very small contexts (congregations/groups less than 15).
Yes, those are the normal ways of doing it. But we were talking about a third way (sorry!) as described by womanspeak and Penny S above, different from both of those.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am not an Anglo Catholic, I am merely asserting the orthodox catholic faith asserted by the Church from the very beginning, which forms the doctrine of the Church of England, properly understood.
What, in your view, differentiates you from Anglo-Catholics? Your interpretation of the doctrine of the Church of England is very Catholic. I think you'd struggle to find support in the BCP for sacramental confession, which you seem to take for granted. I mean, I broadly agree with you about these matters, but I do consider myself somewhat Anglo-Catholic.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Tangential discussion quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think you'd struggle to find support in the BCP for sacramental confession, which you seem to take for granted.
How else do you explain the recommendation in the Communion Service (long exhortation) for the sinner to declare his/her sins to the priest and receive absolution? Or the rite for the Visitation of the Sick? Admittedly you have to hunt for it a bit (and neither of those passages are regularly used today), but it is there. And clearly intended to be taken seriously. As is of course the unrepealed bit of Canon Law enjoining the seal of the confessional.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Hart
That may be the theory but it does not work empirically.
Evidence:
Read Martin Stringer's chapter of Roman Catholic Worship "On the perception of Worship". The individual character of the Roman Catholic worship is very clear.
The book where he visits one Catholic church? That hardly justifies a sweeping universalizing statement.
Of course, it is accurate that there is what you could call an "individual character to RC worship." (I'd prefer the term "personal," but I don't see a reason to reject your terminology). The problem is that you're leaping from "there's an individual character" to "there isn't a communal one." I have to admit that I always thought it was inaccurate when Catholics claimed that 'both-and' was a distinctive of the catholic imagination, but this conversation is showing me that there might actually be something to it.
If one anthropologist visiting one RC church can only see the individual aspect, that's an interesting datum. I certainly agree there are plenty of Catholics who are overly individualistic and need to be evangelized to a more balanced position. I'd even accept a claim that there are more of these than there are of Catholics who focus too much on corporate experience (though I'm not sure).
I think it's definitely true that we tolerate people dropping to a 'consumer' mentality rather than leaving. If you want to see the corporate side of Catholicism more clearly expressed, don't go to Sunday Mass (which is, in evangelical terms, the "seekers' service" not the "believers'") -- go to the movements. I don't just mean religious orders, I also mean the charismatic prayer groups, the bible studies, the St. Vincent de Paul meetings, the CRHP groups, the Cursillistas, the KofC pancake breakfasts, the National Shrine Vigil for Life, Arise! sessions, the Kairos retreats, Parish councils, ...
It's there that someone without eyes of faith* will see our corporate dimension.
--
*Which I recognize an anthopologist must turn off, even if she has them.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
When the priest presides at Communion,he is acting in the person of Jesus Christ in a very peculiar way, and a way in which Christ specifically designated to the Apostles (and their successors, the Bishops and Presbyters).
Heh, this point is at the heart of my confusion; I don't accept the idea of apostolic succession in any sense, never mind the specific way you're talking about regarding being able to preside over Communion.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am not an Anglo Catholic, I am merely asserting the orthodox catholic faith asserted by the Church from the very beginning, which forms the doctrine of the Church of England, properly understood.
How early do you mean by 'the very beginning'? If you're talking about the first couple of centuries then that would interest me, but if you're referring to the post-Constantine church then, frankly, I don't much care (for reasons that would throw this thread way off-topic).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, those are the normal ways of doing it. But we were talking about a third way (sorry!) as described by womanspeak and Penny S above, different from both of those.
Then I'm at fault as well for not recognising what we were talking about. I'm well aware of the form described by Penny and womanspeak at retreats etc. (which is why I deliberately mentioned the special occasions as something different). And, in my defence the discussion of time to serve Communion by passing a plate/cup started with my response to this post which was made before womanspeak and Penny recounted experiences at retreats. I thought we were talking about regular Communion services, as experienced every week/month/quarter (delete as appropriate for how often a church celebrates Communion).
