Centrality of the Eucharist?

24

Comments

  • Choir DroneChoir Drone Shipmate Posts: 13
    I am old enough (reference to dirt implied) to remember when the American Episcopal church commonly featured alternating Sundays of Morning Prayer and Holy Communion.
  • Or, as we often say at Mass (during the Eucharistic Prayer):

    Christ has died! Christ is risen! Christ will come again!

    Or, as we sing each week, "We proclaim your death O Lord, and profess Your resurrection, until You come -- until You come again!"

    Where do the Acclamations come from?
  • I always used to be a bit disconcerted, as an Anglican who has gone up the candle over the years, by the local evangelical mega-church near our previous house advertising one of their few communion services in the year as being on Good Friday, which is of course the one day in the year you can't celebrate it, in the catholic and orthodox traditions.
  • I am old enough (reference to dirt implied) to remember when the American Episcopal church commonly featured alternating Sundays of Morning Prayer and Holy Communion.
    Well, since I remember when that was the transitional practice, and since I’m old enough to remember the prior practice of Holy Communion on the first Sunday of the month with morning prayer all other Sundays, thanks for making me feel older than dirt. :wink:

  • Thanks for all your comments so far, which have been helpful in unpacking why I feel as I do. (And maybe how some other people feel too??)

    Upon reflection, I realise that it's not the Eucharistic service that I have problems with - and it does provide variety when alternated with Evensong - but the getting up and doing things. I am a 'being' person, rather than a 'doing' person, so would rather listen than perform, sit quietly in my seat and think, rather than get up and read a lesson, offer the elements, be a steward, receive the host. So, in that respect, Evensong (mostly a passive service) suits me better than the more participatory Eucharist service.

    And, yes, it probably is partly, at least, a reaction to years of being in a group (i.e. the choir) which is supposed to take a lead in the service. I'd rather watch than do.

    I think most people would understand that those new to church would rather sit and watch for a while, rather than take an active part. But maybe some of us who are more long term churchgoers would also prefer this.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I am old enough (reference to dirt implied) to remember when the American Episcopal church commonly featured alternating Sundays of Morning Prayer and Holy Communion.

    We still do that here. Both morning and evening alternate so there is always a communion service, but it alternates between 11am and 5pm.
  • One of the problems I am facing at the moment is that people in the church expect Communion every week and cannot consider any possibility that the Sunday service might not be Eucharistic. This is a problem because:

    a) It has meant that any attempt to introduce a simple All Age Worship service, where newcomers and enquirers are especially welcome, has foundered on the demand that it still be a Eucharist. As much as I love the Eucharist, the reality is that it is increasingly alien to many enquirers and either excludes them or makes too many demands of them. I often get people saying to me "why can't we get lots of people like the church down the road?" One answer to that is "the church down the road has a Sunday service that is rarely Eucharistic and so enquirers feel more at home there." But no-one seems to see it.

    b) The way forward for the church, in conjunction with others in the area, will probably mean that it won't be too long before they won't have a full-time priest of their own. Part of that change could mean that they have one service a month where there is no ordained minister. This could easily be a Service of the Word - except for the blunt refusal to consider such an outcome. I am tempted to ask the question "so would you prefer the church to close before even considering a monthly non-Eucharistic service?"

    What really frustrates me in all this is the attitude that says "as long as I get my weekly communion, I don't care what else happens."

    I know that this may seem radical and shocking to some but:

    The world will not stop turning if you don't have communion every week. Life and faith still goes on.
  • Maybe you could consider lay leaders for communion.

    Personally, I don't see why it requires an ordained person. Jesus is present where two or three are gathered in his name according to at least one of the gospels.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    We sing the Acclamation (Christ has died etc) at the main service each Sunday and say it on other occasions. The Acclamation Choir Drone gives is that from the new Catholic liturgy.
  • AFAIC a plainchant "Christ has died" is the only acceptable way of singing the eucharistic prayer acclamation - I find the accompanied version very jarring.
  • One of the problems I am facing at the moment is that people in the church expect Communion every week and cannot consider any possibility that the Sunday service might not be Eucharistic. This is a problem because:

    a) It has meant that any attempt to introduce a simple All Age Worship service, where newcomers and enquirers are especially welcome, has foundered on the demand that it still be a Eucharist. As much as I love the Eucharist, the reality is that it is increasingly alien to many enquirers and either excludes them or makes too many demands of them. I often get people saying to me "why can't we get lots of people like the church down the road?" One answer to that is "the church down the road has a Sunday service that is rarely Eucharistic and so enquirers feel more at home there." But no-one seems to see it.

    b) The way forward for the church, in conjunction with others in the area, will probably mean that it won't be too long before they won't have a full-time priest of their own. Part of that change could mean that they have one service a month where there is no ordained minister. This could easily be a Service of the Word - except for the blunt refusal to consider such an outcome. I am tempted to ask the question "so would you prefer the church to close before even considering a monthly non-Eucharistic service?"

