Do any of your parishes use leaven bread for the Eucharist?

[gtsecc]

?

[PaladinValer]

Nope.

Nor do I think it matters if you understand the symbolism of using either leavened or unleavened bread.

Leavened bread traditionally symbolizes the fulfillment of Christ and the rising into heaven.
Unleavened bread traditionally was used by the Early Church and it can symbolize how God the Son emptied Himself (true kenosis) to offer all the world salvation and a chance of heaven.

I wouldn't mind receiving either, since I can see the value in both ways.

[TomUK]

No idea, we use the standard communion wafers.

[Naomi4Christ]

I think we get pan bread from Tesco

[karen freeinchristman]

We mostly have wafers, and we have home-baked leavened bread on occasion, usually harvest.
One of my friends used to get really upset that we don't have nice fresh leavened bread every Sunday, and I think it is true that some people don't understand why we use wafers. I think some people think the church is doing things on the cheap by using the wafers, but I like the way that it represents the passover bread, without leaven. I think we've had a thread about this already, and I can remember John (Fish and Bread) saying he thinks the wafers are easier to chew and swallow than a piece of normal bread. That is probably especially important when the priest has to finish up the last remaining pieces if there are too many!

[Fish and Bread]

One of the things I'm learning in our bible in 90 days study is that unleavened bread (i.e. the flat wafers) is probably a better bit of symbolism. We're only in the book numbers so far, but yet we've already seen angels eat unleavened bread and God repeatedly express a preference for it for Passover and for offerings. If we view the Eucharist as holy and/or even mildly sacrificial, unleavened bread makes the most sense in the light of the scriptures. And it's more practical as well, as Karen alluded to. :)

John

[PaladinValer]

Um, you are NOT to chew the Body of Christ.

[Fish and Bread]

Um, you are NOT to chew the Body of Christ.

I don't. :) Those were Karen's words, not mine. :) The only time I ever chewed was when someone gave me an impossibly large piece of leavened bread that simply wouldn't dissolve. When we're discussed this in the past on the forum, I mentioned that was one of the things I didn't like about the use of leavened bread for Eucharist, that it was difficult to consume it reverently without chewing. With an unleavened wafer, you can just use your tongue to press it to the roof of your mouth and the wine disolves it, and that's what I was taught to do as a child and continue to do nowadays. :)

John

[PaladinValer]

I know you didn't say you did. I was merely emphasizing the fact that we are not to chew is all. :)

[LiberatedChick]

My old church did use leavened bread. The one I'm at now uses wafers. I'd imagine the wafers would be more easy to dissolve in the mouth than a chunk of Hovis.

[TomUK]

I know you didn't say you did. I was merely emphasizing the fact that we are not to chew is all. :)

I understood that current thought was mixed on the issue. :scratch:

[Naomi4Christ]

What is the scriptural position on chewing/not chewing?

[PaladinValer]

We are to receive the Body and Blood respectfully.

You don't just "chew" God's Body. You savor it; you let it dissolve on its own. :)

[Naomi4Christ]

We are to receive the Body and Blood respectfully.

You don't just "chew" God's Body. You savor it; you let it dissolve on its own. :)

Does it actually say anything about this in the bible?

What is disrespectful about using your God-given teeth?

[gtsecc]

What is the scriptural position on chewing/not chewing?
The Scriptures would not contain such information.
All the Church teachings are not in the Bible, nor should we expect them to be.
The Western Church uses unleavened.
The Eastern Church uses levened.

[karen freeinchristman]

The Scriptures would not contain such information.
All the Church teachings are not in the Bible, nor should we expect them to be.
The Western Church uses unleavened.
The Eastern Church uses levened.
Yes, but you haven't mentioned chewing or not chewing in your post. This is important to me! I have never before heard that we are not to chew the wafer! Please tell me why, with references, that we are not to chew. I am a chalice assistant, and as such I would not want to chew when it is wrong to do so. I know this is not in the Bible at all, and I cannot understand what is meant when it is implied that chewing is disrespectful. Thank you in anticipation of an answer! :)

[Naomi4Christ]

The Scriptures would not contain such information.
All the Church teachings are not in the Bible, nor should we expect them to be.
The Western Church uses unleavened.
The Eastern Church uses levened.

Why would the bible not contain this information if it were important?

Church teachings should be clearly visible in the bible - that is the C of E position.

[gtsecc]

Why would the bible not contain this information if it were important?

Church teachings should be clearly visible in the bible - that is the C of E position.
It contains specific information about Jesus Christ and Salvation History, but it is not a book of rubrics and ritual notes.
I think that looking to it as such leads to a lot of confussion.

[PaladinValer]

chewing is traditionally not acceptable.

I've asked my friend who is the Newman director at my old college, and he told me that Holy Tradition has said chewing isn't acceptable since Early days.

Plus having read the Domostroi, I know chewing has been banned by the EOs since ever as well.

Edit: And that is not what the CoE position could be.

Scripture, TRADITION, REASON. All 3.

