There's an invitation to communion that is picking up traction in churches that practice open communion, including mine. I don't know the source, although I know who to ask :-).
This is the Lord's table. It is made ready for those who love him, and for those who want to love him more.
So come, you who have much faith and you who have little, you who have been here often and you who have not been here long, you who have tried to follow, and you who have failed.
Come, because it is the Lord who invites you. It is his will that those who want him should meet him here.
I think it makes an interesting contrast with the new Catholic version, which I'm not sure I'd characterize as an invitation so much as a confession and petition.
A significant liturgical difference is that the "Lord invites" invitation is made by the celebrant (Pastor/Priest) on behalf of our Lord Jesus Christ to the congregation between the Words of Institution and the distribution; whereas the Catholic confession/petition is (I assume...) a liturgical response made by the congregation.
the attraction to the return to this poetic narrative inclusion in the eucharistic prayer is its rootedness in scripture matthew ch. 8 the words of the centurion
stu it could be argued that catholics make too big of a deal when it comes to purity of heart before the eucharist but that sort of humility professed by the centurion before christ is valuable for us
we keep in mind who is doing what
i might add that catholics tend to strike the breast humbly and devotionally when reciting this response
what precedes and succedes these words fits into a beautiful choreography
i welcome the new and involved interest in the centrality of eucharist in the churches -- in the monastery we've been praying for this with zeal in recent years
my belief is that the sequence of words gestures responses song prayer petition proclamation is already worked out --- it won't bear up under much change - in fact we're returning as i knew we would to the more poetic and a bit more clumsy literal translations -- because they carry more theological weight to put it briefly
i wonder what the churches of protest think of it all
I appreciate the scriptural reference to the "I am not worthy," as well as its poetry. But let me scratch at this just a bit.
The centurion's story is about faith rather than humility, cf., Jesus's reply in Matt 8:10. So as beautiful as Matt 8:8 is in isolation, isolating it as the new missal does has the effect of recasting a declaration of faith as a declaration of subservience/humility. It is, as I suggested earlier, a confession and petition, or as you suggested, a personal preparation.
I have no objection to pieties, but I do not think it is helpful to confuse a piety for an invitation. Part of what I believe the Catholic tradition is struggling with here (as the Lutheran has, too, but in other ways), traces to 1 Cor 11:27, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord."
In the Lutheran mind, the concern (reflecting 1 Cor 11:28-32) is about understanding. Failing to discern the body and blood of Christ in the elements of communion is to take it in an unworthy manner. Hence, the practice until recent times of associating first communion with confirmation, and confirmation with both theological education and adult responsibilities in the congregation. More recently, the association of first communion with confirmation has broken down, so as to facilitate communion by younger children. We still require theological education as preparation for communion, but now commune relatively young children. E.g., my daughter was five when she began communing.
The Catholic reflection of this struggle seems to be more focussed on personal preparation, i.e., that taking communion in the wrong frame of mind (e.g., pridefully) constitutes unworthiness. The new text is a powerful, but paradoxical, tonic: confessing our unworthiness before God facilitates a state of mind that makes us worthy to receive communion.
But let me suggest a 21st century analysis, which is to read 1 Cor 11:27 in the context of 1 Cor as a whole (i.e., the circumstances of the Christian congregation at Corinth), and more specifically in light of 1 Cor 11:17-22, wherein Paul criticizes the Corinthians for allowing the sacrament of communion to degenerate into a collection of co-located picnics, which served as a symbol of the divisions in that congregation, rather than as a symbol of its unity. This isn't to dismiss either the Lutheran concern, nor the Catholic concern as I understand it, but it is to argue that Paul is warning the Corinthians (and by extension, us) that it is a misuse of communion to use it as a symbol of division rather than unity.
as an outsider to the catholic church (like the centurion was to judaism) i've taken comfort in these words uttered by the congregation just before communion they remind me that despite whatever religious rules might prevent me from partaking in the eucharist christ's healing power extends even to outsiders
i do also like the words of invitation that stu presents to my mind their biblical connection relates to jesus's practice of sharing table fellowship broadly
The history of the Eucharist fascinates a bit. The pre-christian version of the Mass--well, most probably would not care to delve into the greek and/or egyptian mysteries (think Equinox, and...nile floods, etc).
