The Lord's Supper

24

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Puzzler wrote: »
    I am sure our Lord did not intend that communion should be so divisive.

    That's not our fault! That's those Filioque Romans/Protestants/Anabaptists/Post-Millenialists etc. etc.
  • edited February 11
  • The Catholic catechism tells us that the Holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation.
    It is, according to the catechism, 'the source and summit of the Christian life. The other sacraments and indeed all works of the apostolate are bound up with it and oriented towards it. In it is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely, Christ, our Pasch.
    It is the sum and summary of our faith - our way of thinking is attuned to the eucharist and the eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.'

    Christ did indeed pray that we should all be one but it is a fact that we are not. I am not going to try to talk in detail about the significance of the eucharist as we all know that there is division and I see that as something human.
    Most of us do believe that there is 'only one Church'(just as there is just one human family) but beyond that we are aware of all sorts of understanding of what the Church is. For some Christians their own understandings take precedence over the understandings of an institutional Church and until we have sorted this out there will never be absolute unity.

    Our discussions may help us better to understand the deeply held convictions of others and also to respect them.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Puzzler wrote: »
    I am sure our Lord did not intend that communion should be so divisive.

    Ah .... but people.
  • This. Some will probably see that as sacrilege).

    Sort of. Why have we abandoned abstinence for consumption?

  • I only had a thimblefull (at Communion)!
  • I only had a thimblefull (at Communion)!

    You could have been like the guy at a Reformed Church that started to use a common cup. The pastor gave the cup to the first man at the rail saying drink, ye all of it. The ushers had to help him back to the pew.
  • The celebration of the Eucharist is the most important part of attending mass by far, for me. The words spoken, the responses given, the incorporation of the Our Father and the sharing of the peace all culminate with the response, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." There is a new translation of the phrase now being used in the Australian mass, but I whisper the version that is so meaningful to me.

    When I say it, I feel a tug in my chest from the same place where I feel anxiety, the locus of the sacred heart in Catholic statues. Even writing about it now gives me this feeling. It feels a bit like someone is tugging on a leash attached to my body, but the tug does not give me pain, it is more like a metaphysical pulling of me out of myself.

    I understand that the response is based upon the response of the Centurion in Matthew 8:
    5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant,[c] ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel[d] have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

    I don't think discussion about transubstantiation or whatever is relevant or interesting other than in a historical sense. I think the whole discussion misses the point of communion, a sacrament of renewal, and an opportunity for us to affirm our humility and faith, faith based on nothing more complex than "I am yours".
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited February 12
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The celebration of the Eucharist is the most important part of attending mass by far, for me. The words spoken, the responses given, the incorporation of the Our Father and the sharing of the peace all culminate with the response, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."
    This Presbyterian also finds that prayer particularly meaningful; I pray it (same version as you) just before communing.

    In the contemplative time immediately after communing, I pray the first part of Psalm 103, which among the Reformed/Presbyterians traditionally was (and in some places still is) sung after Communion:

    Bless the LORD, O my soul,
    and all that is within me, bless his holy name.
    Bless the LORD, O my soul,
    and do not forget all his benefits—
    who forgives all your iniquity,
    who heals all your diseases,
    who redeems your life from the Pit,
    who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,
    who satisfies you with good as long as you live
    so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.


  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 12
    Forthview wrote: »
    To me it is not a question of worthiness to receive the elements None of us are really worthy but we know that the Lord invites us to do this in remembrance of him.

    I'd say that it is because we are unworthy both that the Feast was instituted, and that we are invited to the Table.
    "Nick wrote:
    ]And I understand and respect that perspective. But some others might say that receiving communion in another church is acknowledging the foundational, baptismal unity that is there despite how we obscure it.

    That is just so true.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I only had a thimblefull (at Communion)!

    You could have been like the guy at a Reformed Church that started to use a common cup. The pastor gave the cup to the first man at the rail saying drink, ye all of it. The ushers had to help him back to the pew.

    That must have been an especially potent brew to take effect so quickly. Let's hear it for those Reformed!
  • Foundational, baptismal unity will hopefully lead one day to a complete comm-union.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I think there is Biblical and theological warrant for seeing the eucharist as the foundation of Christian unity. Baptism is the door not the foundation.
    We are all one body because we all eat of one bread, rather than the reverse.
  • Many years ago I was at a Churches Together in England ecumenical "Forum". The keynote speaker was the then Archbishop of Canterbury. In his talk he basically said, "For years we have striven to build Unity around the Eucharist, but it hasn't worked. Why don't we try building it around a common Baptism?" (I later discovered that these thoughts had been his own and he hadn't been "authorised" to say them.

    Cue much burning of midnight oil by the Baptist, Pentecostal and Salvationist delegates ... and a partial retraction-cum-apology from Carey later in the conference.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited February 12
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The celebration of the Eucharist is the most important part of attending mass by far, for me. The words spoken, the responses given, the incorporation of the Our Father and the sharing of the peace all culminate with the response, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." There is a new translation of the phrase now being used in the Australian mass, but I whisper the version that is so meaningful to me.