[Naomi4Christ]

It contains specific information about Jesus Christ and Salvation History, but it is not a book of rubrics and ritual notes.
I think that looking to it as such leads to a lot of confussion.

But who really cares about rubrics and ritual compared to the good news of Jesus Christ?

What is the basis of these rubrics and rituals?

ps: I was never instructed in my Confirmation classes on what to do with regard to chewing or not. Me thinks it is something only the most pious worry about, and you know what Jesus told us...

[Naomi4Christ]

chewing is traditionally not acceptable.

I've asked my friend who is the Newman director at my old college, and he told me that Holy Tradition has said chewing isn't acceptable since Early days.

Plus having read the Domostroi, I know chewing has been banned by the EOs since ever as well.

Edit: And that is not what the CoE position could be.

Scripture, TRADITION, REASON. All 3.

Evidence, SVP!

Or should I not hold my breath?

[gtsecc]

But who really cares about rubrics and ritual compared to the good news of Jesus Christ?

What is the basis of these rubrics and rituals?


A lot of people actually.
I have some friends who left their parish becasue it avoided talking about these things so much. We have these things because the Apostiles and early Christians thought they were important and passed them onto us. I would not want to do somethign that was directly contrary to Scripture, but that is different from following teachings that simply are not going to be in the Bible. Let me put it this way:
The idea that Bible could be used as book of rubrics for the faith is a RADICAL NEW teaching/ Tradition of the Church, and it has not been accepted universally by Christians.

[Naomi4Christ]

How do we know the Apostles thought these things were important?

[gtsecc]

How do we know the Apostles thought these things were important?
Their writings?

[Naomi4Christ]

Where? Which book in the New Testament will I find these writings?

Oh, and while we are at it, why did Jesus tell his disciples specifically to chew or gnaw (trogo) if he didn't mean for us to do the same?

[gtsecc]

Which book in the New Testament will I find these writings?



Who told you it would be in the NT?
Did they go to Wycliffe Hall Bible college?
If, so you ought to look else where for enlightenment. ^_^

[Naomi4Christ]

Who told me what?

[Fish and Bread]

FiliaMaria kindly posted a link to some translations of writings from early Christians on an earlier thread:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

John

[karen freeinchristman]

Who told you it would be in the NT?
Did they go to Wycliffe Hall Bible college?
If, so you ought to look else where for enlightenment. ^_^

The Holy Bible is Holy Scripture. The writings of the early Church fathers and Holy Tradition are not to be revered in the same way.

[gtsecc]

The Holy Bible is Holy Scripture. The writings of the early Church fathers and Holy Tradition are not to be revered in the same way.
Preciesely.
However, if they teach us something not contrary to scripture, and the Church has upheld it as an imporant teaching, are we to say, "It isn't in the Bible - I don't believe it?"

[Polycarp1]

For what it's worth, our parish always consecrates both leavened and unleavened bread, the leavened being normally baked by a parishioner (occasionally bought as a whole loaf from a local bakery, when the bread-donor cannot for one reason or another bake it). Communion is administered as leavened bread, followed by the chalice, unless the communicant indicates -- sotto voce or by gesture -- his/her desire to intinct, or otherwise has a preference for receiving unleavened. Any leavened bread left over after communion is reverently consumed after the service by the altar guild members present, and usually two or three youth.

[karen freeinchristman]

This is important to me! I have never before heard that we are not to chew the wafer! Please tell me why, with references, that we are not to chew. I know this is not in the Bible at all, and I cannot understand what is meant when it is implied that chewing is disrespectful. Thank you in anticipation of an answer! :)

Still awaiting answer, if one is available :confused:

[gtsecc]

Still awaiting answer, if one is available :confused:
Wow, I dunno.
I generally trust folks when they tell me something is a teaching.
This is a bit much. Sort of liek kissing soemthing beforeyou hand it to the Priest.
It is a cool teaching to know, and look for in the Mass, but heck if I think it will help me to do it or not.

[Naomi4Christ]

Why would you kiss something before handing it to a priest?

Here - my youth group list...have a cup to tea...you dropped your car keys...

[gtsecc]

Why would you kiss something before handing it to a priest?



It is tradition in the Liturgy.

If it moves, you kiss it. If it doesn't you bless it. So, if you ever went to a traditional Mass, you would see the servers kiss things before they had them to the Priest, like the Incense, and you will see the Priest bless things a lot.

I don't think it will affect someone’s salvation, but I appreciate the aesthetic, and the understanding that the liturgy is sacramental.

[karen freeinchristman]

If it moves, you kiss it. If it doesn't you bless it. So, if you ever went to a traditional Mass, you would see the servers kiss things before they had them to the Priest, like the Incense, and you will see the Priest bless things a lot.
Wow! This is something I will look out for tomorrow at the placement church.


:idea:

Maybe I'll try it out with my home church, too, with my Vicar! I can't wait to see the expression on his face when I put this into practice!
Sorry. I shouldn't mock. It is just very alien to me and obviously to some of the others here. I am constantly surprised by what I learn here at CF! :o

[Naomi4Christ]

It is tradition in the Liturgy.

