How often do Christian denominations celebrate the Eucharist?

[Bran_Stark]

How is it ironic that I could agree with Lewis (after whom, incidentally, I named one of my sons) on most of what he believed and taught, but not on everything? Must we agree fully with every author before we can admire or quote them?

Oh it’s not ironic in a bad way. After all my own signature is hardly from a Christian source… I just like to point out little things which amuse me.

That is correct, however. Denominational churches (of which the Catholic Church is not one, by definition) do not receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. And very few even claim that they do. So I’m confused - are you stating that the Anglican Church believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? I had not heard that. Do you have a source I might read?

All I meant was that there’s plenty of high church Anglicans who believe in some form of “real presence” or another (though few indeed will use the terminology of transubstantiation), and I seem to recall reading that CSL was among their number.

 

[jtodisco]

Outside of the Catholic Church only the Orthodox churches have a valid Eucharist. So aside from the Orthodox no other Christian communities ever celebrate the Eucharist. They may have ceremonies involving bread and wine from time to time, but because they do not have valid priestly orders these substances remain just bread and wine. Most of these Protestant groups don’t believe in the Real Presene anyway, so I don’t see why anyone should be upset when it is pointed out that they do not have the Holy Eucharist.

I’m not trying to sound intolerant or rude, I have a great deal of love for my non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, but that does not change the fact that they lack the fullness of grace and truth that resides alone in the Catholic Church.

 

[wed2catholic]

The Presbyterian church I went to celebrated it once a month and on special occasions. The Baptist church I went to celebrated it once a quarter (four times a year). The pastor there thought once a month was too often. In my mom’s Baptist church, they celebrated it twice a year. None of these churches would call it the Eucharist. They call it Lord’s Supper or Communion.

 

[catharina]

Oh it’s not ironic in a bad way. After all my own signature is hardly from a Christian source… I just like to point out little things which amuse me.

All I meant was that **there’s plenty of high church Anglicans who believe in some form of “real presence” or another **(though few indeed will use the terminology of transubstantiation), and I seem to recall reading that CSL was among their number.

Also there’s plenty who don’t.
This lack of agreement tells the whole story.

 

[PLAT]

Why do Orthodox Churches have valid Eucharist? How often do they celebrate this?

btw, major denominational christian groups believe in the wrong type of real pressence - they believe that the substance remains bread and wine but somehow Jesus is within those food.

The Catholic unerstanding holds that even though the appearance (that includes ways we understand bread and wine, including physical and chemical properties) is bread and wine, the substance are transformed into actual flesh and blood of Christ.

 

[The_Reginator]

All I meant was that **there’s plenty of high church Anglicans who believe in some form of “real presence” or another **(though few indeed will use the terminology of transubstantiation), and I seem to recall reading that CSL was among their number.

Also there’s plenty who don’t.
This lack of agreement tells the whole story.

I was an Anglican.
Now I’m Catholic.
I grew up being told the shocking fact that Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ! Imagine that. In the 20th century they can believe something like that …
Eventually I came to believe in the Real Presence through the influence of ‘high church’ friends.
That started me wondering how Christ’s Church could possibly not have an authoritative teaching on such a central matter.

Now I’m home.

Oops.
Sorry – WAY off topic.

As I said before, every first, third, and fifth Sunday. My dad was in the Royal Canadian Air Force, so I experienced this pattern at a number of parishes across The Great White North.

 

[GEddie]

Presbyterians are about once a month or once a season, not sure. Scott Hahn had his church celebrating every week… of course that was before he swam the TIber, but he had his toe in it.

Catholics, of course, celebrate it all the time. Most parishes offer daily masses throughout the week, and give the wonderful fact that there are 24 time zones and masses in every time zone, the Catholic Mass never ceases.

Except on Good Friday, of course.

BTW: while everybody in Christendom has “communion” periodically, only Catholics and Orthodox have the “Eucharist.” The reason is apostolic succession.

