I may raise some Orthodox eyebrows with this observation but I do think we could trim it down somewhat. The Orthodox Liturgy has grown over the centuries and when you hear 'Let us complete our prayers to the Lord' you know there's another half hour or so to go ...
{/quote]
A lot depends on the speed of the clergy and of the choir. In our church Sunday morning Divine Liturgy used to take about 80 minutes, longer if the choir director was away and one of the deputies allowed the choir to drag out the responses. With increasing numbers attending (and consequent increase in communicants) we now take around 90 minutes.
The liturgical movement across many 'Western (i.e. non Orthodox) Christian communities
has brought a new understanding about the celebration of the eucharist and the reception of Communion. Over the centuries it has been a slow attempt to move back to what we think were the ideas of the early Christian communities.
The liturgical movement has affected Orthodox communities, with a considerable increase in the frequency of communion over the last 50 years or so. I remember services with 200-300 people present with only a few children receiving communion. In another smaller community, if no adult had been to confession and there were no children present the priest would bring out the chalice for communion and then immediately go back to the Holy Table, with no time for anyone to approach for communion.
To balance out what I said earlier about the length of Orthodox communion services, I must admit I'm not a fan of those hurtled through at breakneck speed either.
@Alan29, @Nick Tamen hence the prayer we say immediately before receiving the Eucharist: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
Indeed, and that’s a prayer this Presbyterian always prays when receiving Communion.
More directly from John Hunter. Yes that is me, please read the comments, as another shipmate points out the link with Prayer of Humble Access. Like most good liturgy it has deep routes
Thank you for that link. His first paragraph comes mainly from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer or one of its predecessors.
Sojourner,I would not like to think that all who in preconciliar times attended later Masses were in 'irregular unions'. Surely at least some of them just wanted to lie longer in bed.
My late mother liked a good lie-in and got away with it because her mother lived with us and did most of the heavy lifting. I can’t think of anyone I knew who communicated at an early Mass and went back later for music bcause apart from cathedrals there was bugger-all music. This is Oz I’m talking about! Ushaw College might have been somewhat “boutique” even in the UK.
At our TEC place, communion is at pretty much every service. Our current priest replaced my favorite early morning Ash Wednesday service with communion, which I rather regret - the stark simplicity of the naked penetential prayer service with imposition of ashes seems to me to fit the mood better.
Kneeling at the altar rail is the norm. Some of our parishioners would have difficulty kneeling, and so stand. There's usually somewhere between 2 and 6 people who can't easily make their way to the altar, so the priest and a LEM bring communion to them in the pews.
This is basically same for me. For me, the Eucharist is the central act of worship. I tend to describe myself as an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto, though I specifically mean believing in apostolic succession and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (and genuine supernaturalism of the sacraments in general) by “Anglo-Catholic,” rather than the arrangement of candles on the altar and things like that. So for me the Eucharist is really vital.
@Alan29, @Nick Tamen hence the prayer we say immediately before receiving the Eucharist: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
Indeed, and that’s a prayer this Presbyterian always prays when receiving Communion.
Historically, Lutherans have always had weekly communion as a goal. It is even written in our confessions that we have not reduced the frequency of the mass.
However, when Lutheranism came to the Americas, we did not have enough priests to fill every mission station. Consequently, mass became infrequent, celebrated only when the ordained pastor was in the area--along with weddings and confirmations.
Over the years, though, many Lutheran congregations have returned to weekly mass. Some have it twice a month. A few still have it once a month.
However, now that there are mass retirements of ordained people, and not enough replacements coming up, synods are now resorting to other alternatives such as Synod Authorized Ministers who are people approved by the bishop to celebrate the sacraments in lieu of an ordained servant of the word. While that individual may be recognized by one synod, it does not mean they are recognized by another synod or even other denominations in fellowship with the authorizing synod.
@Alan29, @Nick Tamen hence the prayer we say immediately before receiving the Eucharist: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
Indeed, and that’s a prayer this Presbyterian always prays when receiving Communion.