If it moves, you kiss it. If it doesn't you bless it. So, if you ever went to a traditional Mass, you would see the servers kiss things before they had them to the Priest, like the Incense, and you will see the Priest bless things a lot.

I don't think it will affect someone’s salvation, but I appreciate the aesthetic, and the understanding that the liturgy is sacramental.

So, it's only during a service - not when you might be seeing the priest midweek?

I gave lunch to a couple of clergymen today - I didn't kiss it. Did I do wrong?

[gtsecc]

Wow! This is something I will look out for tomorrow at the placement church.



I really doubt they will do this.
In fact, they probably don't even know about it.
Do they do a High Solemn Mass?

[karen freeinchristman]

I generally trust folks when they tell me something is a teaching. Sort of like kissing something before you hand it to the Priest. It is a cool teaching to know, and look for in the Mass, but heck if I think it will help me to do it or not.

If someone told me that a certain action was a church teaching (such as kissing something before you hand it to the Priest) but couldn't give me any definite scriptural reason or at least a reasonable justification for the action, then I would not deem it necessary. I am very curious to know, why do you think it is 'a cool teaching'?

[marciebaby]

Hey Naomi, I like your new haircut! I could never get used to your blonde hair.

[Naomi4Christ]

Hey Naomi, I like your new haircut! I could never get used to your blonde hair.

:D I didn't either!

[TomUK]

If someone told me that a certain action was a church teaching (such as kissing something before you hand it to the Priest) but couldn't give me any definite scriptural reason or at least a reasonable justification for the action, then I would not deem it necessary. I am very curious to know, why do you think it is 'a cool teaching'?

I admit i haven't memorised the writings of the Church Fathers or anything even close, but i certainly haven't come across anything which says we must not chew. Maybe it's a pious private practice, but i don't see any precedent for it in scripture tradition or reason. In fact (and as someone said earlier and has been ignored) the words used be Jesus himself imply the act of chewing. However i really don't think Jesus minds either way. We are instructed to feast on him in all we do, and that is what i intend to do.

[karen freeinchristman]

I admit i haven't memorised the writings of the Church Fathers or anything even close, but i certainly haven't come across anything which says we must not chew. Maybe it's a pious private practice, but i don't see any precedent for it scripture tradition or reason. In fact (and as someone said earlier and has been ignored) the words used be Jesus himself imply the act of chewing. However u really don't think Jesus minds either way. We are instructed to feast on him in all we do, and that is what i intend to do.
Thanks, Tom! :)

[PaladinValer]

Scripture is Holy Tradition

[Tetzel]

The church I grew up in used regular bread in the late 1980's, the new pastor uses wafers. He must have had an 8 inch diameter wafer at my dad's funeral, I've never seen such a huge wafer.

[svdbygrace]

Um, you are NOT to chew the Body of Christ.

Jesus said "Take, eat this is my body". I do what he says... I take it and eat it. However, to really understand this question, we need to think about when exactly does the Bread/Wine stop being his body and blood? :confused:

[Naomi4Christ]

Jesus said "Take, eat this is my body".

So, you don't think he said, "take, suck" either

[marciebaby]

It seems a little undignified for the body of Christ to move entirely through one's digestive system. Does it stop being the body and blood at a particular point in the GI tract?

[PaladinValer]

To eat is to consume, not to chew.

Marciebaby, it isn't undignified at all. God the Son emptied Himself in the Incarnation as Jesus (kenosis). And He told us to partake of His Body and His Blood, which are His Gifts to us.

What an awesome God to empty Himself for us! :clap:

[marciebaby]

But what I mean, is that does it stop being the body before it gets flushed? Or are we flushing Jesus?

[Naomi4Christ]

To eat is to consume, not to chew.



I beg to differ.

I am a science teacher and have to teach about digestion. It always begins in the mouth, with the teeth.

[Naomi4Christ]

But what I mean, is that does it stop being the body before it gets flushed? Or are we flushing Jesus?

:D

[PaladinValer]

Poor science then, since apple sauce needn't be chewed to be eaten.

And since bread is composed of natural sugars and fiber, in small amounts (like an unleavened Communion Wafer), it needn't be chewed either to be eaten.

Are these things then not eaten? Your definition makes no logical sense.

[SirTimothy]

Well my priest, a high-church anglo-catholic man if I've ever met one, he chews the broken large host...

Timothy

[Tetzel]

Yes, but you haven't mentioned chewing or not chewing in your post. This is important to me! I have never before heard that we are not to chew the wafer! Please tell me why, with references, that we are not to chew. I am a chalice assistant, and as such I would not want to chew when it is wrong to do so. I know this is not in the Bible at all, and I cannot understand what is meant when it is implied that chewing is disrespectful. Thank you in anticipation of an answer! :)

Here are my handy-dandy communion tips.
1. Do not attempt to immediately swallow the body of Christ, as choking on the wafer contradicts biblical teaching to "take and eat"
2. Chewing is an acceptable way to prevent choking, but one must be careful because chewing has a tendency to cause the wafer's bits to lodge between the teeth.
3. Letting the wafer dissolve avoids the dental issues, but raises the possibility of accidentally ejecting the host when one sings the part of the liturgy following communion. To prevent this, sit up front so that you'll have plenty of time to dissolve the wafer. There is also the issue that if one views chewing as irreverent, then dissolving in spit is probably not so peachy either.