    What really frustrates me in all this is the attitude that says "as long as I get my weekly communion, I don't care what else happens."

    I know that this may seem radical and shocking to some but:

    The world will not stop turning if you don't have communion every week. Life and faith still goes on.

    Christianity isn’t a social club. It’s not supposed to be a place where everyone feels good all the time. Christianity should be strange. The message of Christ is alienating.
    This is my own Anglo-Catholicism speaking, but I do think that making the liturgy easier is on a steep slope to abandoning the faith.
    The centrality of the Eucharist is important. What do we gain if we abandon that and welcome everyone in?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    .
    ECraigR wrote: »
    The centrality of the Eucharist is important. What do we gain if we abandon that and welcome everyone in?

    I'm all for welcoming everybody in. I think as Christians we're demanded to. But welcoming them into WHAT? A feel-good service with theatre seats and a Starbucks in the foyer? Those are the largest churches. Is having the largest church worth that? The logic of "That's what that big church down the street does, so it is what we should do also" leads there.
  • I look after three churches. Logistics mean each one has a Communion service once a fortnight. Some people would like it weekly, but that simply isn't possible.
  • Chorister wrote: »
    I realise that it's not the Eucharistic service that I have problems with ... but the getting up and doing things. I am a 'being' person, rather than a 'doing' person, so would rather listen than perform, sit quietly in my seat and think.
    Ah, you need to become a Baptist (or perhaps a Presbyterian) ... the Communion elements are brought to you in your seat!

  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    One of the problems ... is that people in the church expect Communion every week and cannot consider any possibility that the Sunday service might not be Eucharistic ... It has meant that any attempt to introduce a simple All Age Worship service, where newcomers and enquirers are especially welcome, has foundered on the demand that it still be a Eucharist.
    I don't know what tradition you are from; if Anglican, with its liturgical requirements, you are a bit stuck! On the other hand, if you have the freedom to devise or use other liturgies, it is perfectly possible to hold an All-age service which is Eucharistic.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    It’s perfectly possible to hold an Anglican All Age Service with communion, and there are three or four Eucharistic prayers which work quite well for children. OTOH it may seem quite excluding if the All Age Service draws in a number of people who don’t wish or aren’t allowed to receive.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    .
    ECraigR wrote: »
    The centrality of the Eucharist is important. What do we gain if we abandon that and welcome everyone in?

    I'm all for welcoming everybody in. I think as Christians we're demanded to. But welcoming them into WHAT? A feel-good service with theatre seats and a Starbucks in the foyer? Those are the largest churches. Is having the largest church worth that? The logic of "That's what that big church down the street does, so it is what we should do also" leads there.

    Yes, point taken. Mousethief said what I meant to but more aptly.
  • I know we're getting off the point here, but to my mind there is a balance to be struck. Sure, there will always be elements of the Christian faith which are going to be "alien", "other" and downright repugnant to those who don't follow the faith, also one does want a service to have a degree of reverence, "otherness" and mystery. On the other hand, the ways we do things - very familiar to those "in the know" - can sometimes be unintentionally off-putting to those who do not share our faith.

    So I don't think we should go down the road of the all-singing, all-dancing "world-adopting" model; nor do I think we should deliberately sticks to formats and approaches which may actually have been contemporary centuries ago, but now appear simply archaic and unrelated to modern peoples' lives. Like it or not, we cannot say "this is the way we do things, if it doesn't tick your boxes that's tough"; we do need to reach out to people as they are while not throwing out the proverbial baby with the spiritual bathwater.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Chorister wrote: »
    I realise that it's not the Eucharistic service that I have problems with ... but the getting up and doing things. I am a 'being' person, rather than a 'doing' person, so would rather listen than perform, sit quietly in my seat and think.
    Ah, you need to become a Baptist (or perhaps a Presbyterian) ... the Communion elements are brought to you in your seat!