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Heh, this point is at the heart of my confusion; I don't accept the idea of apostolic succession in any sense, never mind the specific way you're talking about regarding being able to preside over Communion....How early do you mean by 'the very beginning'? If you're talking about the first couple of centuries then that would interest me, but if you're referring to the post-Constantine church then, frankly, I don't much care (for reasons that would throw this thread way off-topic).
Will these do:
"When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
"Therefore, it is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the Truth to examine clearly the Tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the Apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times.... For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries...they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical Tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the Truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
"It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. For those presbyters, together with the succession of the bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But we should hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever. For they are either heretics or perverse minds, or else they are schismatics who are puffed up and self-pleasing.... Therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof from all such persons and to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, hold the doctrine of the Apostles." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
"It behoves us to learn the Truth from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech...." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Tangential discussion quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think you'd struggle to find support in the BCP for sacramental confession, which you seem to take for granted.
How else do you explain the recommendation in the Communion Service (long exhortation) for the sinner to declare his/her sins to the priest and receive absolution? Or the rite for the Visitation of the Sick? Admittedly you have to hunt for it a bit (and neither of those passages are regularly used today), but it is there. And clearly intended to be taken seriously. As is of course the unrepealed bit of Canon Law enjoining the seal of the confessional.
The CofE doesn't officially consider either to be sacraments (though I would agree that they are), because they "have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God". I suppose the idea here is that not every good and worthy practice of the church is a sacrament.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Trisagion, many thanks for the quotations. They're all from Irenaeus, though - do you know if his view was standard at the time, or did other theologians of the first couple of centuries have a softer view of apostolic succession? I'm wondering if Irenaeus expressed things in an unusually polemic, black / white manner because of his desire to rebut the Gnostics.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Trisagion, many thanks for the quotations. They're all from Irenaeus, though - do you know if his view was standard at the time, or did other theologians of the first couple of centuries have a softer view of apostolic succession? I'm wondering if Irenaeus expressed things in an unusually polemic, black / white manner because of his desire to rebut the Gnostics.
Pretty standard, I believe. Sources at the time are scarce but it would seem not out of line with others:
Clement of Rome
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110]).
Tertullian
Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise.
Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our Churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the Churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1 [A.D. 200]).
Clement of Alexandria
After the death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back again to Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he went even to the neighboring cities of the pagans, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there to ordain to the clerical estate such as were designated by the Spirit (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 42:2 [inter 190-210 A.D.]).
Firmilion of Caesarea
But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: "Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;" and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; "Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained." Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256]).
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am not an Anglo Catholic, I am merely asserting the orthodox catholic faith asserted by the Church from the very beginning, which forms the doctrine of the Church of England, properly understood.
What, in your view, differentiates you from Anglo-Catholics? Your interpretation of the doctrine of the Church of England is very Catholic. I think you'd struggle to find support in the BCP for sacramental confession, which you seem to take for granted. I mean, I broadly agree with you about these matters, but I do consider myself somewhat Anglo-Catholic.
Sacramental confession is most certainly in the BCP, in the liturgy for the Visitation of the Sick, and one of the Exhortations (rarely used these days) calls those with weighty consciences to seek Absolution and Ghostly Counssl from a learned Minister of the Gospel.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Apologies for ducking out of the thread for the last few days - I've not had much time for posting over the weekend. Since the discussion has moved on rather, I'm thinking of starting a new thread on the role of liturgical president, if I can put an OP together in my head sometime today.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
I should add that Confession is not counted among the sacraments considered generally necessary to salvation, of which there are but two, but discerning what is and is not a 'sacrament' is a rather legalistic, post Biblical phenomenon in itself. The words of Absolution used in the Visitation of the Sick are absolutely Crystal clear as to the Reformers' understanding of the practice, which was not in any way intended to be discontinued. In fact they actually wished to restore it to its proper place, where Rome had reduced it to a mere mechanism or function.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Apologies for ducking out of the thread for the last few days - I've not had much time for posting over the weekend. Since the discussion has moved on rather, I'm thinking of starting a new thread on the role of liturgical president, if I can put an OP together in my head sometime today.