I hope that helps

[Naomi4Christ]

Poor science then, since apple sauce needn't be chewed to be eaten.


But the pork that you lob it on usually does.


And since bread is composed of natural sugars and fiber, in small amounts (like an unleavened Communion Wafer), it needn't be chewed either to be eaten.

Are these things then not eaten? Your definition makes no logical sense.

Sacriledge! The wafer should surely be made of wheat, which is a starch, which gets digested in the mouth as well as the stomach.

Why don't you just give up now, PV?

[marciebaby]

Nobody's answered my question yet. I really want to know.

[Naomi4Christ]

Nobody's answered my question yet. I really want to know.

Most of it is going to be digested and then enter your bloodstream where it will become one with your body.

PV did mention fibre though, and we know where that is destined. I would imagine once it was separated from the carbohydrate that it would cease to be the body of Christ - but what am I to know - I am just a simple soul.

This is something we really don't need to know, though, as it is not in the bible. The bible tells us what we need to know, not necessarily what we want to know.

[marciebaby]

On another thread, people were talking about when the host could cease to become the body of Jesus. I just wasn't sure if there was any doctrine about it one way or another.

[Fish and Bread]

The historic teaching of the Church has been that the elements cease being the body of blood of Christ once they are reduced to their constituant parts. That is why if they can not be consumed or reverently stored, the host have traditionally been burned (Changing it from bread to ashes) and the wine has been slowly poured directly into the earth (Changing it to individual atoms of grace and water). The idea of burning the consecrated hosts and returning the consecrated wine to the earth are very, very early Christian practices.

To me, this would mean implicitly that Christ is within us until our body breaks the elements down so that they are no longer distinctly bread or wine. Maybe Noami or one of the other folks here with some knowledge of science can let us know appoximately how long that usually takes. :)

John

[higgs2]

So, it's only during a service - not when you might be seeing the priest midweek?

I gave lunch to a couple of clergymen today - I didn't kiss it. Did I do wrong?

I wonder if we should kiss our woven or knitted cloth with reddish or greenish spots of mildew before we hand it to our priest to observe for 7 days? :D

[svdbygrace]

So, you don't think he said, "take, suck" either

Nope... :)

[svdbygrace]

I wonder if we should kiss our woven or knitted cloth with reddish or greenish spots of mildew before we hand it to our priest to observe for 7 days? :D

:eek:

[higgs2]

So can it touch the teeth when it is dissolving in the mouth? Is it the up and down action of the teeth or the proximity to the teeth that is irreverent. Is it okay to chew very sloooowly?

And also, what about when you're in a line for communion, like at outdoor chapel at church camp, and the bread is fresh, chewy bread baked that morning, and you get a piece and try to wait for it to dissolve before you get to the chalice but it is a rather large piece and also a thick crust, do you chew it, make everyone wait 3 to 5 minutes for it to dissolve, drink with unchewed bread in your mouth, skip the chalice, or what?

[erin74]

surely the bread the disciples ate was stuff that had to be chewed. Or are we suggesting the disciples had wafers, or allowed it to dissolve in their mouths..... come on you've gotta be kidding!

[Fish and Bread]

surely the bread the disciples ate was stuff that had to be chewed. Or are we suggesting the disciples had wafers, or allowed it to dissolve in their mouths..... come on you've gotta be kidding!

The Last Supper likely occurred during Passover (According to clues in three of the four Gospels), during which Jews were commanded to always use unleavened bread (i.e. the flat stuff we use for communion a lot of times!) and to give away all leavened bread products and yeast before it started each year, dating back from, according to the Book of Genesis, the Egyptian captivity. In other words, it's very likely that *Jesus* himself used a big flat wafer, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, just as many churches do today. :) He didn't have those little premade individual round wafers, but he may well have had something like the big wafer the priests often breaks. :) As far as whether they chewed it or not, who knows.

John

[Naomi4Christ]

Maybe we should get some tee-shirts printed up saying: "I am going to heaven because I suck". :D

I really think there must be something missing from faith if people truly believe this is an important practice. You should not have to be instructed on how to behave before God - the Holy Spirit should teach you that from within and make you yearn to do the right thing.

[kf4bdy]

Sometimes our church uses leaven bread and sometimes we use unleaven. It depends on if I have the time to bake it or not. :P

[Naomi4Christ]

The Last Supper likely occurred during Passover (According to clues in three of the four Gospels), during which Jews were commanded to always use unleavened bread (i.e. the flat stuff we use for communion a lot of times!) and to give away all leavened bread products and yeast before it started each year, dating back from, according to the Book of Genesis, the Egyptian captivity. In other words, it's very likely that *Jesus* himself used a big flat wafer, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, just as many churches do today. :) He didn't have those little premade individual round wafers, but he may well have had something like the big wafer the priests often breaks. :) As far as whether they chewed it or not, who knows.