    Funnily enough, Dr. Pusey would have been familiar with that practice as Christ Church Oxford administered communion in your seat down to about 1870 when the new dean "restored" the cathedral. You had to be kneeling though. Communion rails were all but universal in Anglicanism, but the 'all but' was a recognizable group, and ministers dealt with it!

    I do think we need to get away from confusing 'centrality' with 'frequency,' though. The two are not necessarily the same. The Eucharist can be central to your faith, but the custom of your tribe, and other consideration might make it a much looked forward to, and prepared for, monthly event, rather than something weekly. My big fear tends to be that folks trip up to communion not considering what is required of them and thereby "eat and drink damnation to themselves not discerning the Lord's body." I don't think there is an actual right answer to this one, but I do believe one has to look at local wants, needs, and concerns, and pray about it before defining a practice.
  • Chorister wrote: »
    I realise that it's not the Eucharistic service that I have problems with ... but the getting up and doing things. I am a 'being' person, rather than a 'doing' person, so would rather listen than perform, sit quietly in my seat and think.
    Ah, you need to become a Baptist (or perhaps a Presbyterian) ... the Communion elements are brought to you in your seat!
    I had that same thought. Though among Presbyterians on this side of The Pond, coming up for Communion has become more common as Communion has become more frequent. We only do pew communion twice a year (out of 16 observances).

    PDR wrote: »
    I do think we need to get away from confusing 'centrality' with 'frequency,' though. The two are not necessarily the same.
    Very good point.

  • I wonder if the time has come to revisit the (long discredited) practice of non-communicating masses? Not in the sense of 'no-one can receive except the priest', but, 'many people may not wish to receive and shouldn't be expected/morally compelled to'. In most churches there are usually one or two people who don't go up to the altar, or who do just to receive a blessing, but the expectation seems to be that the Eucharist is only about receiving the sacrament and not also the supreme act of worship in which the church and the world are united with Christ in his offering to the Father.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    I did read an interesting book, years ago, written by a Methodist military Chaplain who ended up in Colditz alongside two Anglicans. It was basically a transcription of his diary, and he got quite frustrated by their insistence on celebrating Communion on every feast and high day as there were some, such as Christmas Day, on which he felt it was inappropriate.
  • Reading this thread makes me wonder if any of us are striking the right balance ...

    On the one hand there are Anglican churches like Organist's which can't hold a PCC meeting without a eucharistic element. On the other hand there are Anglican churches I know which seem to treat communion as a bolt-on extra even - horror of horrors - after copious cups of tea and slices of lemon drizzle cake ...

    The Baptist and other 'non-conformist' practice of less frequent but more 'communal' communion makes sense - although arguably the practice of wee cuppies around the pews or plastic bucket chairs could be seen as obviating that and getting back into 'personal communion' territory.

    I've got some memorable memories - as it were - of Baptist communion services - no bells of whistles but something just 'clicks'.

    However, for my sins, I do prefer more ceremony these days and I've probably got a far 'higher' eucharistic theology than most Baptists - although some come close ...

    I think part of the problem across many Anglican churches is that the alternatives aren't really that great - they either end up trying - badly - to emulate the Free Churches or the trendier independent outfits - or they lay on cringe-worthy 'family worship' which is fine if you are five years old.

    Perhaps we need a 'Parish Mattins Movement' to balance out the 'Parish Communion Movement'.

    Any volunteers?
  • The 'watching' and 'doing' thing is an interesting one. A vicar once said to me that she thought the Parish Communion Movement had been more about giving people something to do in services than it was about any particular aspect of eucharistic theology or devotion.

  • Those are all interesting points, thank you.
  • For those coming in to church with no background whatsoever, everything we do will be strange. In what other context do people stand up and sing repeated verses, or are expected to sit silently to listen to a preacher, or all say identical words together. And that’s before we get on to the theological content.

    So all services which are geared to outsiders need careful consideration. However the service plan needs to cater for the faithful as well as the newcomer, and that must include Communion as central, even if not so very frequent.
  • My present congregation has high visitor numbers, usually over fifty percent (this is not difficult the regulars are exactly three to four in number and the congregation is usually over ten and yes we have about twenty semi-regulars and some visitors are from the morning congregation who SHOULD know the protocols).
    I did read an interesting book, years ago, written by a Methodist military Chaplain who ended up in Colditz alongside two Anglicans. It was basically a transcription of his diary, and he got quite frustrated by their insistence on celebrating Communion on every feast and high day as there were some, such as Christmas Day, on which he felt it was inappropriate.