Looking forward to it - and your response to my challenge to the "amateur/professional" dualism!
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Apologies for ducking out of the thread for the last few days - I've not had much time for posting over the weekend. Since the discussion has moved on rather, I'm thinking of starting a new thread on the role of liturgical president, if I can put an OP together in my head sometime today.
Looking forward to it - and your response to my challenge to the "amateur/professional" dualism!
That was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. More so since I'm usually one of the first to point out that an amateur is someone who does what they do out of love for it. I really meant to draw the distinction between trained/untrained, or experienced/inexperienced. Definitely not between paid/unpaid, least of all between mercenary/volunteer!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
That was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. More so since I'm usually one of the first to point out that an amateur is someone who does what they do out of love for it. I really meant to draw the distinction between trained/untrained, or experienced/inexperienced. Definitely not between paid/unpaid, least of all between mercenary/volunteer!
Thanks - though I suspect we'd still disagree on the concept of "priest" as function and status. My understanding of Jesus' "Do this ..." is of an injunction and invitation to all believers not just to a clreical elite claiming apostolic succession.
It does determine how one "does" communion/eucharist/love feast/mass
[Edit: UBB]
[ 25. February 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
My understanding of Jesus' "Do this ..." is of an injunction and invitation to all believers not just to a clreical elite claiming apostolic succession.
I doubt these of us who see significance in the symbolism of apostolic succession and of standing in that see ourselves as elite. I personally do see rich symbolism in the re-enactment of the Salvation, as the 'bread of heaven' (and its concomitant blood) journey from 'heaven' or eternity (symbolised by the architectural sanctuary) through the human hands of the one standing in persona Christi (reminding us of the vulnerable humanness of Christ)into the cradled hands of the expectant believer. Every act of communion thereby becomes not only a reenactment of The Passover and its Easter Hope but of Christmas and its manger.
When I take part in that rite, either as presbyter or recipient, there is no elite. The incarnate one is not elite either - he leaves the 'elite' sanctuary of heaven and becomes vulnerable. As we be vulnerable. Not not not eilte.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Trisagion, many thanks for the quotations. They're all from Irenaeus, though - do you know if his view was standard at the time, or did other theologians of the first couple of centuries have a softer view of apostolic succession?
Pretty standard, I believe. Sources at the time are scarce but it would seem not out of line with others...
Trisagion, my thanks again for such a detailed response. I note that the earlier Fathers seemed milder in their language, so I guess the institutional nature of the early church developed over the course of the first couple of centuries - it wasn't there in full form from the start (this might be stating the bleedin' obvious, hmm). But there clearly was a strong sense of institution and apostolic succession significantly before Constantine gave his blessing to Christianity.
Final question - I am woefully ignorant of the theology of the Church Fathers. I have a collection of their sayings but do you (or anyone else) know of a good book that gives an overview of the Church Fathers' theology and how it developed? Something that puts their writings into a bigger picture, drawing out both the commonalities and the points of dispute.
Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on
:
The text book we were advised to read was Boniface Ramsey- Beginning to read the fathers.
The fathers' writings are mostly available here.
[ 26. February 2013, 19:48: Message edited by: Rosa Gallica officinalis ]
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
SC Kevin, a few thoughts (actually, just transcribing the relevant section of my bookshelf). A little more time and I'd be able to give a shorter list! But, maybe you can have a look at these on Amazon, etc., and work out what you might be interested in.