He is risen, ICXC NIKA

 

[kingal86]

It can vary a lot with Anglican churches in Britain. I’m not sure about other denominations (I recall a rural Methodist church only having Communion twice a month)

My local “high Church” (i.e. Anglo-Catholic) Anglican church (St Augustine’s) in Edgbaston, Birmingham has daily Communion (which it calls Mass due to being “high Church”) daily, some Anglican churches in smaller towns or villages I used to live near which were fairly traditional liturgically had the Eucharist on Sunday and three or so times during the week.

In contrast, the Evangelical/Charasmatic Anglican (St John’s, Harborne) church near by teaches conservative/orthodox morality etc., but is liturgically non-traditional (similar to a US megachurch, I think, but smaller), and only has Communion about twice a month.

On a side note, my local Catholic church (the Oratory Church of the Immaculate Conception, founded - I think - by John Henry Newman and visited by the Pope in autumn) has Mass three times every day, more than the city’s Catholic Cathedral (once on weekdays, twice on Sat and Sun).

 

[mdgspencer]

This may be a minor point. Protestants do not use the word “eucharist.” The other posts show what sort of terms are used.
Most Protestant denominations also do not believe the actual body and blood of Christ become present. (Some Lutherans and Episcopalians do believe this though.) So when at some Catholics here say that Protestants do not have a valid eucharist, Protestants would immediately agree that the body and blood do not become present in their services, and that believing this is fine with them.
I believe Protestants are missing something vital in this way–but it is interesting to see that perhaps some Catholics do not realize how much they are living in another world when it comes to this matter.

 

[catharina]

This may be a minor point. Protestants do not use the word “eucharist.” The other posts show what sort of terms are used.
Most Protestant denominations also do not believe the actual body and blood of Christ become present. (Some Lutherans and Episcopalians do believe this though.) So when at some Catholics here say that Protestants do not have a valid eucharist, Protestants would immediately agree that the body and blood do not become present in their services, and that believing this is fine with them.
I believe Protestants are missing something vital in this way–but it is interesting to see that perhaps some Catholics do not realize how much they are living in another world when it comes to this matter.

Indeed!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Why do Orthodox Churches have valid Eucharist? How often do they celebrate this?

btw, major denominational christian groups believe in the wrong type of real pressence - they believe that the substance remains bread and wine but somehow Jesus is within those food.

The Catholic unerstanding holds that even though the appearance (that includes ways we understand bread and wine, including physical and chemical properties) is bread and wine, the substance are transformed into actual flesh and blood of Christ.

The Orthodox Churches have a valid Eucharist because they have valid Apostolic Succession re: valid Priesthood. The Roman Catholic Church agrees to intercommunion with the Orthodox Churches, but the Orthodox reject this.

As for the frequency of the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in Orthodoxy (known as “the Mass” in the West), there are specified non-liturgical days such as, for example, all weekdays during Lent.

Originally, on all weekdays during Lent, the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified was served i.e. the service of Vespers with Holy Communion that was consecrated the previous Lord’s Day. Now, the Divine Liturgy, or Mass of the Presanctified (of St Gregory the Dialogist) is celebrated on Lenten Wednesdays and Fridays only.

As an Eastern Catholic, what I’ve always deeply honoured about the Eastern Divine Liturgy is the tremendous sense of awe in its celebration, the icons, the incense, the slowly intoned prayers and the deep reverence for the “mysterium tremendum.”

There are long prayers of preparation for Holy Communion and thanksgiving afterwards that laity are to fulfill. When receiving Holy Communion, one kisses the edge of the Chalice to honour the Sacred Wound in Christ’s Heart from which we are nourished in Holy Communion. Add to this the constant making of the Sign of the Cross with bowing etc. - one truly feels transported to heaven!

This sacral context in which the Liturgy/Eucharist is celebrated avoids the Protestant fear that the Eucharist will somehow be taken for granted and not given the highest possible honour it deserves.

I’ve been to a number of different Ritual Catholic Churches - for me, there is nothing like the celebration of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

Alex

 

[Bran_Stark]

This may be a minor point. Protestants do not use the word “eucharist.” .

Haha if we’re talking about the name of the service, than I think Anglicans are the only group, Protestant or Catholic, to call it the “Eucharist”.

