E
emeraldcoast
Guest
I have been a member of VERY large Episcopal Churches and we still kneeled at the Alter. I agree with you that I don’t understand why Catholics don’t kneel at the alter to receive the Eucharist.
God Bless!
- Status
God Bless!
H
HannahLisa
Guest
Every single Episcopal and Lutheran church I have been to has had kneelers of some sort.
The Methodist church I went to did not, and no one knelt except at the altar rail. The Orthodox church I went to didn’t have kneelers or pews, but people still knelt (and occasionally prostrated themselves to the chant “oh come let us worship and fall down before Christ. Save us oh Son of God…”). Most of the time they stood though. And the Foursquare church I currently go to has no kneelers but people still kneel. Same with Mennonites…
The Catholic Church is the only church I have been to where people stand while receiving Communion, except possibly for Orthodox churches, at which people stand through almost all of the service.
The Methodist church I went to did not, and no one knelt except at the altar rail. The Orthodox church I went to didn’t have kneelers or pews, but people still knelt (and occasionally prostrated themselves to the chant “oh come let us worship and fall down before Christ. Save us oh Son of God…”). Most of the time they stood though. And the Foursquare church I currently go to has no kneelers but people still kneel. Same with Mennonites…
The Catholic Church is the only church I have been to where people stand while receiving Communion, except possibly for Orthodox churches, at which people stand through almost all of the service.
C
chris_molter
Guest
That’s fine. I’ll sic my “East Side” friends on them
I
IowaJay
Guest
You overstate your case. In the Western church, pews for the laity are perhaps a particular development that took off after the Reformation in both Protestant and Catholic churches, but sitting in church was a development that was growing more widespread by the pre-Reformation 14th and 15th centuries.
churchantiques.com/pews.html
"The pews: Some minimal seating existed from the early church - the first liturgies were conducted in house churches and seating for those who might need to sit, the elderly or infirm, for example, was in place.
The bishop got a seat as time went on, but the rest of people, including the ministers, generally stood. After Constantine allowed Christianity as the official religion of the empire, seating was provided for those of high status - particularly political status. Monastic life contributed to the encroachment of the pews since monks and some other clerics sat in “choir,” - a choir pew area between the people in the assembly and the altar. They would against opposite walls, facing each other, a style still seen in monastic settings.
From here, pew seating basically simply evolved - after the Carolingian period a kind of haphazard or even “bring-your-own” seating emerged for laity, a chair here, a bench there, a mat on the floor. This increased during the 14th and 15th centuries and by the 16th century pews were common. This development, as mentioned above, further separated the people from the priest and the liturgy - dividing the church up and keeping the laity at bay. The Reformation contributed greatly to the pew design - the Reformers placed the emphasis on hearing, not seeing, and they rejected the lush visual elements of worship. So to emphasize hearing the Word of God, the people sat. They also began to read in worship - the printing press and growing literacy encouraged that.
Roman Catholic Churches also embraced seating at this time, but the invasion of the pews was a particularly northern European and New World affair. The wealthy began to buy their own pews as well."
I’d say that Orthodox, Lutherans, and most Anglicans believe in/have the “total” real presence, as well.
Jon
V
valiermn
Guest
Yes they do have the real presence. Some Catholics claim they are the only ones that have a valid eucharist. after leaving the catholic church I now know that is not the case
H
Harpazo
Guest
Shlom lokh,
Why makes you say that? I have never heard a Catholic say Intinction is of the devil. It is done that way in the Maronite Church and I think Armenian Catholics do it as well, but do not hold it against me. As previously mentioned, in the Byzantine Tradition the Holy Body is put on a spoon and dipped in the Chalice of the Holy Blood and dropped into the communicant’s mouth.
If you hear a Catholic say such a thing, you can pretty much guarantee that they do not know what they are talking about. Let us know if you hear one say that, and I will be sure to find them and give them a swift slap across the face. Just kidding!
But it is absurd for one to say that nonetheless.Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
H
Harpazo
Guest
Shlom lokh,
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches both have the same exact belief and teaching, as well as the presence of Our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist. On the other hand, there are a variety of opinions within Lutheranism and Anglicanism to what “Real Presence” means. Whether or not the Lutherans and Anglicans have it, well, you know the Catholic and Orthodox stance on it.
Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
Yes, Andrew. I know your stand on it.
I also know that Catholics and Orthodox are not so united on Transubstantiation.
I think you’ll find that Lutherans are quite uniform in their belief in the real presence, moreso than Anglicans.
It is always good to hear from you.
Jon
H
Harpazo
Guest
Shlom lokh oH,Yes, Andrew. I know your stand on it.
I also know that Catholics and Orthodox are not so united on Transubstantiation.
I think you’ll find that Lutherans are quite uniform in their belief in the real presence, moreso than Anglicans.
It is always good to hear from you.
Jon
With the Catholics and Orthodox it boils down to semantics, sadly. The Latin Catholics are much more privy to scholasticism than their Eastern brethren. From what I have read, for the Orthodox it is not a matter of rejecting what Transubstantiation means, but rather the term itself. The East likes to respect the mystery of the Holy Mystery. I cannot say I blame them. Both Churches believe the exact same, but express them differently. It can get terribly confusing at times. I know I myself get headaches trying to wrap my head around what the other is saying.
Within each branch of the Lutheran faith does each one have a different view on the Eucharist? That is what I have gathered, but being a human it is possible I misinterpreted. I have seen Lutherans that believe various things from symbolic-only to a relativistic approach (if you belief it is the Body of Christ, then it is) to a strict “High Church” orthodox belief of believing it to be the Body of Christ when the minister consecrates the bread.
Look forward to your reply.
Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
Actually, Andrew, I can’t blame the Orthodox either. I think Lutherans and Catholic quarrel over Transubstantiation to our detriment. I agree with the notion of “it is a mystery”.Shlom lokh oH,
With the Catholics and Orthodox it boils down to semantics, sadly. The Latin Catholics are much more privy to scholasticism than their Eastern brethren. From what I have read, for the Orthodox it is not a matter of rejecting what Transubstantiation means, but rather the term itself. The East likes to respect the mystery of the Holy Mystery. I cannot say I blame them. Both Churches believe the exact same, but express them differently. It can get terribly confusing at times. I know I myself get headaches trying to wrap my head around what the other is saying.
Within each branch of the Lutheran faith does each one have a different view on the Eucharist? That is what I have gathered, but being a human it is possible I misinterpreted. I have seen Lutherans that believe various things from symbolic-only to a relativistic approach (if you belief it is the Body of Christ, then it is) to a strict “High Church” orthodox belief of believing it to be the Body of Christ when the minister consecrates the bread.
Look forward to your reply.
Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
As for Lutherans, the confessions are very clear that Lutherans believe it is the body and blood of Christ, truly and substantially present. Symbolic presence is absolutely rejected. And the idea of “if you believe” is clearly rejected (I’ll print the confessional writings some time tomorrow evening, as morning comes early for me).
The only issue I see are the very few who claim “receptionism”, that is, it isn’t his body until one eats it. That is clearly unscriptural.
Jon
- Status