Mass was not always celebrated in the early church, or at least regularly (and related to the roman pagan feasts, somewhat). My reading leads me to believe the current RC rite ...was arranged and implemented by Constantine (then ..refined by General Augustine) and IMO as much an oath of fealty as an ...offering to JC. Ie, the roman/gaulish soldier swore to his legion, took the host, etc. Wasn't so much about religion but about loyalty to Rome. In Charlemagne's time it's nearly the same though the creeds had been added:ie, the soldier takes the oath to the King, repeats the paternoster, and then accepts the wine and bread. Pour l'épée et Le Croix.
Then for those fighting the ...Fedayeen, somewhat understandable.
I think your version of the history of the Eucharist, while raising some valid points, confuses matters somewhat.
Celebration of communion is clearly referred to in 1 Cor 11:23-26, which was written sometime around 55 CE; and it's referred to Ignatius (~100 CE), who exhorts his followers to "meet frequently to celebrate God's eucharist." Justin Martyr (~150 CE) also describes the eucharist, and indeed he notes "Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done." Martyr refers explicitly to "the Eucharist of the bread and the cup," which seems to directly refer to a communion practice that is much more like a contemporary communion than like an agape feast; and specifically within the context of Sunday worship, "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons." This is more than a century and a half before Constantine.
As for the uses of religion to support tyranny, I don't see anything particularly new in that. In terms of Roman occupational practice, all the Christianization of the Empire accomplished was to replace one religious system (Emperor worship) whose primary purpose was to support their rule, with another (Christianity) which could be largely subverted to that purpose. The specific association of the Eucharist with military induction has the symbolic affect of putting the almighty on the side of the soldier, but also positioning him as a judge should he disobey.
Sometimes Christianity has been effective in avoiding such subversion, but all too often, it hasn't. This is a problem that is as fresh and relevant today as it was in the fourth century.
The word eucharist itself is greek for something like "thanksgiving", not communion or.."Mass"/La Misa; ie the connection to pagans seems fairly evident (ie agapatistic, etc). There may be some scriptural support for Euch. but as I said it was not consistently practiced in the early church or in only one form. Similarly for the RC/episc. "creeds" which are much later than "patristic" writers.
Most of what is taken to be "catholic tradition" comes from the time of the crusades (including the "paternoster" sort of chant). The greek orthodox rites quite different from RC as well--not saying they're correct (very conservative as well) but evidence of the diversity of the early church (e.g., they still use the Septuagint rather than the later jewish texts, allow married priests, demand fasting before the mass, etc).
Im not a protestant catholic-basher type and think there may be value in the sacraments (some---collections of old bones, not much) but I find it odd how many traditional catholics--and mainstream prots. as well-- insist the rituals are right out of the New Testament when they are add-ons , or we might say, churchly constructs.
The word eucharist itself is greek for something like "thanksgiving", not communion or.."Mass"
Correct. The root χάρις means "grace," and εὐχαριστέω means "to give thanks." But I'm not sure I see your point. We often have multiple words for important concepts, especially multivalent concepts like communion/eucharist/mass. If you want to pick a fight here, you'll do better with Easter (with its roots in pagan fertility rituals, c.f., estrus) vs. the Passion/Pascha. But this seems to me to be more a criticism of the mongrel language we call English than it is of Christianity per se.
There may be some scriptural support for Euch. but as I said it was not consistently practiced in the early church or in only one form.
There is scriptural support, and yes, in the early churches, there was a diversity of forms. Still, this all seems mostly settled by the time of Justin Martyr, whose description of Sunday worship is still workable today.
Similarly for the RC/episc. "creeds" which are much later than "patristic" writers.
