|
Post by Sojourner on Feb 9, 2010 17:13:18 GMT -5
Mewg, I too, second your post. I find the question of Communion interesting. Back in the days of the '28 Prayer Book, taking Communion was limited to only those who met certain conditions, one of which was having been confirmed. Thus, while I attended Confirmation classes I dutifully approached the Holy Mysteries with arms obediently across my chest to receive a blessing from the priest. At that time we evidently had faith that in addition to some spiritual requirements, we could receive the sacrament when we received, metaphorically, our admission card through the imposition of the hands of the Bishop. The, in 1979, we learned that, really, the Eucharist was available to us as a gift which received in our Baptism, unless you were an infant or young child, in which case you had to wait for confirmation.
My grandson, who is 2 1/2, along with the other children in his parish routinely receives his Baptismal gift and heritage each Sunday. Does he know whether he gets Jesus because of his faith or because of an objective presence? I don't know. But our "faith" now says that the moment he was grafted, through Baptism, into the Body of Christ, all the rights and benefits are his.
All of this, in my opinion, emanates from a theology and ecclesiology that believes the Church to be the custodian of God's gifts, and thus the repository of God's grace. This line of thought reflects the view that God's gifts must be protected. There is, as Mewg points out, another, and I believe, equally valid interpretation that says the Eucharist belongs to God and that it is God's to give away -- to graciously give, to abundantly give, to choose to give -- and that whatever nourishment is present comes between God and the communicant. This theology, essentially, states that God is quite capable of preserving God's own gifts. God doesn't need an earthly creation to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Uriel on Feb 10, 2010 9:11:27 GMT -5
Very thoughtful post, Sojourner. And I agree with it. But I have a few stray thoughts...
I grew up at a time that confirmation was required to receive communion. It was also a time when the church was more of a presence taken for granted - everyone went to church. In most, if not all, societies there are forms of rites of passage from childhood to adulthood - from a protected state to a responsible state.
At the time I was confirmed, that ceremony functioned as such a rite. It had therefore, I would argue, both a theological and to some extent, at least a symbolic social significance.
Then we went on the the Counter Culture, etc., non-Christian and with ideas of universal equality, including for children. It had laudable aspects, but was in the hands of college students and it got a bit silly. The church adapted. So we lost confimation as a rite of passage.
I don't know whether this is a bad thing. I like your (or Mewg's) theological interpretation that the gifts of communion are God's to give. But something other than the theological, I think, changed when we changed these practices. Whether it is anything significant, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Phil on Feb 10, 2010 21:59:08 GMT -5
Hi all;
I'm writing this message at some risk because I'm quite tired, so may not make a lot of sense. Still, I'm interested in the discussion, so, with that caveat, I have a couple of comments.
I did want to clarify my comment recommeding holding back from Communion if one didn't feel they could quite agree with Christianity. I'm really not interested in creating a 'fence' around Communion, but, rather, what I'm reacting to is a thread in Scripture which almost, but not quite says that one should partake of Communion at one's own risk. If we accept that, in some form, that we are taking in Christ's body, then, I would suggest that we are also saying some bold things about what we can be held accountable for (to God, not to our fellow humans). If we take Communion not taking those things seriously, I think we are making ourselves out to be hypocrites. I'm being fuzzy here, but what I mean by this is that, if we take Communion, not intending to seek the kingdom, we're really just eating some wafers and some port, at best. We're not experiencing communion with God because we have nothing in common with Him.
That said, I would never endorse 'protecting' Communion from impure hands. So, no, I'm not looking to station wardens to check eligibility cards or anything. The individual can make this call for themselves. What I've suggested is merely a voluntary withdrawl until one believes that one is consuming something which is spirtually nourishing, at the very least. I note that I'm not suggesting anything less than what I have done in the past, both as a new Christian and in a peculiar ecumenical setting, when I have voluntarily held back from Communion out of respect of what it means. I wouldn't make this manditory because that opens whole kettles of fish I'd rather see sealed.
I devoutly hope this makes sense, but I'm glad to clarify when I'm slightly more conscious.
Peace, Phil
|
|
mewg
Acolyte
Posts: 27
|
Post by mewg on Feb 11, 2010 15:47:44 GMT -5
My own personal private "take" .on the risk of communion and "eating and drinking to your own damnation" is when you are not in" love and charity with your neighbor" not just furious (us married people might not ever go to church!!) but are actively seeking and plotting the neighbor's misfortune.
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Phil on Feb 14, 2010 18:02:18 GMT -5
mewg;
Absolutely, if someone is plotting one's neighbour's misfortune, one should hold back from communion. But, let's remember that Jesus himself was uncompromising about the thoughts of sin being equated with sin as well. I'm saying that because I think it is important to be clear that, while we can and should accept thinking and acting aren't the same thing, we do need to consider our thoughts when we consider Communion. This consideration really is the work of the individual (who can choose to use the rite of Confession for this), so I'm not saying anyone should try to intrude on this.
As I've said before, I'm not saying we need to erect a fence around the Eucharist to keep the sinners out (as you've noted, there wouldn't be anyone who'd be eligible), but rather that we need to carefully consider whether we are open to God as we take communion or whether we are just doing it to look good or to white-wash our sin. That is between a person and God, but it is at the centre of my original point.
|
|
mewg
Acolyte
Posts: 27
|
Post by mewg on Feb 15, 2010 10:00:00 GMT -5
Its fairly early in the am for me to be too lucid. For now I will agree with Phil that ssking your neighbo's misfortune begins with thinking about it!!
|
|
mewg
Acolyte
Posts: 27
|
Post by mewg on Feb 15, 2010 10:02:15 GMT -5
Not only is it too early to think apparently its too early to spell or type very well!!
|
|