John

Even flat bread needs to be chewed. Many manifestations of flat bread is even tougher to eat than the inside of an ordinary loaf.

[erin74]

Even flat bread needs to be chewed. Many manifestations of flat bread is even tougher to eat than the inside of an ordinary loaf.

yeah that was what I was thinking. I knew that they would have used unleavened due to passover, but I don't think there is any reason to think they would be wafers. There are a lot of unleavened breads made by different cultures throughout the world. The only ones that I can think off offhand that might be considered wafer like are papadums (sp??)... and I think even those would be difficult to suck.

I just can't picture the disciples sitting around sucking their dinner.

[erin74]

[QUOTE=Naomi4Christ]Maybe we should get some tee-shirts printed up saying: "I am going to heaven because I suck". :D

[QUOTE]

I'd start sucking my bread just to be able to wear one of those!!!!

[karen freeinchristman]

Here are my handy-dandy communion tips.
1. Do not attempt to immediately swallow the body of Christ, as choking on the wafer contradicts biblical teaching to "take and eat"
2. Chewing is an acceptable way to prevent choking, but one must be careful because chewing has a tendency to cause the wafer's bits to lodge between the teeth.
3. Letting the wafer dissolve avoids the dental issues, but raises the possibility of accidentally ejecting the host when one sings the part of the liturgy following communion. To prevent this, sit up front so that you'll have plenty of time to dissolve the wafer. There is also the issue that if one views chewing as irreverent, then dissolving in spit is probably not so peachy either.

I hope that helps

love it! :thumbsup:

[Fish and Bread]

I don't think anyone here is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to chew (Okay, maybe Paladin is. :)), but I think the point many folks are trying to make is that it might be a nice gesture to treat the Eucharist with more reverence than we'd treat a normal hunk of bread. I've seen people gnawing on it like it's a gigantic wad of bubblegum and that just doesn't seem quite right to me. I'll fully grant that there a lot of more important issues in the world, though.

Ultimately, I think the only true problem with chewing is when it's indicative of an inner lack of reverence. If people chew people they think that's what God commands them to do, it's fine by me. If they chew because they think it's just a handy snack, then that upsets me -- St. Paul told us that we are to discern the body and that if we want to just have a meal, we should eat it at home. :)

John

[higgs2]

I just can't picture the disciples sitting around sucking their dinner.


I simply can't stop giggling about this comment! :eek:

[Naomi4Christ]

[QUOTE=Naomi4Christ]Maybe we should get some tee-shirts printed up saying: "I am going to heaven because I suck". :D

[QUOTE]

I'd start sucking my bread just to be able to wear one of those!!!!

They didn't have 21st century dental care, so maybe they did suck after all :D

[erin74]

I don't think anyone here is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to chew (Okay, maybe Paladin is. :)), but I think the point many folks are trying to make is that it might be a nice gesture to treat the Eucharist with more reverence than we'd treat a normal hunk of bread. I've seen people gnawing on it like it's a gigantic wad of bubblegum and that just doesn't seem quite right to me. I'll fully grant that there a lot of more important issues in the world, though.

Ultimately, I think the only true problem with chewing is when it's indicative of an inner lack of reverence. If people chew people they think that's what God commands them to do, it's fine by me. If they chew because they think it's just a handy snack, then that upsets me -- St. Paul told us that we are to discern the body and that if we want to just have a meal, we should eat it at home. :)

John

Yeah - I think this is more the point. For myself, I think that I am more able to focus on what communion is about if I'm not trying to suck the bread, or allow it to dissolve. Frankly I'm not really thinking about chewing or whatever when I'm taking communion. I'm trying to think about what it's about instead.

Now for something that may shock some. I used to be in charge of setting up and cleaning up from communion. I did as I was taught by my rector. Disposed of the leftover port and grapejuice down the sink, and fed the bread to the birds. I think he may have been making a theological point btw. This was the same guy who had a church bbq on good friday - sausages, steak, chops, etc. I like his style myself. Make the point without arguing the point or take up time preaching about something that wasn't in the preaching roster.

[Fish and Bread]

Now for something that may shock some. I used to be in charge of setting up and cleaning up from communion. I did as I was taught by my rector. Disposed of the leftover port and grapejuice down the sink, and fed the bread to the birds. I think he may have been making a theological point btw. This was the same guy who had a church bbq on good friday - sausages, steak, chops, etc. I like his style myself.

Nothing against your rector personally, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but it's stuff like that that makes me wonder whether I'm truly suited to be Anglican or not. Not that I don't love sausages, steak, and chops! My mouth is watering right now like you wouldn't believe! :) But the idea of having a feast on a day set aside to remember our Savior's death at our own hands, that's just in really poor taste, as far as I'm concerned. That's a day when many Christian go on their strictest fast of the year and don't eat at all or eat only sparingly.

John

[erin74]

Well - he didn't do it every year - just the once to show people that they had the freedom to do so. And he was able to spend a lot of time with a lot of the congregation that day. What a great thing to do. We were able to reflect together on all that God had done in christ's death. Eating didn't prevent us doing that.

