Who Owns the Eucharist?

[Sojourner]

I attend a parish which has multiple Sunday Services. I attend an evening service in which anyone who wishes to receive the Sacrament may do so. (Interestingly, all the other services have statements in the bulletin indicating that all BAPTIZED Christians are invited to the Table). I have no problem with this practice since I believe the theological principle that the Sacrament belongs to God and that God is quite capable of guarding the Sacrament from any type of desecration. I agree that the Eucharist is the Heavenly Banquet and that all are invited and none should be turned away.

I would like to hear other's opinions about this. There certainly are counter opinions that have strong theological support.

As a side note, what are your opinions regarding the age of those who receive the Sacrament. My grandson receives weekly and is 3. Even I had some questions about this. Nonetheless, he, in so far as possible, know that he receives Jesus in the bread and wine. He is baptized.

[Canadian Phil]

Hi Sojourner;

Interesting issue. I agree with you that the sacrament of the Eucharist belongs to God and that God is fully capable of guarding the sacrament himself. As a result, I'm not inclined to stand guard over the Eucharist either, although I think there are other interesting issues to consider.

First, remember that the Eucharist, like any sacrament, is an 'outward sign of an inward grace' and that 'sign' points to a participation in the life of God. Taking the Eucharist marks us as a church, but, more importantly, as a people defined by their relationship with the living God through his incarnated Son. In that sense, taking the Eucharist is making a lot of statements about one's relationship with God which one hopes is true. If they are not true, then, at best, the Eucharist does nothing spiritually. At worst, it may well do harm spiritually because one is affirming a relationship which doesn't exist which is the worst of both worlds because there are things we should expect of a Christian which are only possible through God's grace. If there isn't a relationship with God, how do we know what we are receiving is, in fact grace?

That, I think, is the logic of wanting only baptized Christians to come to the table because we have some reason to hope that they know what they are getting into with the Eucharist. That is the theory, of course, and I know the reality doesn't necessarily match the theory. Still, there is something to be said to trying to help people know what they are doing with the sacraments in general which is why the first sacrament- baptism- is also the qualifier for what is, arguably, the most important sacrament besides baptism- Eucharist.

That said, I also don't think it is our job to decide who is and is not worthy of the Eucharist. I would recommend that non-baptized Christians hold back from the Eucharist, largely because I think it is good to know what you're getting into and, also, because I believe that temporary abstaining from the Eucharist can sometimes emphasize the importance of it and of the Church. I'm sure I've told the story about when I was in teacher's college and given a placement with Catholic teacher candidates. I had a really good experience, but one of the peculiarities of the situation was that, when we had a couple masses a term and I opted, in consultation with our prof, to receive a blessing instead of taking the Eucharist. What that experience became for me was the opportunity to reflect on the the division of Christianity and to mourn it in a very real and tangible way. The denial of the sacrament, in a sense, became sacramental- a sign of the brokeness of the Church which Christ will, eventually, heal. I'm not sure where that story fits here, but it does suggest that the meaning of the Eucharist can sometimes be understood in its abscence as well as in its prescence.

As for your grandson, I don't necessarily have a serious issues with this. As a matter of fact, our three year old doesn't receive, but that is largely because we haven't baptized him (my wife's Mennonite roots and both of our prediliction to believer's baptism precludes that- Ian was received in our church. The baptism can wait until he can say that he wants it and understand something of what he is saying). We have friends whose three year old does receive and he does, in so far as possible, understand what he is doing. I'm not very worried about this myself.

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

Ya wanna talk about Baptismal regeneration? Neither do I.

[srigdon]

I am not terribly concerned about the practice per se. What I find more annoying is the promotion of it and attitude behind it - as though it gives us some broader mantle of welcome to the newcomer, and as though deprivation of it is some great sacrifice. The church is not here to hand out freebies; it is here to make people more acceptable in the eyes of God, and consuming the Body and Blood provides no easy route to that.

Does anybody ever say that EVERYONE is welcome to sing the hymns? That EVERYONE is welcome to recite the Creed? Why not? It says a lot about who we are as a community if we emphasize the blessings from God over praise, service and supplication in his name.

The main reason we fall all over ourselves with communion is that this is the one part of the service which non-participation is visibly obvious and awkward. People who are non members of the church feel comfortable not singing the hymns because generally it's not as obvious. But can one commune with God any more with communion than by singing?

Think how many husbands you've seen come to come to church on E&C only, standing and sitting with everyone, saying nothing - and yet participating in communion. I agree with Phil that we need to emphasize the value of non-participation. We should encourage people not to feel peer pressure to come and receive, or to receive in the hope that by it alone something wonderful will happen to them.

How about the foot-washing ceremony at Maundy Thursday? Do we need to emphasize participation is open to all? That we do not have this problem says a great deal about where we are as a people.

[Canadian Phil]

I appreciate the support, although I'm not sure the foot-washing ceremony is quite a parallel here. Really, the point of that ceremony is not the participation of the foot-washee, but the foot-washer, who is (re-)enacting the servant-leadership of Jesus. This means that it isn't necessary for the foot-washee to be in it for anything more (theoretically) than some water on the feet. I note that it is humbing to allow yourself to have your feet washed in public, but that is a different thing, I think.

Peace,
Phil

[srigdon]

the point of that ceremony is not the participation of the foot-washee, but the foot-washer,

But that's my point - I think we agree. Apparently we're supposed to feel that non-participation in communion is a big deal, but failing to participate in being the foot-washer is not? The message would seem to be that the church is here to offer cheap grace, with no expectations.

The Christian is known by the love that he/she gives to God, not by the love God gives to him/her. Perhaps we should restrict participation in the foot-washing ceremony to baptized Christians - and do it every week.

[Canadian Phil]

I think I see what you're saying, but I'm still trying to twist my head around everyone going around a church washing each other's feet. It creates an interesting image.

Mind you, at least in liturgical churches, the foot-washer is usually clergy as a vicar of Christ. Interesting how preist as substitute of Christ still is felt in the church.

Not sure about your cheap grace comment, especially in light of Jesus' clear comment to Peter that he should resist having his feet washed. Isn't the grace working both ways? Or am I whirling around on my previous comments?


Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

If one sees the Church as the guardian of God, and of God's grace, or if one sees the Church as the guardian of a person's soul, then it is perfectly logical to say that the priest, as the vicar of Christ and the earthly representative of the Church has the obligation to refuse communion to one whom the Church has deemed ineligible -- for whatever reasons -- to receive.

If one sees thge Church as an agent by which God dispenses grace, and if one believes that the sacrament is an "outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace," and if grace requires no earthly mediator, then it seems reasonable that the matter of reception rests between the individual and God.

[mewg]

How many of the disciples were baptised before the Last Supper?

And, did Jesus mean to inaugerate a long line of foot-washing rituals or a manner of behaving towards other people?

From my experiece of Maundy Thursday servoces, the foot-washing is seen as a one-upmanship thing (the rector thinks my contribution is more important than yours )