You want to be a bit more careful here. The ecumenical creeds (Apostle's, Nicene-Constantinopolitan, Athenasian, Chacedonian) are indeed fourth century and later. But these creeds have roots in earlier, congregation specific creeds, e.g., the Apostle's Creed is based on the 2nd century Old Roman Symbol, which does indeed push us back into the patristic era. Likewise, it's easy to find creedal statements, hymns, and even liturgy incorporated into the Pauline epistles.
I find it odd how many traditional catholics--and mainstream prots. as well-- insist the rituals are right out of the New Testament when they are add-ons , or we might say, churchly constructs.
Much of Christian worship finds it roots in the rituals and traditions of 1st century Judea, e.g., the ritual of baptism was well established both in mainstream Jewish traditions (cf., mikveh), or sects thereof (e.g., Jesus's mentor, John the Baptism). The ritual aspects of communion strongly parallel the Jewish table prayer, including the breaking of bread and the presentation of wine. Of course, Christianity has its own way of interpreting each of these when used sacramentally, so there's continuity of forms, but not of interpretation. Yes, there was considerable variation (as there still is, e.g., the Church of the Brethren do an agape feast rather than the token feast of the mass), but the modern forms are not so much late inventions as you would have it, as they are the forms present within that early diversity which were found most theologically valuable.
Again, you seem to find something scandalous in what strikes me as a fairly well understood phenomenon -- a radiative explosion characterized by a diversity of forms and experimentation, followed by a period of selective winnowing of those forms and the emergence of dominant (might I say, orthodox) types, and much slower subsequent evolution/adaptation.
The conservative catholics are hardly different from biblethumping protestants or mormons (or zealous jews and muslims). They're not Walker Percys or jh's. They are Chris Christies and Paternos. They need the Constitution, reason, science, civility. Or something. For most, there's no compromise. The catholic tomb-religion is their existence--their Weltanschauung.
11 comments:
jh,
There's an invitation to communion that is picking up traction in churches that practice open communion, including mine. I don't know the source, although I know who to ask :-).
This is the Lord's table. It is made ready for those who love him, and for those who want to love him more.
So come, you who have much faith and you who have little, you who have been here often and you who have not been here long, you who have tried to follow, and you who have failed.
Come, because it is the Lord who invites you. It is his will that those who want him should meet him here.
I think it makes an interesting contrast with the new Catholic version, which I'm not sure I'd characterize as an invitation so much as a confession and petition.
A significant liturgical difference is that the "Lord invites" invitation is made by the celebrant (Pastor/Priest) on behalf of our Lord Jesus Christ to the congregation between the Words of Institution and the distribution; whereas the Catholic confession/petition is (I assume...) a liturgical response made by the congregation.
the attraction to the return to this poetic narrative inclusion in the eucharistic prayer is its rootedness in scripture
matthew ch. 8 the words of the centurion
stu it could be argued that catholics make too big of a deal when it comes to purity of heart before the eucharist
but that sort of humility professed by the centurion before christ is valuable for us
we keep in mind who is doing what
i might add that catholics tend to strike the breast humbly and devotionally when reciting this response
what precedes and succedes these words fits into a beautiful choreography
i welcome the new and involved interest in the centrality of eucharist in the churches -- in the monastery we've been praying for this with zeal in recent years
my belief is that the sequence of words gestures responses song prayer petition proclamation is already worked out --- it won't bear up under much change - in fact we're returning as i knew we would to the more poetic and a bit more clumsy literal translations -- because they carry more theological weight to put it briefly
i wonder what the churches of protest think of it all
WV = pride
i don't understand this word at all
:-}
jh,
I appreciate the scriptural reference to the "I am not worthy," as well as its poetry. But let me scratch at this just a bit.
The centurion's story is about faith rather than humility, cf., Jesus's reply in Matt 8:10. So as beautiful as Matt 8:8 is in isolation, isolating it as the new missal does has the effect of recasting a declaration of faith as a declaration of subservience/humility. It is, as I suggested earlier, a confession and petition, or as you suggested, a personal preparation.