Pope Benedict, "The Fathers"
Henry Chadwick, "The Early Church"
Robert Louis Wilken, "The Spirit of Early Christian Thought"
Leo Donald Davis, "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils"
James Kugel, "Early Biblical Interpretation"
J.N.D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines"
If you really want to go to town, you could look for Jaroslav Pelikan's first volume of his Church History.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
SCK, of Hart's list, I would recommend Kelly as absolutely tip top if you have the stamina for very serious reading. An easier read, and despite the tone of consciously Catholic apologetics, is Mike Aquilina's, The Fathers of the Church - it has a good introduction to the whole subject and the first 100 pages have good patristics material in the ante-nicene period. The rest is too late by reference to your Constantinian cut-off, although it is likely to suggest to you that the theology of the early Church developed fairly constantly (no pun intended) and that toleration and recognition, whilst they certainly changed the circumstances of the Christian Community, most of the organisational stuff was pretty worked out already and that it had much less influence on the content of the theological debates about the big issues - Trinity and who Christ was - than you might have come to believe.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I find it peculiar how much higher church people do not trusr the average Joe in thhe congregation.
Like all higher church people are the same, even if one takes this "trust" assertion of yours. I've been given the chalice by many high-church priests. I'm high-church and have given the chalice when I've been assisting.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Secondly take the evidence of these boards. Who are the ones who want to go to church talk to nobody but the pries, go through the ceremony and then leave. It is not the Protestants.
You know the old practice of women saying the rosary during mass and just stopping for the elevation and to receive. Well I know it is frowned upon, but in actual fact apart from not saying the rosary, that is what you average Mass attender is doing. They are getting on with private devotions in a public space. They are not sharing in a communal act of worship.
This is a prejudice. How do you know what all RCs do? I've been to Masses in RC churches in Chester, Liverpool, Holyhead, Dachau, Munich, Berlin (where I sung in a cathedral choir), somewhere in Malta, Paris, Taize, Hamburg, Katowice, here in Wrocław as well as Oświęcim, among others. I've seen a great diversity of attitudes.
In any case, with regards to analysing attitudes, how do you or I know why people are there, or what they are doing?
For me, I look at how the peace is being passed. In each of these places apart from a few in Poland I've seen people use hands and do more or less all people close to them, or leave pews and go to others at Masses where less people attend. I attended a Mass in Katowice with my wife and mother-in-law, both from Oświęcim, and when everyone started shaking hands they looked perplexed, as they were used to people glancing at each other and bowing a bit. Oświęcim is about an hour's bus ride away from Katowice. Here in Wrocław in the church I occasionally go to, I see people doing both. I once offered my hand to a woman who wouldn't look at me and looked annoyed as she took my hand.
You don't know what the "average Mass attender" is doing.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Rosa Gallica officinalis, Hart and Trisagion - thanks very much for your book suggestions. I've made a note and will look at buying one or two of them soon. According to Amazon, the Aquilina book has a third edition coming out at the end of March.
I've actually got the Chadwick book 'The Early Church' already so I'll start off with that one!
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
SCK, of Hart's list, I would recommend Kelly as absolutely tip top if you have the stamina for very serious reading. An easier read, and despite the tone of consciously Catholic apologetics, is Mike Aquilina's, The Fathers of the Church...
A good companion to Aquilina's The Fathers of the Church is another book of his: The Mass of the Early Christians which is particularly relevant here in Ecclesiantics:
quote:
In The Mass of the Early Christians, author Mike Aquilina reveals the Church's most ancient Eucharistic beliefs and practices. Using the words of the early Christians themselves -- from many documents and inscriptions -- Aquilina traces the Mass s history from Jesus' lifetime through the fourth century. The Mass stood at the center of the Church's life, evident in the Scriptures as well as the earliest Christian sermons, letters, artwork, tombstones, and architecture. Even the pagans bore witness to the Mass in the records of their persecutions.
In these legacies from the early Church, you ll hear and taste and see the same worship Catholics know today: the altar, the priests, the chalice of wine, the bread, the Sign of the Cross...the Lord, have mercy ...the Holy, holy, holy ...and the Communion.
It doesn't get updated often anymore but the author also has a good and interesting blog: The Way of the Fathers: Mike Aquilina's Blog.
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on
:
At the risk of pointing out something that another may well have covered but I have missed it the Canons of thw Church of England (specifically B12) provide specifically as follows, covering two points for those in the CofE neatly:
1. No person shall consecrate and administer the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper unless he shall have been ordained priest by episcopal ordination in accordance with the provisions of Canon C 1.