    When I say it, I feel a tug in my chest from the same place where I feel anxiety, the locus of the sacred heart in Catholic statues. Even writing about it now gives me this feeling. It feels a bit like someone is tugging on a leash attached to my body, but the tug does not give me pain, it is more like a metaphysical pulling of me out of myself.

    I understand that the response is based upon the response of the Centurion in Matthew 8:
    5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant,[c] ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel[d] have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

    I don't think discussion about transubstantiation or whatever is relevant or interesting other than in a historical sense. I think the whole discussion misses the point of communion, a sacrament of renewal, and an opportunity for us to affirm our humility and faith, faith based on nothing more complex than "I am yours".

    In my tradition, we will be celebrating Transfiguration Sunday this Sunday. I am making a point about how we experience the Transfiguration every time we celebrate the Lord's Supper. This will fit in very nicely with what I am saying.
  • cool :smiley:
  • "All who believe and are baptized and accept our teaching of Christ's objective presence in the Sacrament are welcome to receive communion."

    That is a sly, underhanded way of refusing the Sacrament to non-Roman Catholics.
  • "All who believe and are baptized and accept our teaching of Christ's objective presence in the Sacrament are welcome to receive communion."

    That is a sly, underhanded way of refusing the Sacrament to non-Roman Catholics.

    Why is it underhand? "Objective presence" is a flag, isn't it?
  • Yes, but some (?many) folk might wonder what that phrase meant.
  • Yes, but some (?many) folk might wonder what that phrase meant.

    I think non-Christians might wonder, but are there many Christians who don't understand it? Maybe. I just don't see it as underhand, it's fairly explicit.
  • I joke because I remember in Sacramental theology class which I took at a RC college, the professor, a Dominican, basically said that modern RC theologians try to avoid the term "transubstantiation" even though the current magisterium still insists that the eucharistic theology articulated by Thomas Aquinas is still officially, binding teaching. So, they would use terms such as "Real presence", but they would infer, that by real presence, they mean Aquinas' understanding of what that Real presence entails.

    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
  • There is still nothing sly or underhand in the statement.
  • To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

  • That is a sly, underhanded way of refusing the Sacrament to non-Roman Catholics.

    Communion is refused to non-Catholics in theory, but not so much in practice. Anybody who joins the queue in an orderly manner and does what everybody else does will receive Communion.

    If someone were to make it all too clear, when they got to the head of the queue, that they had never received Communion before and had no idea what they were expected to do and say, that would be a giveaway and I suppose questions might be asked. But I’ve never seen that happen in practice.


  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    That is a sly, underhanded way of refusing the Sacrament to non-Roman Catholics.

    Communion is refused to non-Catholics in theory, but not so much in practice. Anybody who joins the queue in an orderly manner and does what everybody else does will receive Communion.

    If someone were to make it all too clear, when they got to the head of the queue, that they had never received Communion before and had no idea what they were expected to do and say, that would be a giveaway and I suppose questions might be asked. But I’ve never seen that happen in practice.


    Ive heard our pp at requiems telling people to put it in their mouth. I cant imagine him refusing someone in those circumstances.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.

    Is that stated as official teaching.
  • Receiving communion in the RC Church is a public statement that one is in tune with the teachings of that Church. If one does not agree with the teachings of the church on the eucharist and if one is adamant that one is NOT an RC, why would one want to receive a sacrament which one does not believe in and in a Church which one does not accept as being what it claims to be ?

    In practice priests are not meant to refuse people who present themselves at the altar, though they are expected to explain in general what the teaching of the Church are.

    There are allowances made for those who have a real desire to receive the eucharist, and who for some reason or another are unable to receive the eucharist within their own community, on the understanding that they share the eucharistic faith of the RC Church.

    And many Catholics would understand, as does the pope himself, that there are times when rules should be broken.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.

    Yes, so do we (Lutherans).
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited February 14
    Yes, but some (?many) folk might wonder what that phrase meant.

    I think non-Christians might wonder, but are there many Christians who don't understand it? Maybe. I just don't see it as underhand, it's fairly explicit.
    I don't think it's underhand. Nevertheless every Christian tradition has its code words and phrases which are familiar to its members but unintelligible to folk "not in the know".

  • While one quite often hears of non-Catholic Western Christians complaining about not being able to receive Communion in an RC church, it is rare to hear complaints about not being able to receive Communion in an Orthodox church. I see something positive in this. I don't mean that it is a positive thing that many Western Christians still find the Orthodox church as too far away from their own practices but that they recognise more easily what they have in common with the RC Church.
    The more we know and understand about each other the easier it is to respect and work on our differences.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.

    Is that stated as official teaching.

    It's possible. In some council somewhere. But we don't tend to codify everything to the nth power the way the Catholics do. There are plenty of Orthodox teachings that are not dogmas and we don't have an official Catechism like our brothers and sisters in Rome.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    While one quite often hears of non-Catholic Western Christians complaining about not being able to receive Communion in an RC church, it is rare to hear complaints about not being able to receive Communion in an Orthodox church. I see something positive in this. I don't mean that it is a positive thing that many Western Christians still find the Orthodox church as too far away from their own practices but that they recognise more easily what they have in common with the RC Church.
    The more we know and understand about each other the easier it is to respect and work on our differences.