I have no objection to pieties, but I do not think it is helpful to confuse a piety for an invitation. Part of what I believe the Catholic tradition is struggling with here (as the Lutheran has, too, but in other ways), traces to 1 Cor 11:27, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord."
In the Lutheran mind, the concern (reflecting 1 Cor 11:28-32) is about understanding. Failing to discern the body and blood of Christ in the elements of communion is to take it in an unworthy manner. Hence, the practice until recent times of associating first communion with confirmation, and confirmation with both theological education and adult responsibilities in the congregation. More recently, the association of first communion with confirmation has broken down, so as to facilitate communion by younger children. We still require theological education as preparation for communion, but now commune relatively young children. E.g., my daughter was five when she began communing.
The Catholic reflection of this struggle seems to be more focussed on personal preparation, i.e., that taking communion in the wrong frame of mind (e.g., pridefully) constitutes unworthiness. The new text is a powerful, but paradoxical, tonic: confessing our unworthiness before God facilitates a state of mind that makes us worthy to receive communion.
But let me suggest a 21st century analysis, which is to read 1 Cor 11:27 in the context of 1 Cor as a whole (i.e., the circumstances of the Christian congregation at Corinth), and more specifically in light of 1 Cor 11:17-22, wherein Paul criticizes the Corinthians for allowing the sacrament of communion to degenerate into a collection of co-located picnics, which served as a symbol of the divisions in that congregation, rather than as a symbol of its unity. This isn't to dismiss either the Lutheran concern, nor the Catholic concern as I understand it, but it is to argue that Paul is warning the Corinthians (and by extension, us) that it is a misuse of communion to use it as a symbol of division rather than unity.
as an outsider to the catholic church
(like the centurion was to judaism)
i've taken comfort in these words
uttered by the congregation just before communion
they remind me that
despite whatever religious rules
might prevent me from partaking in the eucharist
christ's healing power
extends even to outsiders
i do also like the words of invitation
that stu presents
to my mind their biblical connection
relates to jesus's practice
of sharing table fellowship broadly
The history of the Eucharist fascinates a bit. The pre-christian version of the Mass--well, most probably would not care to delve into the greek and/or egyptian mysteries (think Equinox, and...nile floods, etc).
Mass was not always celebrated in the early church, or at least regularly (and related to the roman pagan feasts, somewhat). My reading leads me to believe the current RC rite ...was arranged and implemented by Constantine (then ..refined by General Augustine) and IMO as much an oath of fealty as an ...offering to JC. Ie, the roman/gaulish soldier swore to his legion, took the host, etc. Wasn't so much about religion but about loyalty to Rome. In Charlemagne's time it's nearly the same though the creeds had been added:ie, the soldier takes the oath to the King, repeats the paternoster, and then accepts the wine and bread. Pour l'épée et Le Croix.
Then for those fighting the ...Fedayeen, somewhat understandable.
J,
I think your version of the history of the Eucharist, while raising some valid points, confuses matters somewhat.
Celebration of communion is clearly referred to in 1 Cor 11:23-26, which was written sometime around 55 CE; and it's referred to Ignatius (~100 CE), who exhorts his followers to "meet frequently to celebrate God's eucharist." Justin Martyr (~150 CE) also describes the eucharist, and indeed he notes "Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done." Martyr refers explicitly to "the Eucharist of the bread and the cup," which seems to directly refer to a communion practice that is much more like a contemporary communion than like an agape feast; and specifically within the context of Sunday worship, "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons." This is more than a century and a half before Constantine.
As for the uses of religion to support tyranny, I don't see anything particularly new in that. In terms of Roman occupational practice, all the Christianization of the Empire accomplished was to replace one religious system (Emperor worship) whose primary purpose was to support their rule, with another (Christianity) which could be largely subverted to that purpose. The specific association of the Eucharist with military induction has the symbolic affect of putting the almighty on the side of the soldier, but also positioning him as a judge should he disobey.