Most Protestant denominations also do not believe the actual body and blood of Christ become present. (Some Lutherans and Episcopalians do believe this though.) So when at some Catholics here say that Protestants do not have a valid eucharist, Protestants would immediately agree that the body and blood do not become present in their services, and that believing this is fine with them.
I believe Protestants are missing something vital in this way–but it is interesting to see that perhaps some Catholics do not realize how much they are living in another world when it comes to this matter.

I see what you’re going at here, but I think Catholics tend to assume that rejecting transubstantiation leads directly to a simple Memorialist position. And this is hardly fair. Even if you don’t believe in any Real Presence in the consecrated elements, there is still quite a difference between Spiritual Presence and simple Memorialism.

 

[JonNC]

Outside of the Catholic Church only the Orthodox churches have a valid Eucharist. So aside from the Orthodox no other Christian communities ever celebrate the Eucharist. They may have ceremonies involving bread and wine from time to time, but because they do not have valid priestly orders these substances remain just bread and wine. Most of these Protestant groups don’t believe in the Real Presene anyway, so I don’t see why anyone should be upset when it is pointed out that they do not have the Holy Eucharist.

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.

• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This may be a minor point. Protestants do not use the word “eucharist.” The other posts show what sort of terms are used.
Most Protestant denominations also do not believe the actual body and blood of Christ become present. (Some Lutherans and Episcopalians do believe this though.) So when at some Catholics here say that Protestants do not have a valid eucharist, Protestants would immediately agree that the body and blood do not become present in their services, and that believing this is fine with them.
I believe Protestants are missing something vital in this way–but it is interesting to see that perhaps some Catholics do not realize how much they are living in another world when it comes to this matter.

Just a small point.
All Lutherans believe in the real and substantial presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist. From the Augsburg Confession: *Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise. *

To deny the real presence is to not be Lutheran.

Jon

 

[RyanBlack]

This may be a minor point. Protestants do not use the word “eucharist.”

Actually, some Protestants do in fact do use the term “eucharist”.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The Episcopal churches near me hold to the faith belief that they have the Holy Eucharist with a literal physical Real Presence. They both have their Eucharist weekly at their Saturday and Sunday services. One of the churches also does every Tues and TH morning. The other seasonally on Wed mornings.

A United Church of Christ near me has a Communion service quarterly and at a few other times during the yr.

The Disciples of Christ have Communion weekly.

A friend of mine is SDA and her church has their Communion service and washing of the feet quarterly.

All of the above practice open Communion though. Even the Episcopal churches where they believe in the presense of Christ’s literal body nevetheless say if one feels called, so be it.

Our Episcopal Parish celebrates the Eucharist in both weekly services. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is almost identical to the Catholic liturgy–and we do believe in the Real Presence. There is a Sanctuary Lamp above the reserved Sacrament, which is kept in a Tabernacle.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.

Jon,
Thank you so much for posting this quote.

I really get tired of being told the Anglican Eucharist is not valid.

Anna

 

[Springkeeper]

I know Catholics celebrate it daily, and Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans celebrate it weekly, but what about other Protestant denominations (Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc.)?

Thanks

I know that Baptists celebrate Communion once every quarter. Interestingly, it was usually at night and done randomly without anyone (but a deacon or two) being told beforehand because the pastor didn’t want anyone to come just to receive communion. I didn’t understand why they would because, to Baptists, there is nothing but symbolism involved with Communion.

 

[Springkeeper]

Oops, I actually should have said celebrating the Lord’s Supper, I don’t recall them ever using the term communion except in the context of communion bread.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
Thank you so much for posting this quote.

I really get tired of being told the Anglican Eucharist is not valid.

Anna

Hi Anna, You’re welcome.
To be sure, I don’t think the good Cardinal was claiming something other than what Catholic teaching is regarding your orders or ours, and therefore our respective sacraments. What he was saying is that, contrary to what some think, even from a Catholic POV, it is not a nothing.

Of course, while Anglicans and Lutherans both would welcome and rejoice in Catholic recognition of our orders and sacraments as we recognize theirs, we don’t need it to know that, when our clergy celebrate the Eucharist, His true body and blood are truly and substantially present.

Jon