    Some, I think, probably think of us as some kind of fancy eastern European Catholics, and thus don't distinguish enough to get upset at us separately.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.
    Ah, my bad. Thank you for the correction.

    Yes, so do we (Lutherans).
    Exactly my though when I read mt’s post. (Well, except for the “we” part. :wink: )

  • If I remember from reading Aquinas, the reason he gives for insisting that the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread is because matter cannot be made up of two things substantively. So it either has to be 1) bread or 2) the body of Christ.

    My critique of Aquinas is that he seems to miss in his Eucharistic theology the big elephant in the room, i.e. the Incarnation. There you have two natures, the divine and human, united in the one person of Christ, which is the basis for the Lutheran view of Sacramental Union of it being both the bread and the body of Christ.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    It is well-known that people with beards are hippies and hippies are cool so the Orthodox must be cool.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    It is well-known that people with beards are hippies and hippies are cool so the Orthodox must be cool.

    Works for me.
  • If I remember from reading Aquinas, the reason he gives for insisting that the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread is because matter cannot be made up of two things substantively. So it either has to be 1) bread or 2) the body of Christ.

    My critique of Aquinas is that he seems to miss in his Eucharistic theology the big elephant in the room, i.e. the Incarnation. There you have two natures, the divine and human, united in the one person of Christ, which is the basis for the Lutheran view of Sacramental Union of it being both the bread and the body of Christ.

    Transubstantiation, IMHO, is based on a false understanding of matter (substance and accidence). The Orthodox never accepted it, and I believe have been proved right.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Transubstantiation is phrased in terms of substance and accident, but I don't think it makes any more sense in that Aristotelian understanding of matter than it does in any other.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.
    Ah, my bad. Thank you for the correction.

    Yes, so do we (Lutherans).
    Exactly my though when I read mt’s post. (Well, except for the “we” part. :wink: )

    We believe the body is there for the same reason we think the bread is there too, still: because it's referred to in the text. Nothing more high-minded. With all respect to Aquinas, I think it's a mistake to assume we fully understand the nature of reality, and what it can or cannot do/be.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.
    Ah, my bad. Thank you for the correction.

    Yes, so do we (Lutherans).
    Exactly my though when I read mt’s post. (Well, except for the “we” part. :wink: )

    We believe the body is there for the same reason we think the bread is there too, still: because it's referred to in the text. Nothing more high-minded. With all respect to Aquinas, I think it's a mistake to assume we fully understand the nature of reality, and what it can or cannot do/be.

    If that were the only mistake Aquinas made . . . . .
  • Forthview wrote: »
    Receiving communion in the RC Church is a public statement that one is in tune with the teachings of that Church. If one does not agree with the teachings of the church on the eucharist and if one is adamant that one is NOT an RC, why would one want to receive a sacrament which one does not believe in and in a Church which one does not accept as being what it claims to be ?

    Because for many of us (Anglicans) our own churches teach that while Rome may be in error in trying to nail down the specifics of the Real Presence it still has real priests celebrating real sacraments as part of the Holy Catholic Church, just as do the Orthodox, Old Catholics, many Lutherans and, (with some equivocation as regards apostolic succession) Methodists, Presbyterians and others. Ultimately it is the Lord's table to which we are invited and the denominational badge worn by the waiter is an irrelevance next to that.
  • Arethosemyfeet I totally accept what you have to say. For me Anglican priests are indeed real Anglican priests, but they are not priests in full communion with the Catholic Church (in the sense that these words are usually understood) Most Christians have some internal understandings of their own and I note that you seem to be unsure if all Lutherans have 'real' priests.

    The problem in almost every case is not our differing understandings of the sacraments but our differing understandings of what is the 'Church' Denominational badge worn by the waiter is indeed an irrelevance, because we are all linked in some way to the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church. We have not as yet achieved full communion with one another.
  • Sadly that is the case; and it's particularly sad that the Table around which we all wish to gather has become such a focal point for division.
  • True unity can only come around the communion table and in the eucharist. If you can't share there, anything else is mere window dressing
  • I agree, and stuff short of sharing the eucharist are useful waypoints.
  • Of course it is sad as Baptist Trainfan has said that the Table has become the focal point of our divisions and also as Exclamation Mark has also so aptly said that true unity can only come around the Table of Communion. That is what the Catholic Church has said for ages
    and it is something that we must work together for.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.

    Is that stated as official teaching.

    It's possible. In some council somewhere. But we don't tend to codify everything to the nth power the way the Catholics do. There are plenty of Orthodox teachings that are not dogmas and we don't have an official Catechism like our brothers and sisters in Rome.

    I was just wondering what weight to give to your statement, whether its personal, commonly held but not taught, or official.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.


    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.
    I'm CofE and relatively low by some Shipmates' standards, and would say the same.

Sign In or Register to comment.