[higgs2]

Nothing against your rector personally, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but it's stuff like that that makes me wonder whether I'm truly suited to be Anglican or not. Not that I don't love sausages, steak, and chops! My mouth is watering right now like you wouldn't believe! :) But the idea of having a feast on a day set aside to remember our Savior's death at our own hands, that's just in really poor taste, as far as I'm concerned. That's a day when many Christian go on their strictest fast of the year and don't eat at all or eat only sparingly.

John
I have to admit that bothers me too. And the pouring the wine down the sink -- if it's a special sink (forget the name) that drains into the ground, well fine, but if it goes into the sewer system I think that's unneccessarily irreverent and provocative.

[Fish and Bread]

I have to admit that bothers me too. And the pouring the wine down the sink -- if it's a special sink (forget the name) that drains into the ground, well fine, but if it goes into the sewer system I think that's unneccessarily irreverent and provocative.

I agree. The same goes for letting the birds feast on the Eucharist! Isn't there a verse in the bible admonishing us not to cast our pearls before swine? I think that probably applies here!

John

[higgs2]

I agree. The same goes for letting the birds feast on the Eucharist! Isn't there a verse in the bible admonishing us not to cast our pearls before swine? I think that probably applies here!

John
That doesn't bother me as much, probably because the priest at church camp lets the kids feed the bread to the ducks after chapel. It seems like they are part of nature, and St. Francis surely would have said they were therefore holy...

My priest made a good point though in saying that we don't commune peoples' pets so we shouldn't feed the leftovers to animals either.

[erin74]

I agree. The same goes for letting the birds feast on the Eucharist! Isn't there a verse in the bible admonishing us not to cast our pearls before swine? I think that probably applies here!

John

I don't think that verse was about communion. That would be like me replying with "but even the dogs eat the scraps under the table" which would be equally irrelevant - and yet it sounds kinda good doesn't it.

Given he doesn't believe, and nor do I, in transsubstantiation, I think it's not a problem - and that was the point he was making. The act of communion itself was the important part, not what happens to it afterward. I think that's the point he was trying to make.

If he held that it was actually Jesus body and blood I am quite sure he wouldn't have done this.

[Fish and Bread]

Given he doesn't believe, and nor do I, in transsubstantiation, I think it's not a problem - and that was the point he was making. The act of communion itself was the important part, not what happens to it afterward. I think that's the point he was trying to make.

If he held that it was actually Jesus body and blood I am quite sure he wouldn't have done this.

I think folks on all sides of this issue are well-intentioned. Ultimately, though, there is an objective truth here about the nature of the Eucharist. Some believe it's Christ's body and blood thereafter once it's consecrated and some believe it's only that spiritually during the act of communion itself. The problem is for me that, as someone in the former group, when the folks in the later group do stuff like read the Eucharist to birds, dump it in the trash, or treat it like a normal meal, that's painful for me, and I think it's painful to a lot of folks who believe as I do, because it feels like an unwitting desecration.

Part of being in communion, in the sense of being one church organization, is that where we disagree (Beyond any hard and fast rules that are established), we still respect each other's viewpoints. The symbolism-only or real presense only in the context of the service folks, when they treat the Eucharist in this way are essentially sending a message of: "You're not only wrong, but you're so wrong that we're willing to risk throwing a precious sacrament in the trash to demonstrate it". To me that'd be offensive even if it turned out that they were right and I was wrong about the host remaining Christ's body and blood. And if they're wrong, it may be something they'll one day have to answer for. Personally, even if I were a memoralist-only or someone who thought the real presence faded after the service, I wouldn't want to tempt fate!

The other thing is that, even *if* the real presence disappears, the bread and wine would be elements that, for a short time were things that Christ was really present in. Do we truly want to disgard them as trash or feed them to the birds if that is the case? To me, they'd still be holy relics of some sort or another. :) I'm hesistant to even throw out the palm leaves they give us on Palm Sunday and they're just something that was blessed. Symbolically, I think there's a question of respect for God whenever we dispose of a religious item. If I had an old Koran or a Hindu statue, I wouldn't toss it in the trash can to get rid of it unless I had to, because those things mean stuff to other people -- I'd try to figure out some way to dispose of them respectfully.

John

[higgs2]

The symbolism-only or real presense only in the context of the service folks, when they treat the Eucharist in this way are essentially sending a message of: "You're not only wrong, but you're so wrong that we're willing to risk throwing a precious sacrament in the trash to demonstrate it".
John

I think this is why I'm uncomfortable with the issue too.

It also seems very un-Anglican in that there is no accomodation for a breadth of views on the real presence issue.

[karen freeinchristman]

It also seems very un-Anglican in that there is no accomodation for a breadth of views on the real presence issue.

That's a good point!

[erin74]

I think it odd that you would expect a whole brance of the church to take on the practices of another branch just in case they are wrong. It would also then be the case of ministers teaching one thing, and then acting as if that is not what they believe. It kinda undermines their teaching don't you think.