    Padre in Colditz

    Yes I have read it to.
  • The difficulty is accommodating both the needs of committed regular worshippers, and the (supposed, because how do we know?) needs of enquirers or those new to the faith. You could have separate services, but that depends on resources, and runs the risk of developing two parallel churches with little in common. You could designate one Sunday every month, or whenever, as 'enquirers' services and encourage regulars to attend on a 'family hold back' basis, eg. forgoing the Eucharist. Or you could accept that while regulars might note when these are going to happen, occasional visitors would probably not and just turn up whatever was on offer. In which case just go ahead with your usual Eucharist and make sure it is offered as reverently and sincerely as possible. People don't have to understand everything to be moved by a spiritual experience.
  • Simply put: if you don't like communion, don't go to communion. You are free to leave, say after the prayers of the church during the passing of the peace. We have one musician that will do that because he cannot put his mind around eating the body of Christ. It's okay.

    To me, though, it has a very rich history and is very reach in symbolism. For instance, when I take part in this common meal, I am eating not only with the brothers and sisters that are eating with me, but also with all Christians around the world taking part in the meal. Not only that, but I am joining with all Christians: past. present, and future in the feast that has no end.

    The fact is our earliest documents show that it was the primary focus of weekly worship almost from the beginning when it was instituted. It fell into disuse somewhat after the reformation, when the preaching of the Word became more important. It was during the liturgical renewal of the 60's that weekly communion started coming back to mainline denominations.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    To me, though, it ... is very rich in symbolism. For instance, when I take part in this common meal, I am eating not only with the brothers and sisters that are eating with me, but also with all Christians around the world taking part in the meal. Not only that, but I am joining with all Christians: past. present, and future in the feast that has no end.
    Absolutely.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    It fell into disuse somewhat after the reformation, when the preaching of the Word became more important.

    Not in Catholicism and Orthodoxy it didn't. This is a very tunnel-visioned view of church history.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Simply put: if you don't like communion, don't go to communion. You are free to leave, say after the prayers of the church during the passing of the peace. We have one musician that will do that because he cannot put his mind around eating the body of Christ. It's okay.

    It's interesting you say that, because I've heard before that the Communion Service is in two parts, the first being - effectively - a Service of the Word. So I was coming around to thinking that it would certainly help if people were made aware that they could leave at that point before the second half of the service. Otherwise it looks as if you are 'just walking out' which would feel very embarrassing.

    At present, I just attend the morning Eucharist occasionally, and attend Evensong on other days in between. Which works for me just fine at the moment. But then not all people live within easy travelling distance of an Evensong service.

  • I agree with Rufus; it is a problem if you can only invite people to a Eucharist.
    If someone is attending a service purely as an enquirer, with no Christian background or belief, they are not likely to want to receive communion - but they may feel excluded if they are the only ones not doing so. I can think of several people I would have invited to church for an occasional Sunday morning if there had been anything available apart from a Eucharist, but there wasn’t.
  • Of the new people at our place over the last 10+ years, those who haven't previously been churchgoers have started off with Matins; some have gone on to be confirmed, others just show up for Matins (once a month) and Evensong (seems to be working out to every other month).
  • The Orthodox communion service is more obviously in two parts as it were - although the bit with 'The doors! The doors!' and 'Depart ye Catechumens!' seems to serve no practical purpose these days and appears to be retained purely for tradition's sake. Are there any Orthodox parishes which actually herd out any Catechumens present and bolt the doors?

    I suspect that, back in the day, more people would quietly slip out of Anglican communion services before the actual consecration of the elements without causing any embarrassment.

    It's only comparatively recently that embarrassment has set in.

    The Orthodox seem to come and go when they please and nobody seems to mind that much, if at all. I understand that a similar thing happens in some synagogues. You have set prayers to go through and when you have completed them you turn and chat to your neighbour.

    It's only comparatively recently that we've had this all arrive at the same time, sit, stand or kneel in unison thing going on.
  • Maybe you could consider lay leaders for communion.

    Personally, I don't see why it requires an ordained person. Jesus is present where two or three are gathered in his name according to at least one of the gospels.