2. Every minister, as often as he shall celebrate the Holy Communion, shall receive that sacrament himself.
3. No person shall distribute the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper to the people unless he shall have been ordained in accordance with the provisions of Canon C 1, or is otherwise authorized by Canon or unless he has been specially authorized to do so by the bishop acting under such regulations as the General Synod may make from time to time.
So:
1. Only an episcopally ordained priest may preside and
2. Only an ordained minister may distribute unless special authorisation has been given.
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Some times it is nice to have clear rules. Even if you don't agree with them, at least you know what you must do or not do.
On the specific point previously raised with regard to individual confession in the CofE, Canon B29 provides the answer (after section (1) which deals with general confession by a congregation):
2. If there be any who by these means cannot quiet his own conscience, but requires further comfort or counsel, let him come to some discreet and learned minister of God's Word; that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.
Hope that helps!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Permitted or not, its very commonly done.
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on
:
@Ken
Thanks for the response- I fear you may be right.
I know others have different views but I take the vows I made at my ordination very seriously and could not in conscience collude with a congregation in breaking the clear rules of my Church. If I can't be trusted to keep my promises to God, in what can I be trusted?
I would argue that if one wants to be part of a Church (and let's be honest there are no shortage of choices out there for those who don't like the local offering!) then it's not really right to ignore that Church's canons.
That might of course just be me; I'm probably of an old fogey.
It is perhaps different for a member of the congregation rather than a member of the clergy; not because we are special, but rather because we have made some very particular promises to God, to each other and to our Bishops and Church as to what we would or would not do.
With the same thought in mind, I have a simialr difficulty in understanding how those of my ecclesiastical 'style' (at the smells and bells end and then some) can comfortably use the rites and ceremonies of another Church if their own Church or Bishop has not given consent.
Tangent/rant over. I feel better now!
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
ghostly counsel and advice
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on
:
Now you can't blame me for that!
I didn't write the Canon.
Although it does make confession sound rather more exciting than it actually is...!
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Permitted or not, its very commonly done.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Permitted or not, its very commonly done.
Does this reflect a pond difference? I think that such practices would be extremely rare in TEC, even among innovative dioceses and would doubtless be cause for considerable alarm even in my local quite trendy Diocese of Los Angeles.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
I'm a Reader (lay minister) in the Church of England. A few Sundays ago, our vicar consecrated the bread and wine in advance of our informal monthly Communion service, because he wasn't able to be at the service. 'Communion by extension', I believe it's called.
I was leading the service, so didn't pray the official words of consecration over the elements: I'd have no right to, since I'm not ordained. We then handed round the consecrated bread and wine to each other, quietly and reverently.
I'm a nonconformist underneath my Anglican coating, and believe strongly in the priesthood of all believers. If the Anglican Church changed its mind on lay presidency tomorrow (unlikely), it would not trouble me. (There is more to the ordained ministry than being able to consecrate the elements, IMO.)
Nonetheless, all things done decently and in order and all that. I have elected to serve an Anglican church, so I am content to play by the rules. (Mostly. )
I certainly believe that Holy Communion should be conducted with reverence as well as intimacy. The Eucharist is rooted in the Jewish Passover, which is an intimate, and happy, family meal. So, yes, intimacy, joy and reverence, all together.
What I do appreciate about the Anglican way of doing things is the sense of holy drama. (The Passover is a holy drama, too.) And, yes, holy mystery, even though I'm evangelical, not Catholic, in my approach to these things.
And only real wine will do. It doesn't feel like 'proper' Communion otherwise ...!
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Permitted or not, its very commonly done.
Does this reflect a pond difference? I think that such practices would be extremely rare in TEC, even among innovative dioceses and would doubtless be cause for considerable alarm even in my local quite trendy Diocese of Los Angeles.