I wonder what the difference is between official authorisation to celebrate and ordination.
Aren't they the same thing in different words?
Not necessarily. At least in my tradition (Reformed, specifically of the Presbyterian variety), there’d be some overlap, for want of a better way of putting it, but not the same thing.
Bear in mind ordination for us doesn’t suggest any ontological change in the ordinand. Ministers of Word and Sacrament preside at the Eucharist not because of any extra gift they have, but as a matter of order. Ministers, by virtue of being ministers, can celebrate anywhere and anytime. (That is provided a Session or other council with authority has authorized the celebration. Ministers can’t just say “let’s have a Eucharist.” This is also a matter of order.)
We have a procedure similar to what @Gramps49 describes. Elders, who are also ordained but to a different order of ministry from ministers, can be commissioned to preach, preside at the Eucharist and/or baptize in congregations without a minister. Some specific training is required, and the commission is only valid in the congregation specified, and for a specified time period. So a commissioned elder can only preside in one congregation, unlike a minister, who can preside anywhere.
That’s leaving aside other differences in the roles of a minister and of an elder/commissioned elder.
Is it not something like what I understand that Anglicans have ?. They may be called LEMs but I'm not sure. They are people who are authorised to celebrate the eucharist in their own parish but have no other pastoral functions.
( a bit perhaps like preReformation 'mass priests' ?)
LEMs might be a thing, but I’m more familiar with OLMs - Ordained Local Ministers. Technically they are fully ordained, but subject to a limitation as to the context for which their ministry will be licensed. There is a process by which the ‘local’ restriction can be lifted.
Yes well .... I am one of those folks whose response to ontological change at ordination and apostolic succession is "Well they would say that about themselves, wouldn't they."
My denomination believes in the priesthood of all believers, which means anyone can baptize or presumably celebrate communion, though in practice this is normally reserved to the pastor. We have regular cases of baptism in emergencies by lay people, but I have long felt we "missed the bus" during the pandemic by not officially reminding everybody who was locked in at home that this (communion) was within their privileges too! I suspect a few of our people connected the dots for themselves, though.
Is it not something like what I understand that Anglicans have ?. They may be called LEMs but I'm not sure. They are people who are authorised to celebrate the eucharist in their own parish but have no other pastoral functions.
( a bit perhaps like preReformation 'mass priests' ?)
I don’t think anyone in the Anglican Communion can consecrate the Eucharist other than priests and bishops, surely? 😮
OLMs,as Bro James explains, are fully ordained Anglican priests but their functions are usually restricted to celebrating the eucharist in a particular parish.
My denomination believes in the priesthood of all believers, which means anyone can baptize or presumably celebrate communion, though in practice this is normally reserved to the pastor.
We believe in the priesthood of all believers, too, though we don’t necessarily translate that into anyone can baptize or celebrate Communion. In our view, both sacraments are acts of the church, not of an individual. Theoretically, the church could authorize anyone to celebrate either sacrament, but for reasons of order, the authority to authorize celebration of either sacrament is restricted to church councils with jurisdiction—Sessions, presbyteries, synods or General Assembly—and the authority to baptize or preside at the Table is, except as noted above, limited to ministers.
Is it not something like what I understand that Anglicans have ?. They may be called LEMs but I'm not sure. They are people who are authorised to celebrate the eucharist in their own parish but have no other pastoral functions.
( a bit perhaps like preReformation 'mass priests' ?)
I don’t think anyone in the Anglican Communion can consecrate the Eucharist other than priests and bishops, surely? 😮
One of our Australian shipmates can say more, but I think I remember lots of discussion (and controversy?) about lay presidency in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, but I don’t know where that currently stands.
For me, the Eucharist is the central act of worship. I tend to describe myself as an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto, though I specifically mean believing in apostolic succession and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (and genuine supernaturalism of the sacraments in general) by “Anglo-Catholic,” rather than the arrangement of candles on the altar and things like that. So for me the Eucharist is really vital.
Could you say more about why it is the central act of worship and vital for you, please?