Perhaps those who believe that it is ok for woman and homosexuals to be ordained should consider not doing it in case they are wrong and risk offending God. That would be the same application of that line of thought.

[gtsecc]

Perhaps those who believe that it is ok for woman and homosexuals to be ordained should consider not doing it in case they are wrong and risk offending God. That would be the same application of that line of thought.
They should not do it unless the whole Communion, at least, agrees with it.
I am for nontraditional Bishops.
However, I would refrain from ordaining them until the rest of the communion said it was ok.

[Fish and Bread]

Perhaps those who believe that it is ok for woman and homosexuals to be ordained should consider not doing it in case they are wrong and risk offending God.

Maybe they should consider that. But you must admit it would be a greater burden to ask people who believe that to deny women ordaination would be to deny them their calling and sin against God than to ask people who don't believe that the real presence remains after communion to simply reframe from treating the hosts and the wine/blood irreverently. All we're really asking is "Be careful about how many hosts and how much wine you consecrate and consume the extras during the service or reverently dispose of them afterwards.".

John

[gtsecc]

It seems to me that folks who feed the Host to the Birds and folks who Ordain non standard Bsihops are both doing things which they think are ok, and do them anyway with full knowledge it hurts the rest of the communion.

[erin74]

Maybe they should consider that. But you must admit it would be a greater burden to ask people who believe that to deny women ordaination would be to deny them their calling and sin against God than to ask people who don't believe that the real presence remains after communion to simply reframe from treating the hosts and the wine/blood irreverently. All we're really asking is "Be careful about how many hosts and how much wine you consecrate and consume the extras during the service or reverently dispose of them afterwards.".

John

We always are careful about how much we put out - we have always tried to only put out enough for how many people we think will come.

Given the disposal of communion goes on all around the world I do actually think it's a bit much to expect the rest of us to conform to the ways of the transsubstantiationalist (is that even a word?) just in case. I believe that we are doing the right thing. We are not wasting food by simply throwing it away. Nor are we forcing people to consume it - it would be silly since we don't hold the belief that it is required. I think it is better for people for act within their own views, what they hold to be true - what they have spent time working out theologically. If we all start making decisions based on the assumption that we may be wrong, who's views do we consider. In considering one person's view we are rejecting anothers. It all starts to get very confusing very quickly.

[higgs2]

We always are careful about how much we put out - we have always tried to only put out enough for how many people we think will come.

Given the disposal of communion goes on all around the world I do actually think it's a bit much to expect the rest of us to conform to the ways of the transsubstantiationalist (is that even a word?) just in case. I believe that we are doing the right thing. We are not wasting food by simply throwing it away. Nor are we forcing people to consume it - it would be silly since we don't hold the belief that it is required. I think it is better for people for act within their own views, what they hold to be true - what they have spent time working out theologically. If we all start making decisions based on the assumption that we may be wrong, who's views do we consider. In considering one person's view we are rejecting anothers. It all starts to get very confusing very quickly.

But you *said* : <Disposed of the leftover port and grapejuice down the sink, and fed the bread to the birds. I think he may have been making a theological point btw.>

That sounds kind of "in your face". And it's not just"transsubstaniationalists" who would object to treating the sacrament like this. And if it's consumed rather than poured into the sewer system who is discriminated against? Whose call from God is being denied? That's the difference.

[erin74]

So you are saying he should deny what he believes and not teach on this issue instead... just in case he offends someone with an opposing view, even if they don't attend his church and live on the other side of the globe.

As it was in the 10 years I was at the church with him as my rector I never heard of anyone objecting to the practice. Perhaps there were at other services - I can't really speak on that. But if he was trying to make a point to our congregation (which I think he was), we got it and nobody seemed to have an issue with it that I know of. I don't think anyone took it to be 'in your face'. We each could see that he held that the communion objects were not objects to be worshipped or revered, rather the focus of them was - namely Christ. Well that is what I learned from him at any rate.

[Fish and Bread]

Given the disposal of communion goes on all around the world I do actually think it's a bit much to expect the rest of us to conform to the ways of the transsubstantiationalist (is that even a word?) just in case. I believe that we are doing the right thing. We are not wasting food by simply throwing it away. Nor are we forcing people to consume it - it would be silly since we don't hold the belief that it is required. I think it is better for people for act within their own views, what they hold to be true - what they have spent time working out theologically. If we all start making decisions based on the assumption that we may be wrong, who's views do we consider. In considering one person's view we are rejecting anothers. It all starts to get very confusing very quickly.

Don't you think we hold some sort of common obligation to each other if we are all going to purport to be part of one communion? If the conservative evangelical is justified in desecrating sacred things because they have differing beliefs, then how can they object to the liberal Anglo-Catholic baptising in the some new formula or saying Jesus wasn't a real person? That's the basic problem with the Anglican Communion today -- there is no regard for anyone else's perspective, on either the liberal or the conservative sides. It's like congregationalism at it's worst, which is ironic considering that we're supposed to have an episcopal polity...