I suspect a pond difference is right. I've seen even fairly 'high up' clergy engage in 'Communion in the round' from time to time when they consider it appropriate, e.g. amongst a small group or in less formal settings like university chaplaincies. It is, to put it mildly, not exactly my cup of tea (wine?) but it hadn't occurred to me that we were breaking any official rule on such occasions!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
There is a big difference in principle between allowing lay presidency and allowing lay distribution of the consecrated elements. To insist that the eucharistic president should have been ordained priest is to say something important about the universality of the eucharist and that it is not just a celebration of a particular community but that of the whole church. To insist that those administering the sacrament should be authorised is to emphasise the need for reverent treatment of the elements but is not saying anything one way or another about 'unauthorised' ministers.
The language of 'validity' is not necessarily helpful, but in those terms, it is possible to say that a 'eucharist' presided by a lay person is 'invalid'; whereas one with a priestly president at which the elements are shared communally is 'valid' but possibly irregular. In one case, canon law is simply backing up the church's sacramental theology; in the other, it is an administrative device that simply seeks to ensure 'decency and order.' There are many contexts, as Ken implies, where it is quite possible to ensure decency and order, without needing to be legalistic about who is or is not 'authorised'. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, and never have.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'm fairly sure you're right, Angloid. The ban on lay presidency I've never seen broken within the CofE; the rules about distribution not infrequently observed in the breach, as it were. I was very uncomfortable about it at one time as my internal pendulum swung from Evangelical to Catholic, but as it's currently wandering around the middle somewhere in a kind of ecclesialogical Brownian motion it bothers me far less.
It raises some interesting questions though:
1. What of Eucharists celebrated at non Anglican churches which one might visit, where lay presidency is the norm? Or indeed where the lack of liturgy is such that it's not clear that there is a president, lay or otherwise?
2. What of informal non-denominational Eucharists that may take place in, for example, someone's home, where no clergy of any kind are present?
3. What of situation 2, where it so happens that all the people there are Anglicans?
All situations (except possibly no. 3) I've experienced and never been quite sure what I think.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
1. What of Eucharists celebrated at non Anglican churches which one might visit, where lay presidency is the norm? Or indeed where the lack of liturgy is such that it's not clear that there is a president, lay or otherwise?
Depending on how you view Apostolic succession, this could (and I suspect probably would) also include a Eucharist celebrated by a Baptist or Congregational minister, say.
quote:
2. What of informal non-denominational Eucharists that may take place in, for example, someone's home, where no clergy of any kind are present?
Why is this any different from 1.? Lay presidency is lay presidency, surely? How can the location make a difference?
quote:
3. What of situation 2, where it so happens that all the people there are Anglicans?
All situations (except possibly no. 3) I've experienced and never been quite sure what I think.
Well, if you think that apostolic succession in the sense of an unbroken chain of laying on hands back to the apostles is important, then only people in that succession are priests, and only they are able to effect the transformation of bread and wine into Body and Blood.
This is, I think, pretty much the Catholic view - that the C of E doesn't have actual priests, so the thing that we do with the bread and wine is just play-acting.
The Anglo-Catholic position would be pretty similar, except with the assumption that the C of E did not lose apostolic succession during the reign of Elizabeth I, so C of E priests really are priests.
This last is somewhere close to my view. I would not be comfortable receiving communion consecrated by someone who I didn't think was a validly-ordained priest.
Distribution from person to person is another matter - that's just a question of good order and practice. It's not a practice I favour, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was local custom in the congregation I was visiting.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Does this reflect a pond difference? I think that such practices would be extremely rare in TEC, even among innovative dioceses and would doubtless be cause for considerable alarm even in my local quite trendy Diocese of Los Angeles.
Nothing trendy about our parish, and we did Communion this way on Sunday evening.
Only thing that held it up was that the bread was, as far as I could tell, a very nice wholemeal sourdough and a bit chewy... but as there were only about 18 or 20 of it didn't matter.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Does this reflect a pond difference? I think that such practices would be extremely rare in TEC, even among innovative dioceses and would doubtless be cause for considerable alarm even in my local quite trendy Diocese of Los Angeles.
Nothing trendy about our parish, and we did Communion this way on Sunday evening.