I don’t think anyone in the Anglican Communion can consecrate the Eucharist other than priests and bishops, surely? 😮
That is certainly the case in the Church of England, and as far as I know in the Church in Wales, the Church of Ireland and the Scottish Episcopalians. That is what goes with being ordained as a priest, and a bishop obviously is also a priest.
Deacons cannot consecrate the Eucharist, absolve or bless but most deacons are also ordained as priests a year later. Deacons can baptise, and legally can marry people, but because of the restriction on blessing don't usually.
A lay person can distribute preconsecrated elements if authorised to do so.
I've never heard of anyone ordained in the CofE who was not expected to preach and who did not expect to do so.
Is it not something like what I understand that Anglicans have ?. They may be called LEMs but I'm not sure. They are people who are authorised to celebrate the eucharist in their own parish but have no other pastoral functions.
( a bit perhaps like preReformation 'mass priests' ?)
That’s not entirely true. It’s correct that they are restricted to minister in a particular parish, but they perform the same liturgical and pastoral duties as any other priest
Is it not something like what I understand that Anglicans have ?. They may be called LEMs but I'm not sure. They are people who are authorised to celebrate the eucharist in their own parish but have no other pastoral functions.
( a bit perhaps like preReformation 'mass priests' ?)
That’s not entirely true. It’s correct that they are restricted to minister in a particular parish, but they perform the same liturgical and pastoral duties as any other priest
How does this work if (say) a neighbouring parish is in dire need of a priest, and an OLM is available to help out?
They need specific dispensation to do that . I believe the bishop can do that on an occasional ad hoc basis, but a more frequent need or more permanent change requires some further discernment process.
They need specific dispensation to do that . I believe the bishop can do that on an occasional ad hoc basis, but a more frequent need or more permanent change requires some further discernment process.
Thanks!
I don't know if we actually have any OLMs in this urban/suburban/semi-rural Diocese.
My denomination believes in the priesthood of all believers, which means anyone can baptize or presumably celebrate communion, though in practice this is normally reserved to the pastor.
We believe in the priesthood of all believers, too, though we don’t necessarily translate that into anyone can baptize or celebrate Communion. In our view, both sacraments are acts of the church, not of an individual. Theoretically, the church could authorize anyone to celebrate either sacrament, but for reasons of order, the authority to authorize celebration of either sacrament is restricted to church councils with jurisdiction—Sessions, presbyteries, synods or General Assembly—and the authority to baptize or preside at the Table is, except as noted above, limited to ministers.
I don't think we'd disagree with you that Baptism and the Lord's Supper belong to the church, and not to any individual. It is the reason why my family, which includes an ordained pastor, doesn't just celebrate communion any time the fancy takes us!
I suspect we have a more "ground up" view of the church than you might--we look to the baptism of individuals who are gathered to form the church, which then makes decisions as a gathered body. It's not a top-down affair. And in emergencies any member of the church universal can perform the functions of the church, including the sacraments. The power/authority that pastors have to do these things comes from the same source as that of every Christian, namely their baptism (and consequent indwelling by the Holy Spirit).
What prevents everyone else from running around doing our own thing is a sense that everything should be done decently and in good order, which means that in non-emergencies, these things are normally done by the pastor. But the late pandemic was certainly an emergency, and one of a sort I never thought I'd see--one that prevented people from receiving communion by means of the lockdown. So I still think we missed our chance as a denomination.
@Lamb Chopped, yes, I suspect that any disagreement about how the priesthood of all believers plays out with regard to the sacraments is in the devilish details. We’re probably somewhere between bottom-up and top-down, seeing the gathered community, together with the larger (denominational) community of which the gathered community is part, as the relevant expression of “church” when it comes to the sacraments. And we’d agree that “[t]he power/authority that pastors have to do these things comes from the same source as that of every Christian, namely their baptism (and consequent indwelling by the Holy Spirit).” But because of the importance of doing things decently and order (decades ago, I had a button that said “Presbyterians do it decently and in order”), and because of a conviction that the presence of the community is important, that power and authority can only be exercised in ways permitted by the community.
