G
GKC
Guest
I suspect he means the side of the Anglican spectrum at the antipodes from Anglo-Catholics, such as I’m.
GKC
- Status
GKC
L
ltwin
Guest
I mean the evangelical wing of the Anglican/Episcopal churches. You know people like George Whitefield and John Wesley. More recent names would include former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, current Archbishop Justin Welby, and Nicky Gumbel of Holy Trinity Brompton. Not to mention the entire Diocese of Sydney.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
The theological meaning of the Eucharist in a particular Christian church influences the frequency of the celebration. I have seen photos of old Lutheran churches, mainly in Germany, where the pulpit is actually up high behind the altar and in contemporary Lutheran parishes in this country the altar may be in the center of the nave with the pulpit or lectern missing altogether. But the altar is central for the very reason that holy Communion is the center of our worship.Frankly, it’s the logistics of the matter. When I say “mega-church” I’m talking about churches with an average weekly attendance of over 2,000. Serving communion to that many people as part of a regular service, even only monthly, gets out of hand. Even in my church, on communion Sundays we have to rejigger the order of service to clear the time for it.
That may sound odd to you as a Catholic, but the Eucharist is the heart and soul of the Mass. The preaching and singing and all the other stuff is just that… other stuff. Important, to be sure, but secondary. For us, it’s exactly the reverse. The sermon is the main-event and everything else is secondary.
You also have to remember that, by and large, communion in Evangelical churches is served to the congregation in their seats. We don’t line up and come forward. Your churches are designed for that and your people are trained on how to do that efficiently. churches are designed for how we do it and it usually works pretty smoothly but it’s slower.
Interestingly enough, large churches that do frequent communion do it by having people line up and come forward. I can honestly say that, at least on this one lone point of the practicalities of serving communion efficiently, the Catholic church has it absolutely nailed and any church would do well to emulate them.
That’s not much to build a ecumenical revival on… but it’s something.
I know from many years of worship, that the distribution of the Sacrament can take a long time; in-fact, in many parishes it can be at least 30 minutes even if the communicants line up the aisles before several stations. But the Lutheran tradition of kneeling at the altar rail makes distribution particularly slow. An old practice that is no longer common thankfully is that holy Communion was added at the end of Matins so that whoever wanted to leave early didn’t have to stay.
I understand that some Presbyterians also receive holy Communion in the pews.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
I am embarrassed to admit to being unfamiliar with the “evangelical wing” of Anglicanism and assumed it was considered “low church” where perhaps charismatic celebrations were more common. I will read more on the archbishops you have identified.
L
ltwin
Guest
Tends to be low church. It may or may not be charismatic (some evangelical Anglicans do not identify at all with the charismatic movement). The book Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction has separate chapters on both evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism. (The entire book is only 169 pages, so its good for anyone wanting a concise overview of Anglicanism.)
G
GKC
Guest
Low church, yes. Charismatic, very rarely.
Perhaps I haven’t used the term “motley”, in too long.
GKC
S
SteveVH
Guest
It is not a loaded term unless one is concerned about political correctness within their own unique faith tradition. It is an accurate ecclesiastical term that speaks of something “sacred” and “holy” (sacramentum).
If the spiritual change already exists or is in ongoing, then what is the point? As Catholics, we dip our hands in holy water and make the sign of the cross each time we enter or leave the Church, as a reminder of our Baptism. But it does not replace Baptism. One still must be Baptized. Why? Because our souls must really be washed clean, not just symbolically. We must really be sanctified. The Holy Spirit must really dwell within us. This is what happens in a true sacrament. God is truly active in our lives, not just symbolically.
How can one be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if it is not the body and blood of the Lord but only a symbol? I can hang a man in effigy and not be guilty of murder because it is only a symbol. Can one really eat bread unworthily?
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
**
You pose an interesting question. I asked the question on another thread about Methodist understanding of the Real Presence; does a non-baptized person taking holy Communion receive the actual Body and Blood of Christ?
Lutherans believe that even a non-believer who happens to take Communion actually receives Christ’s real Presence.
My sense is that Christ is sacramentally present at all celebrations of the Eucharist, regardless of whatever the Christian denomination or individual belief. That is the mystery of the Body of Christ. So an Evangelical Christian is in the mystical Holy Presence of Christ at each celebration of the Sacrament or Ordinance whether they realize it or not.
**
You pose an interesting question. I asked the question on another thread about Methodist understanding of the Real Presence; does a non-baptized person taking holy Communion receive the actual Body and Blood of Christ?
Lutherans believe that even a non-believer who happens to take Communion actually receives Christ’s real Presence.
My sense is that Christ is sacramentally present at all celebrations of the Eucharist, regardless of whatever the Christian denomination or individual belief. That is the mystery of the Body of Christ. So an Evangelical Christian is in the mystical Holy Presence of Christ at each celebration of the Sacrament or Ordinance whether they realize it or not.