    In fact, some lay people are called to preside at the Communion table. It's about time this was recognised and catered for. Church is not about our rules, or about us, but about God.
  • In some rural parts of Wales where one priest is responsible for several parishes distant from each other, the churches remain closed except when it is their 'turn' to host the Sunday service, inevitably a Communion service. I'm only a visitor from elsewhere, but it strikes me as a pity that - for whatever reason - the congregation doesn't organize itself to say Morning or Evening Prayer together on the "off" Sundays.
  • Technically, all Christians are part of the universal priesthood of all believers, but the church came to realize it could not have everyone going around doing their own private communion so it designated certain leaders to act on behalf of the assembled body. Originally they would have been the first bishops but as the church got larger bishops designated other assistants to do the sacraments. I know this is an oversimplification.

    Lutherans still hold that the congregation calls the pastor and delegates the responsibility of word and sacrament to them.

    I will let Anglicans explain how their process works.

  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    We had a few Evangelical parishes around my way when I was a kid that still had MP and EP as the main service, and then shortened Holy Communion would begin after a short pause in the chancel. The communicants would head for the chancel, and the non-communicants for the teapot in the parish hall, and they would all meet up again 15 to 20 minutes later usually just as the teapot had been refreshed.

    Cranmer's rubrics suggest a similar gathering of Communicants in the chancel, but it is a bit unclear what he wants the rest of the congregation to do, whether it is wait in the nave and be edified by what they can see of the action in the chancel, or go home or to the ale-house. The tradition grew up that folks left after the sermon, which was a bit messy as they would dribble out from the end of the sermon through to the beginning of the General Confession by all accounts.
  • Aravis wrote: »
    I agree with Rufus; it is a problem if you can only invite people to a Eucharist.
    If someone is attending a service purely as an enquirer, with no Christian background or belief, they are not likely to want to receive communion - but they may feel excluded if they are the only ones not doing so. I can think of several people I would have invited to church for an occasional Sunday morning if there had been anything available apart from a Eucharist, but there wasn’t.

    The typical Orthodox thing to do in places that serve the Vespers on Saturday night is to invite them to Vespers on Saturday night (or vigil, which is Vespers + Matins served in the evening). It's quieter, in many jurisdictions prettier, and more laity-centered. Plus if you don't come to Liturgy in the morning you can sleep in.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    For a long time, I could go to daily Mass in a local church, usually before or after work during the week. The centrality of a sacramental Eucharist was key to my faith, but Mass was always a struggle: as a Catholic laywoman I felt excluded from the sacramental ministry and like many others found myself unheard and silenced. There were times when the Church seemed corrupt, heartless and too broken for any healing or hopefulness. Yet there were other moments when I would have a sense of something amazing and profound taking place. If I stayed away, it was harder to go back, so I gritted my teeth and hung in through times of doubt or boredom.

    Celebrating a daily Eucharist shaped my days and made me aware of the liturgical season, so that at any given moment I knew we were nearly in Advent or that it was the Feast Day of Teresa of Avila or that we were in cycle C and the Gospel of Mark.was often something inconvenient or taken for granted ('oh no, not this hymn again'). The small group of us who attended Mass regularly grew close as we prayed for one another.

    On dark winter mornings I would arrive early, welcome any newcomers and check if they needed anything, put flowers in water at Mary's altar, light candles for those in need of intercession and feel connected to the many generations of people before me who had come hurrying into dimly lit churches to kneel and be alone with God, then participate in something bigger than all of us. Going into that church felt like home.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Church is not about our rules, or about us, but about God.
    This.

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Chorister wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Simply put: if you don't like communion, don't go to communion. You are free to leave, say after the prayers of the church during the passing of the peace. We have one musician that will do that because he cannot put his mind around eating the body of Christ. It's okay.

    It's interesting you say that, because I've heard before that the Communion Service is in two parts, the first being - effectively - a Service of the Word. So I was coming around to thinking that it would certainly help if people were made aware that they could leave at that point before the second half of the service. Otherwise it looks as if you are 'just walking out' which would feel very embarrassing.