Only thing that held it up was that the bread was, as far as I could tell, a very nice wholemeal sourdough and a bit chewy... but as there were only about 18 or 20 of it didn't matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There is a big difference in principle between allowing lay presidency and allowing lay distribution of the consecrated elements.
Yes. We've never gone near lay presidency. No-one ever mentions such a thing. No "communion by extension" either. Its the distribution that is sometiems shared.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
'Comfortable' doesn't matter.
I am uncomfortable that Methodist orders are considered invalid because of an ungenerous accident of history.
I gladly receive from anybody ordained in any church.
And I am an anglo-catholic.
I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit hovers over church roofs deciding whether or not to enter the elements according to who ordained whom.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I gladly receive from anybody ordained in any church.
Would that include receiving from me? I'm an elder, but not an ordained minister. I am duly authorised by the Church Meeting, approved by the Synod pastoral committee, to preside at Communion in our church (but, only in our church - if I was to preside at another church I would need authorisation by that Church Meeting and approval from Synod all over again).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Comfortable' doesn't matter.
I am uncomfortable that Methodist orders are considered invalid because of an ungenerous accident of history.
I gladly receive from anybody ordained in any church.
And I am an anglo-catholic.
I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit hovers over church roofs deciding whether or not to enter the elements according to who ordained whom.
I am KLB and I approve this message.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit hovers over church roofs deciding whether or not to enter the elements according to who ordained whom.
I don't believe that either!
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would that include receiving from me? I'm an elder, but not an ordained minister. I am duly authorised by the Church Meeting, approved by the Synod pastoral committee, to preside at Communion in our church (but, only in our church - if I was to preside at another church I would need authorisation by that Church Meeting and approval from Synod all over again).
If this mildly charismatic Anglican were a visitor in your church, she would very happily receive Communion from you. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
We're all one. Our various churches have different ways of doing things, but we're all one. Holy Communion is obviously a vital part of worship for most Christians. My preference for Communion is the Anglican way - as I said, the sense of holy drama is dear to me and, IMO, biblical - but I don't look down on other Christians for a different approach.
If your church has authorised you, then you're 'kosher'.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Ref, Alan's post. I, too, have attended services where particular elders of that church were permitted to officiate at communion. And I would have no difficulty in receiving this as my holy communion with God; nor any difficulty in recognizing the Body of Christ in doing so. I'd appreciate that there may be a different theology, and a different ecclesial organization, going on behind the words and actions. But absolutely the same Spirit.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I gladly receive from anybody ordained in any church.
Would that include receiving from me? I'm an elder, but not an ordained minister. I am duly authorised by the Church Meeting, approved by the Synod pastoral committee, to preside at Communion in our church (but, only in our church - if I was to preside at another church I would need authorisation by that Church Meeting and approval from Synod all over again).
Yes it would. If you're authorised by the equivalent of a bishop, i.e. the meeting which exercises episopacy/oversight. I know that the URC has a very thorough and well thought-out position on ministerial function.
I have occasionally received at lay celebrations before. Took me a while to get used to it in my 'heart' but my 'head' talked me into viewing it as kosher. However, long-term, I would want it regularized - if we ever get some sort of church unity, I think we need bishops, though not the C of E sort.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think the worst attempt at some kind of Eucharist I've seen was a meeting of these "simple churches" (i.e. the new wave of house churches) in a pub about a year ago.
After an unstructured couple of hours of chat and questionable attempts to exercise prophecy (don't ask; you don't want to know) someone put some grape juice and rolls on the table, muttered something about having some bread and grape juice, and closed the meeting sort of offering them up is someone wanted some.
Somehow, I didn't.
There were no words of institution. No identification of the elements as the body and blood of Christ, that I can recall. No consecration, in even the broadest sense. Not even an attempt to remind those present why the Eucharist exists. My cynical mind wondered if this was because the person leading the meeting didn't really know himself.
[ 08. March 2013, 09:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the worst attempt at some kind of Eucharist I've seen was a meeting of these "simple churches" (i.e. the new wave of house churches) in a pub about a year ago.