B
BeProfOSX
Guest
To answer the question of being guilty of unworthily taking communion…
Short answer:
We believe that because Paul says it in 1 Cor. 11:27
In our view, the physical reality of what the elements are is not nearly as important as the spiritual reality of what they represent. One can commit a grave sin against the Lord by partaking of Communion unworthily in exactly the same way that one can commit a grave sin against the Lord by desecrating a cross. The bread, in our view, is just bread just as the cross is just a piece of wood, but to knowingly abuse them is nevertheless a sin against the Lord, not because of what those things are but because of who those things are pointing to.
As for the issue of “why do it if nothing is happening.” Well… it’s not quite that simple. Yes, a great many Evangelical Christians, especially the younger ones, are lax about the ordinances because of just that kind of view, but those of us that have been around for a while tend not to be. The fact that we see these things as “outward signs of inward changes” does not minimize their importance for us because they are commandments. Baptism and Communion are not optional “nice to have” things. They are positive commandments on the whole church no less than the commandment to go out and to preach and teach the gospel.
Short answer:
We believe that because Paul says it in 1 Cor. 11:27
Longer answer:
In our view, the physical reality of what the elements are is not nearly as important as the spiritual reality of what they represent. One can commit a grave sin against the Lord by partaking of Communion unworthily in exactly the same way that one can commit a grave sin against the Lord by desecrating a cross. The bread, in our view, is just bread just as the cross is just a piece of wood, but to knowingly abuse them is nevertheless a sin against the Lord, not because of what those things are but because of who those things are pointing to.
As for the issue of “why do it if nothing is happening.” Well… it’s not quite that simple. Yes, a great many Evangelical Christians, especially the younger ones, are lax about the ordinances because of just that kind of view, but those of us that have been around for a while tend not to be. The fact that we see these things as “outward signs of inward changes” does not minimize their importance for us because they are commandments. Baptism and Communion are not optional “nice to have” things. They are positive commandments on the whole church no less than the commandment to go out and to preach and teach the gospel.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
I guess it is possible that some Evangelical Christians may never take Communion. Luther stated that a Christian must take holy Communion at least 4 times a year [Christmas, Easter especially] to be considered faithful or face excommunication.
There was a time when people feared taking holy Communion because they felt unworthy and were afraid of being judged by Christ. Watching people come up for Communion, you could see the sobering looks and discomfort on their faces. I am glad that those days are mostly behind us now.
My daughter, who is a Lutheran teacher, has told me of some wonderful parishes along these lines - in Milwaukee, and I think Wichita. Yeah, not so much in rural parishes.Move to metro New York region
Not entirely sure why but it seems metropolitan parishes are the most ‘catholic’ among Lutherans.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
S
SteveVH
Guest
We believe that a consecrated host is the body and blood of Christ, period. The faith of the one receiving it cannot change that reality. The effect, however, and the grace received is very much affected by the interior disposition of the one receiving. The very fact that a properly consecrated host is the body and blood of Christ is the reason that it can be eat unworthily.
However, as a Catholic, I believe what most Protestant faith traditions believe about their own communion. It is only a symbol because there is no authority to consecrate the elements. And while the congregation may in all sincerity enter into a type of spiritual communion, it is not possible to eat unworthily because it is, simply, bread.
L
ltwin
Guest
First, I agree with what BeProfOSX has written in regard to eating unworthily and the meaning behind communion for evangelicals. You have to take into account while evangelicals do not believe the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Christ, behind the symbol and the sign we are too see Jesus Christ and partake of Him by faith, discerning Him while we feed on Him, the sustenance for body, soul, and spirit. How this exactly happens is not important to evangelicals.
The important thing is to come in faith expecting to meet the Lord at His table, knowing that if we are sick He will heal us and if we have any need either spiritual or physical He will supply it.
You say, “it is not possible to eat unworthily because it is, simply, bread.” For evangelicals, the fact that it is simply bread is irrelevant to whether we eat unworthily or not. It has to do with self examination and a clear conscience before God. It has to do with recognizing what you are doing when you partake. You are not simply partaking in a pick nick or a church dinner. You are partaking of Christ’s body and blood and “proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes.” 1 Cor. 11:26.
S
SteveVH
Guest
You are? You just said that it wasn’t his body and blood but only a symbol. You can’t have it both ways. That is my point. You are not partaking of the body and blood of the Lord, you are partaking of bread.
You know, this is such an incredibly important topic. If one wishes to prove the Catholic Church false this is really where one should concentrate. The reason is that the Eucharist, the real presence of Christ; body, blood, soul and divinity, is the source and summit of the Catholic faith. Without it there is no Catholic faith. It is that important. We have held the same doctrine for 2000 years now.
It is such a holy thing that when I hear people talking about it almost as a second thought (“yeah we do it once a month”, or “we do it once a year”) it boarders on blasphemy, were it not for the ignorance. The Eucharist is communion, both with Christ and with the Body of Christ, the Church. Until all of Christianity returns to this most holy of sacraments there will be no unity.