Emergency baptism by anyone other than a minister is, to be honest, a completely foreign concept to us. We allow ministers to administer baptisms in emergency settings if the Session has authorized them to do so.
During the pandemic, if the question of whether families or individuals could celebrate Communion at home ever came up, I wasn’t aware of it. I suspect the idea would have been shot down quickly, because of the conviction that Communion is to be celebrated within community. (If Communion is celebrated in, say, a hospital room context, as opposed to bringing the already-consecrated elements to someone in the hospital, there is an expectation that the minister will be accompanied by one or more elders, and perhaps others, to represent the community.)
The big debate among us at the outset of the pandemic was whether Communion could be celebrated virtually—that is, with a minister presiding via livestream or Zoom, and with people providing their own bread and wine/juice at home. That decision was ultimately, like so many other things, left up to the Session of each congregation.
For me, the Eucharist is the central act of worship. I tend to describe myself as an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto, though I specifically mean believing in apostolic succession and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (and genuine supernaturalism of the sacraments in general) by “Anglo-Catholic,” rather than the arrangement of candles on the altar and things like that. So for me the Eucharist is really vital.
Could you say more about why it is the central act of worship and vital for you, please?
I understand it to be the central act of worship because it’s what the Catholic end of the spectrum (which in my understanding includes Anglican) teaches. It’s vital for me because of that, and that I understand it to have the real presence of Christ in it, rather than being only symbolic—that it is actual spiritual nourishment.
@Nenya, @ChastMastr yes, I would add that I understand the Eucharist as a help for me and those gathered with me, a grace to encourage and strengthen us in our faith and pointing to transformation as we share in the Communion, the Body and Blood, humanity and Divinity of Christ.
This doesn't mean I don't feel distracted or bored at times, that is human nature: when I have attended large outdoor Masses in Zimbabwe with long lines standing in the hot sun waiting for Communion, I do feel impatient and miss smaller, more intimate and manageable occasions. At the same time, there is something special in the presence of hundreds of believers gathered together, all of us tired, hot and waiting our turn.
@Alan29, @Nick Tamen hence the prayer we say immediately before receiving the Eucharist: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
Indeed, and that’s a prayer this Presbyterian always prays when receiving Communion.
I love the symbolism of the communion procession as we all, together as a body, move towards the heavenly kingdom where everyone has a place.
that was ruined for me the first time I saw the Carousel scene in Logan's Run - but I get what you mean
I hadn't seen that before. A bit odd?
In the context of the film it’s a load of people processing joyfully as a body to their ‘renewal’ - where they are in fact killed. Similar to the school conveyor belt in The Wall.
Basically between those two films I instinctively shy away from ‘journey’ or process symbolism!
I love the symbolism of the communion procession as we all, together as a body, move towards the heavenly kingdom where everyone has a place.
that was ruined for me the first time I saw the Carousel scene in Logan's Run - but I get what you mean
I hadn't seen that before. A bit odd?
In the context of the film it’s a load of people processing joyfully as a body to their ‘renewal’ - where they are in fact killed. Similar to the school conveyor belt in The Wall.
Basically between those two films I instinctively shy away from ‘journey’ or process symbolism!
I love the symbolism of the communion procession as we all, together as a body, move towards the heavenly kingdom where everyone has a place.
that was ruined for me the first time I saw the Carousel scene in Logan's Run - but I get what you mean
I hadn't seen that before. A bit odd?
In the context of the film it’s a load of people processing joyfully as a body to their ‘renewal’ - where they are in fact killed. Similar to the school conveyor belt in The Wall.
Basically between those two films I instinctively shy away from ‘journey’ or process symbolism!
Nah.
They are only movies.
I didn't say you or anyone else had to, I said that's what they'd done for me.