John

[erin74]

But how can any congregation exist if it has to try and accommodate every differing view held under the banner of anglicanism, whether they are present in their congregation or not? Can't you see that is kind of ridiculous.

I find it kinda weird (possibly even offensive) that people revere/worship the bread and wine, when it is not Jesus. We should only worship him, and none other. I think it's kind of like saying that he didn't do enough on the cross and is required to suffer more in saying that he is suffering when we consume communion, or when we throw it away. That, to me, is quite offensive in itself. And yet I am not trying to suggest that you should not hold the belief you do. Frankly it just isn't worth dividing over.

[karen freeinchristman]

Don't you think we hold some sort of common obligation to each other if we are all going to purport to be part of one communion?
In erin's defence, although I do not agree with what her Rector teaches about the Eucharist, John's statement above is true - but as erin has mentioned, it applies equally to many other issues (such as women's ordination), and so I don't think it is that good of an argument in this debate. :sorry:

[higgs2]

But how can any congregation exist if it has to try and accommodate every differing view held under the banner of anglicanism, whether they are present in their congregation or not? Can't you see that is kind of ridiculous.

I find it kinda weird (possibly even offensive) that people revere/worship the bread and wine, when it is not Jesus. We should only worship him, and none other. I think it's kind of like saying that he didn't do enough on the cross and is required to suffer more in saying that he is suffering when we consume communion, or when we throw it away. That, to me, is quite offensive in itself. And yet I am not trying to suggest that you should not hold the belief you do. Frankly it just isn't worth dividing over.

Are there rules and guidelines on how to treat your country's flag? Is it okay to wad it up in a ball and hand it to the widow in a military funeral rather than folding it properly? Should it be run down the flagpole and stuffed in the trash when it has a tear in it? Can you see any similarities?

[karen freeinchristman]

Are there rules and guidelines on how to treat your country's flag? Is it okay to wad it up in a ball and hand it to the widow in a military funeral rather than folding it properly? Should it be run down the flagpole and stuffed in the trash when it has a tear in it? Can you see any similarities?
Excellent counter-argument, higgs!
(You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to higgs2 again.)

[gtsecc]

In erin's defence, although I do not agree with what her Rector teaches about the Eucharist, John's statement above is true - but as erin has mentioned, it applies equally to many other issues (such as women's ordination), and so I don't think it is that good of an argument in this debate. :sorry:
And exactly why I would oppose Women's ordination, even though I am personally in favor of it.

[higgs2]

Excellent counter-argument, higgs!
(You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to higgs2 again.)
Thank you, Karen. That means alot coming from you.

[DarthDigger]

Our parish doesn't

[Hackett]

No

[AngCath]

our old priest did use bread. our new one does not.

[Fish and Bread]

our old priest did use bread. our new one does not.

What does he use instead? :)

John

[karen freeinchristman]

What does he use instead? :)

John
^_^
:cool:

[erin74]

Are there rules and guidelines on how to treat your country's flag? Is it okay to wad it up in a ball and hand it to the widow in a military funeral rather than folding it properly? Should it be run down the flagpole and stuffed in the trash when it has a tear in it? Can you see any similarities?

sorry - you lost me somewhere. I don't really see what this had to do with what I said.... or this topic really..... I'm not being rude - I just didn't quite understand your point....

[Naomi4Christ]

sorry - you lost me somewhere. I don't really see what this had to do with what I said.... or this topic really..... I'm not being rude - I just didn't quite understand your point....

I had to think about it too, Erin. I think the reverance to 'the flag' is an American thing.

[karen freeinchristman]

I had to think about it too, Erin. I think the reverance to 'the flag' is an American thing.
Yes, it is very much so. I suppose we Americans forget that other countries do not demonstrate their patriotism in the same way with their flags. The flag IMO symbolises freedom and every good thing that America stands for (trust me, there are some good things :) ).

[SirTimothy]

I had to think about it too, Erin. I think the reverance to 'the flag' is an American thing.

I would happily burn the english flag...

Timothy

[gtsecc]

I wouldn't even burn a French flag.

[karen freeinchristman]

I would happily burn the english flag...

Timothy:(
why?

[LiberatedChick]

:scratch: :confused:

[Fish and Bread]

I would happily burn the english flag...

That strikes me as a very unusual thing for an Anglican (Which in a non-religious context would mean something like "One who likes or is associated with England") to say! :)

John

[TomUK]

I would happily burn the english flag...

Timothy

I could perhaps understand you accepting the possibility of burning the flag, but happily? :eek: :(

No idea how this thread got on to this topic (i'm far too tired to read back) but i believe that to desecrate the flag would be an affront to the Queen. As archiac as it may sound i am her loyal subject and would do nothing to cause her offence.

[TomUK]

That strikes me as a very unusual thing for an Anglican (Which in a non-religious context would mean something like "One who likes or is associated with England") to say! :)

John

...or perhaps more specifically, 'one who is of England'.

[erin74]

Lots of people want to get rid of our flag. I think it is a map of our history - whether we like it or not, we need to recognise our history is our history, and the removal of a reminder of it doesn't change what happened. I think it's only a matter of time before it is changed though.