Sometimes Christianity has been effective in avoiding such subversion, but all too often, it hasn't. This is a problem that is as fresh and relevant today as it was in the fourth century.
The word eucharist itself is greek for something like "thanksgiving", not communion or.."Mass"/La Misa; ie the connection to pagans seems fairly evident (ie agapatistic, etc). There may be some scriptural support for Euch. but as I said it was not consistently practiced in the early church or in only one form. Similarly for the RC/episc. "creeds" which are much later than "patristic" writers.
Most of what is taken to be "catholic tradition" comes from the time of the crusades (including the "paternoster" sort of chant). The greek orthodox rites quite different from RC as well--not saying they're correct (very conservative as well) but evidence of the diversity of the early church (e.g., they still use the Septuagint rather than the later jewish texts, allow married priests, demand fasting before the mass, etc).
Im not a protestant catholic-basher type and think there may be value in the sacraments (some---collections of old bones, not much) but I find it odd how many traditional catholics--and mainstream prots. as well-- insist the rituals are right out of the New Testament when they are add-ons , or we might say, churchly constructs.
J,
The word eucharist itself is greek for something like "thanksgiving", not communion or.."Mass"
Correct. The root χάρις means "grace," and εὐχαριστέω means "to give thanks." But I'm not sure I see your point. We often have multiple words for important concepts, especially multivalent concepts like communion/eucharist/mass. If you want to pick a fight here, you'll do better with Easter (with its roots in pagan fertility rituals, c.f., estrus) vs. the Passion/Pascha. But this seems to me to be more a criticism of the mongrel language we call English than it is of Christianity per se.
There may be some scriptural support for Euch. but as I said it was not consistently practiced in the early church or in only one form.
There is scriptural support, and yes, in the early churches, there was a diversity of forms. Still, this all seems mostly settled by the time of Justin Martyr, whose description of Sunday worship is still workable today.
Similarly for the RC/episc. "creeds" which are much later than "patristic" writers.
You want to be a bit more careful here. The ecumenical creeds (Apostle's, Nicene-Constantinopolitan, Athenasian, Chacedonian) are indeed fourth century and later. But these creeds have roots in earlier, congregation specific creeds, e.g., the Apostle's Creed is based on the 2nd century Old Roman Symbol, which does indeed push us back into the patristic era. Likewise, it's easy to find creedal statements, hymns, and even liturgy incorporated into the Pauline epistles.
I find it odd how many traditional catholics--and mainstream prots. as well-- insist the rituals are right out of the New Testament when they are add-ons , or we might say, churchly constructs.
Much of Christian worship finds it roots in the rituals and traditions of 1st century Judea, e.g., the ritual of baptism was well established both in mainstream Jewish traditions (cf., mikveh), or sects thereof (e.g., Jesus's mentor, John the Baptism). The ritual aspects of communion strongly parallel the Jewish table prayer, including the breaking of bread and the presentation of wine. Of course, Christianity has its own way of interpreting each of these when used sacramentally, so there's continuity of forms, but not of interpretation. Yes, there was considerable variation (as there still is, e.g., the Church of the Brethren do an agape feast rather than the token feast of the mass), but the modern forms are not so much late inventions as you would have it, as they are the forms present within that early diversity which were found most theologically valuable.
Again, you seem to find something scandalous in what strikes me as a fairly well understood phenomenon -- a radiative explosion characterized by a diversity of forms and experimentation, followed by a period of selective winnowing of those forms and the emergence of dominant (might I say, orthodox) types, and much slower subsequent evolution/adaptation.
The conservative catholics are hardly different from biblethumping protestants or mormons (or zealous jews and muslims). They're not Walker Percys or jh's. They are Chris Christies and Paternos. They need the Constitution, reason, science, civility. Or something. For most, there's no compromise. The catholic tomb-religion is their existence--their Weltanschauung.
Es tut mir leid, but that's the way it seems.
Post a Comment