As Nick Tamen rightly says upthread any disagreements about the priesthood of all believers with regard to the sacraments is in the 'devilish' details .Just like the Presbyterians and the Lutherans, the Catholic Church and many other Christian communities believe in the priesthood of all believers.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is as follows in the catechism.
'Christ, high priest and unique mediator has made of the Church a kingdom, priests for his God and Father. The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly The whole community of the faithful exercise their participation in Christ's mission as priest, prophet and king.
There are arguments sometimes about the meaning of 'priest' which is a contracted form of 'presbyter' which means 'elder'.
It would seem that both Presbyterians and Lutherans in normal circumstance only allow those who have been commissioned by the Church to celebrate the eucharist and this is the same in the Catholic Church. 'Ordination' means being put into a certain order. Those who celebrate the eucharist and other sacraments do so because they have been commissioned or mandated or 'ordered' by the Church so to do.
Sojourner,I would not like to think that all who in preconciliar times attended later Masses were in 'irregular unions'. Surely at least some of them just wanted to lie longer in bed.
Or they had received communion at an earlier "Low Mass" and came back for the music and the sermon,
An archive recording of High Mass in Ushaw College in 1960 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WivtZGfrSk _ ) explains that only the celebrant could receive comunnion at the High Mass.
This was the case for some decades until a new rector arrived in the late 1950s or early 1960s and made the parish vestry agree to abolish noncommunicating High Mass, as well as weekday Low Mass "said short" if there were going to be no communicants from among the faithful coming forward to receive by a certain point. If none, then the people's confession, comfy words, and a few other things were skipped. This new rector did away with all that. But the sermonless 8am Sunday Low Mass persisted until at least 2010.
That to me reminds me of the way a human body passes what is needed to each living cell through the bloodstream; and I tend to see communion itself as Christ's bloodstream supplying his body, or alternately the sap of the True Vine supplying the branches, just what we need where we need it.
I love the symbolism of the communion procession as we all, together as a body, move towards the heavenly kingdom where everyone has a place.
I like that very much; thank you. Although in my tradition we don't process; generally the elements are passed along the rows as we sit.
That’s the traditional way in American Presbyterian churches, though as I think I said above, I don’t see it nearly as often anymore. I remember my grandmother saying she really liked the practice of being served in the pews, both because worshippers serve each other and because it acts as a reminder that God is willing and ready to come to us, where ever we may be.
Though we usually go forward, we have a variant of this on occasion: where the pastor communes the first person in the semi-circle, who then turns to the next and serves him or her, who then...
We have a thread about going to sing, and we have this one. I guess nobody attends church primarily to hear the sermon.
The other thread isn’t just about going to sing. A poem by someone who goes to sing was the jumping off place, but the OP in that thread specifically asked; “Why do you go to church—if, of course, you do go to church? Is it the singing? The liturgy? The community? Habit? Something else, perhaps something that might strike others as odd?”
I’m pretty sure some answered that at least one reason they go is to hear the sermon,
We have a thread about going to sing, and we have this one. I guess nobody attends church primarily to hear the sermon.
No, that depends on the homily or sermon and I've heard some very powerful and moving sermons over the years. The problem perhaps is that preaching (like any form of public speaking or lecturing) is both a skill and a gift and often not one acquired by a busy parish priest.
We have a thread about going to sing, and we have this one. I guess nobody attends church primarily to hear the sermon.
Preaching is not one of our lovely pp's gifts. This is the problem with having a model of ministry that assumes one person can do it all and therefore sets up rules and regulations as though that were the case.
Comments
The liturgical movement has affected Orthodox communities, with a considerable increase in the frequency of communion over the last 50 years or so. I remember services with 200-300 people present with only a few children receiving communion. In another smaller community, if no adult had been to confession and there were no children present the priest would bring out the chalice for communion and then immediately go back to the Holy Table, with no time for anyone to approach for communion.
To balance out what I said earlier about the length of Orthodox communion services, I must admit I'm not a fan of those hurtled through at breakneck speed either.
And they're off: "InTheNameofTheFather ...'