After an unstructured couple of hours of chat and questionable attempts to exercise prophecy (don't ask; you don't want to know) someone put some grape juice and rolls on the table, muttered something about having some bread and grape juice, and closed the meeting sort of offering them up is someone wanted some.
... There were no words of institution. No identification of the elements as the body and blood of Christ, that I can recall. No consecration, in even the broadest sense. Not even an attempt to remind those present why the Eucharist exists. My cynical mind wondered if this was because the person leading the meeting didn't really know himself.
Gosh. That sounds awful. If you're gonna celebrate a Eucharist, do it properly. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
If you're going for an agape meal (such as we had once in my home group), then make it warm and intimate and profound. Because it is. And make it all about Jesus. Which it is.
One of the oddest Communions I ever attended was at a Pentecostal church when I was a teenager. With grape juice and crackers. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
I'm not a sacramental Christian, but it seemed downright sacrilegious to me. Oy vey. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
One of the oddest Communions I ever attended was at a Pentecostal church when I was a teenager. With grape juice and crackers.
I'm not a sacramental Christian, but it seemed downright sacrilegious to me. Oy vey.
This was how my father's church did communion when I was a very young child, and it has made it hard for me to enjoy saltines ever since.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
When you say 'crackers' do you mean Cream Crackers or are they actually using Matzos?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There were no words of institution. No identification of the elements as the body and blood of Christ, that I can recall.
I think pretty much every ssuch service I've been to has involved someone reading the words of the institution from the Gospels or, very often, from Paul.
Sometimes after a sermon that deliberately made it Very Clear that this is a ritual memorial meal and not whatever benighted nonsense that them there Catholics go on about.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
Edgeman - I'm not surprised.
Enoch - it was a long time ago but I am 100% sure they weren't using Matzos (which would have been even weirder with grape juice and not kosher wine, ). No, it was cream crackers - which I found bizarre, and still do.
I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren and at least at the Lord's Supper they used a delicious crusty white loaf and an equally delicious port wine. I still remember that wonderful scent. . The Brethren were a million miles from being sacramental, but at least they had proper bread and nice wine - the symbolism of that just seems more reverent.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There were no words of institution. No identification of the elements as the body and blood of Christ, that I can recall.
I think pretty much every ssuch service I've been to has involved someone reading the words of the institution from the Gospels or, very often, from Paul.
Sometimes after a sermon that deliberately made it Very Clear that this is a ritual memorial meal and not whatever benighted nonsense that them there Catholics go on about.
You couldn't have described this as a "service" without making the OED cry.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
As I mentioned, I required approval from the Synod pastoral committee to be permited to preside at Communion. A requirement they set is that all lay people so authorised have attended a short course on Communion within the previous two years. Within the material for that course (prepared by the college that trains our ministers in Scotland) are a set of essential requirements for the liturgy used - although there is no set liturgy, and we're free to do things as we/our congregation want within those limits.
Those essential requirements are:
1) an invitation to the Table, from Christ to all who wish to receive
2) a description of what we do (eg: Pauls text "what I received I passed onto you, on the night he was betrayed ..."
3) a recap of the gospel message with thanksgiving, we're doing this in rembrance of Christ so we remember him and what he has done
4) an elevation of the bread and cup, with words along the lines of "Christ Jesus took bread, broke it, gave it saying 'this is my body, do this in remembrance of me'", similarly with the cup.
We talked about what we would use - in most cases bread and juice. And, whether it would be appropriate on occasions to change that. Basically, there are grounds for variation - providing the symbolism and memorial of Christ is retained. Although, in practice, there would need to be very good grounds to significantly change the practice of the church (local congregation).
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
After three pages I'm not sure if this is still on point, or not; but, in Matthew 26:26, the Greek λαμβανω can mean either take or receive. In the first part of the verse the participle is used for Jesus' action with the bread (took bread); in the second part the imperative is used for Jesus' command to the disciples (take, eat, or perhaps, receive, eat).
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0