    I have mentioned on the ship before the practice of the church of most of my childhood and teens of breaking for coffee between the ministry of the word and ministry of the sacrament, partly to allow those not (yet?) comfortable with communion, often baptismal parties, to slip out without fuss, and partly to encourage the congregation to take the time to get to know each other rather than rushing off to cook dinner. It probably looks a little eccentric to liturgical purists but it did seem to work.
    Edit: I should say that for those who didn't like the split there was an 8 o'clock BCP communion service at the same church and another ASB/CW communion at the village church in the other parish in the benefice.
  • The Orthodox communion service is more obviously in two parts as it were - although the bit with 'The doors! The doors!' and 'Depart ye Catechumens!' seems to serve no practical purpose these days and appears to be retained purely for tradition's sake. Are there any Orthodox parishes which actually herd out any Catechumens present and bolt the doors?

    I suspect that, back in the day, more people would quietly slip out of Anglican communion services before the actual consecration of the elements without causing any embarrassment.

    It's only comparatively recently that embarrassment has set in.

    The Orthodox seem to come and go when they please and nobody seems to mind that much, if at all. I understand that a similar thing happens in some synagogues. You have set prayers to go through and when you have completed them you turn and chat to your neighbour.

    It's only comparatively recently that we've had this all arrive at the same time, sit, stand or kneel in unison thing going on.

    As a liturgical scholar I beg to differ. It marks a change in what is happening, if you like a threshold is being crossed, the worshiping community is entering a different state to what has preceded it. You get it in many forms of worship, such as the unveiling of the elements at URC communion service, the way that charimatic worship moves to a time of singing in tongues, and the moving from welcome to silence in Quaker worship. Often these are marked by action or words. The action here recalls people to a time past when communion was only witnessed* by those holding full status in the community. It therefore reminds people that this is a place primarily for the community and also a place of sacredness.


    *using witness here not because I think it was normal for participants to observe and not partake but because even observation was not allowed to those who were not full members of the community
  • Years ago I often went to an RC church. It puzzled me that a lot of people arrived late, and left early en masse. Eventually I got the explanation that, while it was an obligation to attend Mass, there were two points in the service that defined attending.
  • The present day form of the RC Mass is divided into two distinct parts a) the Liturgy of the Word and b) the Liturgy of the Eucharist - earlier on called a) the Mass of the Catechumens and b )the Mass of the Faithful. Just as Jengie Jon says, those who were not members of the Church were not allowed to participate in any way at the Mass of the Faithful.
    As centuries went on there would be ,in Europe anyway, few who were not baptised, so no need for exclusion at the Mass of the Faithful.
    In the days before Vatican2 it would be stressed by the Church authorities that one was obliged to be present at the Mass of the Faithful which followed seamlessly the Mass of the Catechumens. Though few ordinary Catholics would be aware of the term 'Mass of the Catechumens' they would know that one should be present from the moment that the priest ,in the name of the parishioners ,offered the bread and wine , up to the point when the priest, in the name of the parishioners, received the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood.
    At that time , before the optional reception of Communion by the Faithful, a bell was rung, signalling that the obligatory part of the Mass was over, and one would often see people leaving.
    It is still common to ring a bell after the preist's Communion, but fewer people will know why and even fewer will ask about it.
  • Sorry about misspelling of 'priest' in the last sentence.
  • I know the 'theory' Jengie Jon I was a bit flippant in the way I expressed myself. I understand that there is a 'transition' going on from one part of the service to the next.

    I hadn't thought of it in terms of what happens in charismatic or Quaker meetings, but I can certainly see what you are saying and found your observations helpful.

    But to all practical intents and purposes, is this how the participants see it? I suppose that's a different question.
  • A good question and even if you asked them you might get a different impression to if you observed them. I suppose it is quite easy to suspect that if they knew the theory and you asked them they would give you the theory even if in actual practice it did not. However, it can be the other way around. During my PhD I found I could not take formal ethnographic notes between the opening sentences and the blessing, this is particularly annoying as one of the 'tricks of the trade' is to make them during the sermon. I eventually decided that there was a subtle behavioural change which I had been trained to observe for forties years and breaking it now would be very difficult. Prior to struggling with this I would have said that there was no such change.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    I did read an interesting book, years ago, written by a Methodist military Chaplain who ended up in Colditz alongside two Anglicans. It was basically a transcription of his diary, and he got quite frustrated by their insistence on celebrating Communion on every feast and high day as there were some, such as Christmas Day, on which he felt it was inappropriate.

    Well that has me puzzled. Why on the day that we celebrate the God's Incarnation amongst humanity would we not receive, even in a prison camp if available, the Incarnation (or a signification of it as as transignificationists might say) of God's Incarnation for us in our hands, mouths, souls?
This discussion has been closed.