Or as George Herbert put it ‘Love bade me welcome’
My late mother liked a good lie-in and got away with it because her mother lived with us and did most of the heavy lifting. I can’t think of anyone I knew who communicated at an early Mass and went back later for music bcause apart from cathedrals there was bugger-all music. This is Oz I’m talking about! Ushaw College might have been somewhat “boutique” even in the UK.
This is basically same for me. For me, the Eucharist is the central act of worship. I tend to describe myself as an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto, though I specifically mean believing in apostolic succession and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (and genuine supernaturalism of the sacraments in general) by “Anglo-Catholic,” rather than the arrangement of candles on the altar and things like that. So for me the Eucharist is really vital.
One of the most beautiful and encouraging examples of Grace and welcome at Communion.
However, when Lutheranism came to the Americas, we did not have enough priests to fill every mission station. Consequently, mass became infrequent, celebrated only when the ordained pastor was in the area--along with weddings and confirmations.
Over the years, though, many Lutheran congregations have returned to weekly mass. Some have it twice a month. A few still have it once a month.
However, now that there are mass retirements of ordained people, and not enough replacements coming up, synods are now resorting to other alternatives such as Synod Authorized Ministers who are people approved by the bishop to celebrate the sacraments in lieu of an ordained servant of the word. While that individual may be recognized by one synod, it does not mean they are recognized by another synod or even other denominations in fellowship with the authorizing synod.
Aren't they the same thing in different words?
Not necessarily. At least in my tradition (Reformed, specifically of the Presbyterian variety), there’d be some overlap, for want of a better way of putting it, but not the same thing.
Bear in mind ordination for us doesn’t suggest any ontological change in the ordinand. Ministers of Word and Sacrament preside at the Eucharist not because of any extra gift they have, but as a matter of order. Ministers, by virtue of being ministers, can celebrate anywhere and anytime. (That is provided a Session or other council with authority has authorized the celebration. Ministers can’t just say “let’s have a Eucharist.” This is also a matter of order.)
We have a procedure similar to what @Gramps49 describes. Elders, who are also ordained but to a different order of ministry from ministers, can be commissioned to preach, preside at the Eucharist and/or baptize in congregations without a minister. Some specific training is required, and the commission is only valid in the congregation specified, and for a specified time period. So a commissioned elder can only preside in one congregation, unlike a minister, who can preside anywhere.
That’s leaving aside other differences in the roles of a minister and of an elder/commissioned elder.
( a bit perhaps like preReformation 'mass priests' ?)
I don’t think anyone in the Anglican Communion can consecrate the Eucharist other than priests and bishops, surely? 😮
One of our Australian shipmates can say more, but I think I remember lots of discussion (and controversy?) about lay presidency in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, but I don’t know where that currently stands.
Deacons cannot consecrate the Eucharist, absolve or bless but most deacons are also ordained as priests a year later. Deacons can baptise, and legally can marry people, but because of the restriction on blessing don't usually.
A lay person can distribute preconsecrated elements if authorised to do so.
I've never heard of anyone ordained in the CofE who was not expected to preach and who did not expect to do so.
That’s not entirely true. It’s correct that they are restricted to minister in a particular parish, but they perform the same liturgical and pastoral duties as any other priest
How does this work if (say) a neighbouring parish is in dire need of a priest, and an OLM is available to help out?
Thanks!
I don't know if we actually have any OLMs in this urban/suburban/semi-rural Diocese.
I don't think we'd disagree with you that Baptism and the Lord's Supper belong to the church, and not to any individual. It is the reason why my family, which includes an ordained pastor, doesn't just celebrate communion any time the fancy takes us!
I suspect we have a more "ground up" view of the church than you might--we look to the baptism of individuals who are gathered to form the church, which then makes decisions as a gathered body. It's not a top-down affair. And in emergencies any member of the church universal can perform the functions of the church, including the sacraments. The power/authority that pastors have to do these things comes from the same source as that of every Christian, namely their baptism (and consequent indwelling by the Holy Spirit).