L
ltwin
Guest
It’s a symbol in so far as there is no physical or observable change to the elements. We do not partake of Christ by eating a wafer and slurping down a fluid. We partake of Him by faith. He reveals and communicates Himself to us by faith. In that moment of the proclamation of His death, we can by faith appropriate the provisions of His grace, healing of infirmities and strength to live. By faith, we know and perceive that Christ is giving Himself to us for our nourishment.
As one minister once wrote in regards to the Lord’s Supper, “Faith can grasp mysteries that are unexplainable. Faith enters into a realm far beyond the sphere of understanding, and can extract the good and joy out of what soars high above our reasonings.”
B
BeProfOSX
Guest
Maybe a different tack is in order…
Consider baptism. There’s nothing special about the water. It was water before it was set aside for baptism. It remains water throughout the baptismal rite and afterwards. There’s nothing, physically, different between regular old water and holy water. What matters in baptism isn’t the water (beyond the fact that we are commanded by Christ to baptize with water and not with any other liquid), it’s what the water represents.
Now all Christians, including Catholics, will concede that it is least possible to be saved even though you aren’t baptized (at least in certain situations.) For us, what matters isn’t the baptism, it’s the faith that leads one to be obedient to the Lord in baptism in the first place. The act is an outward sign of an inward change that already happened when you came to faith in the Lord.
That’s not to say that something isn’t really happening in baptism or that it’s an empty ritual for us. It’s just that the outward act is just that: an outward, physical act that is only meaningful in that it evidences an inward, spiritual reality.
Communion for us works the same way. It’s not that anything physically changes with the elements, but that’s not what matters to us anyway. What matters, for us, is that this outward physical act of eating and drinking is evidence of the inward spiritual nourishment that is coming into our lives by the grace of God.
That’s why participating in Communion unworthily is such a big deal for us (or at least ought to be.) To treat this rite flippantly or to dare to participate in it when you know darn well down in your heart that you have business to take care of with God or the brethren is to repudiate the very Lord who commanded us to do this in remembrance of Him. It’s not that there’s anything magical about the elements that causes them to turn into poison in your belly, it’s that to attempt to have the outward sign without first having the inward change is the height of hypocrisy and verges perilously close to the Unpardonable Sin.
Consider baptism. There’s nothing special about the water. It was water before it was set aside for baptism. It remains water throughout the baptismal rite and afterwards. There’s nothing, physically, different between regular old water and holy water. What matters in baptism isn’t the water (beyond the fact that we are commanded by Christ to baptize with water and not with any other liquid), it’s what the water represents.
Now all Christians, including Catholics, will concede that it is least possible to be saved even though you aren’t baptized (at least in certain situations.) For us, what matters isn’t the baptism, it’s the faith that leads one to be obedient to the Lord in baptism in the first place. The act is an outward sign of an inward change that already happened when you came to faith in the Lord.
That’s not to say that something isn’t really happening in baptism or that it’s an empty ritual for us. It’s just that the outward act is just that: an outward, physical act that is only meaningful in that it evidences an inward, spiritual reality.
Communion for us works the same way. It’s not that anything physically changes with the elements, but that’s not what matters to us anyway. What matters, for us, is that this outward physical act of eating and drinking is evidence of the inward spiritual nourishment that is coming into our lives by the grace of God.
That’s why participating in Communion unworthily is such a big deal for us (or at least ought to be.) To treat this rite flippantly or to dare to participate in it when you know darn well down in your heart that you have business to take care of with God or the brethren is to repudiate the very Lord who commanded us to do this in remembrance of Him. It’s not that there’s anything magical about the elements that causes them to turn into poison in your belly, it’s that to attempt to have the outward sign without first having the inward change is the height of hypocrisy and verges perilously close to the Unpardonable Sin.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Once again, you raise some interesting points. The water in the baptismal font is blessed and poured down the piscina or onto the ground afterward. Or left in the baptismal font for people to touch and cross themselves.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
What is the truth for the Church then?
Christ says to Peter - “I’ll give you the keys”
And you say - Christ didn’t really mean to give that to Peter but to the Church.
Christ says you must be born again of water and spirit, and Peter says that baptism saves you.
And you say - No, Christ and Peter didn’t really mean that. Water is just symbolic.
Christ says “On this Cephas I will build my Church”
And you say - No, Christ didn’t really mean to Peter, but to Peter’s Faith.
Christ says “This is my body… This is my blood”
And you say - No, Christ didn’t really mean that. It is just spiritual and symbolic.
Do you see a pattern here?
It reminds me of another passage from Scriptures:
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.
Whenever anyone starts saying that Christ or the Apostles didn’t really mean what they obviously said… my spider sense starts tingling.
What does it mean? Who decides what it means? Do we have to believe in everything Jesus said? Or can we pick and choose?
- Status