What prevents everyone else from running around doing our own thing is a sense that everything should be done decently and in good order, which means that in non-emergencies, these things are normally done by the pastor. But the late pandemic was certainly an emergency, and one of a sort I never thought I'd see--one that prevented people from receiving communion by means of the lockdown. So I still think we missed our chance as a denomination.
Emergency baptism by anyone other than a minister is, to be honest, a completely foreign concept to us. We allow ministers to administer baptisms in emergency settings if the Session has authorized them to do so.
During the pandemic, if the question of whether families or individuals could celebrate Communion at home ever came up, I wasn’t aware of it. I suspect the idea would have been shot down quickly, because of the conviction that Communion is to be celebrated within community. (If Communion is celebrated in, say, a hospital room context, as opposed to bringing the already-consecrated elements to someone in the hospital, there is an expectation that the minister will be accompanied by one or more elders, and perhaps others, to represent the community.)
The big debate among us at the outset of the pandemic was whether Communion could be celebrated virtually—that is, with a minister presiding via livestream or Zoom, and with people providing their own bread and wine/juice at home. That decision was ultimately, like so many other things, left up to the Session of each congregation.
Sorry if I’ve perused or prolonged a tangent.
I understand it to be the central act of worship because it’s what the Catholic end of the spectrum (which in my understanding includes Anglican) teaches. It’s vital for me because of that, and that I understand it to have the real presence of Christ in it, rather than being only symbolic—that it is actual spiritual nourishment.
This doesn't mean I don't feel distracted or bored at times, that is human nature: when I have attended large outdoor Masses in Zimbabwe with long lines standing in the hot sun waiting for Communion, I do feel impatient and miss smaller, more intimate and manageable occasions. At the same time, there is something special in the presence of hundreds of believers gathered together, all of us tired, hot and waiting our turn.
that was ruined for me the first time I saw the Carousel scene in Logan's Run - but I get what you mean
I hadn't seen that before. A bit odd?
Not a piece that we knew. It's hard to think of the proper description of it - exquisite does not seem enough.
In the context of the film it’s a load of people processing joyfully as a body to their ‘renewal’ - where they are in fact killed. Similar to the school conveyor belt in The Wall.
Basically between those two films I instinctively shy away from ‘journey’ or process symbolism!
Nah.
They are only movies.
I didn't say you or anyone else had to, I said that's what they'd done for me.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is as follows in the catechism.
'Christ, high priest and unique mediator has made of the Church a kingdom, priests for his God and Father. The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly The whole community of the faithful exercise their participation in Christ's mission as priest, prophet and king.
There are arguments sometimes about the meaning of 'priest' which is a contracted form of 'presbyter' which means 'elder'.
It would seem that both Presbyterians and Lutherans in normal circumstance only allow those who have been commissioned by the Church to celebrate the eucharist and this is the same in the Catholic Church. 'Ordination' means being put into a certain order. Those who celebrate the eucharist and other sacraments do so because they have been commissioned or mandated or 'ordered' by the Church so to do.
The real question is what exactly is the Church ?
This was the case for some decades until a new rector arrived in the late 1950s or early 1960s and made the parish vestry agree to abolish noncommunicating High Mass, as well as weekday Low Mass "said short" if there were going to be no communicants from among the faithful coming forward to receive by a certain point. If none, then the people's confession, comfy words, and a few other things were skipped. This new rector did away with all that. But the sermonless 8am Sunday Low Mass persisted until at least 2010.
I like that very much; thank you. Although in my tradition we don't process; generally the elements are passed along the rows as we sit.
I’m pretty sure some answered that at least one reason they go is to hear the sermon,
No, that depends on the homily or sermon and I've heard some very powerful and moving sermons over the years. The problem perhaps is that preaching (like any form of public speaking or lecturing) is both a skill and a gift and often not one acquired by a busy parish priest.
Preaching is not one of our lovely pp's gifts. This is the problem with having a model of ministry that assumes one person can do it all and therefore sets up rules and regulations as though that were the case.
Why three? Just curious.