smith_c@ncsatl.uucp (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter) (10/30/89)
Incidentally, Seven Capital Sins Seven Capital Virtues __________________ _____________________ 1. Pride 1. Humility 2. Avarice 2. Liberality 3. Lust 3. Chastity 4. Anger 4. Meekness 5. Gluttony 5. Temperance 6. Envy 6. Brotherly love 7. Sloth 7. Diligence I think these are called capital because they are the leading tendencies towards sin; I don't think it has anything to do with how grave they are, you know, all that mortal and venial stuff. I don't know what the Catholic Church has to say about Jesus God losing His Holy Temper when He drove out the money-changers. Righteous anger, I guess. I suppose that means if you're "righteously" angry with your brother, that's okay, as long as you forgive him, either after he repents, or before he repents, if you're really charitable. As for gluttony, hmmm, remember the one about Jesus saying, "John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking and they called him possessed. The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they called him a drunkard and a glutton. Yet wisdom is justified by all of her children." Did I get it right? Heh. I think the Baptists take Temperance a bit too far. I remember telling someone recently about the first time I received Communion in the Baptist Church with my mother-in-law. They passed out the Blood of Christ in these little plastic cups and the Body of Christ were these little crackers on a tray they passed around the pews. When the priest gave the go-ahead (er, Reverend, I guess), everybody ate the Body of Christ at the same time. Then, he gave the go-ahead to drink from our little plastic cups. I can't tell you how *shocked* I was when I discovered it was grape juice....I felt like I knew how the wine stewards at Cana felt when they tasted the water and, behold, it had turned into wine. I don't mean to offend anyone, I was just really *shocked*, I kid you not....However, I understand and appreciate the Baptist attitude towards using the "unfermented fruit of the vine." I mean, I don't want to get into a temperance debate, it was just a very interesting experience. When the priest was consecrating the Bread, I kept waiting for the ritual words, but he didn't use any in the prayer that I recognized, but then I'm not a Baptist, so I'm not familiar with whether or not they use a standard ritual. Perhaps some Protestants out there can help me out. Someone told me recently that Protestants do not believe that Jesus is really present in the Bread and Wine. Now, I thought the Protestants simply didn't agree with transubstantiation, believing that Jesus is really present in the Bread and Wine, as well as being really present in the Word of God, too, among other things. Perhaps some Protestants on this forum can help me out here. -- Standard Disclaimer: These are my soul opinions, heartfelt and passionately expressed. They do not reflect the opinions of National Computer Systems, whatever *they* might be.... Yours in Christ, SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER [I understand your concern about grape juice. It doesn't necessarily imply that we think there is anything intrinsically wrong with wine. Many denominations use grape juice even when they permit members to drink alcohol. Here's the argument: Unfortunately there is a substantial portion of our population that can't use alcoholic beverages safely. My guess is that the quantity involved in communion is not enough to cause objective problems for anyone. However there are those who are able to function only because of a strong commitment not to drink anything alcoholic. We should not take a chance of weakening that commitment. It's worth the esthetic loss in order to avoid causing a brother or sister to stumble. Even those groups that normally use wine may make grape juice available for those who prefer it. As for the Real Presence, there several different views. Generally the Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican families believe in some form of Real Presence. As a Presbyterian, I fall into the Reformed camp, and believe in what is sometimes called "spiritual presence", i.e. that we actually encounter Christ's body and blood in communion, but that this happens through the mediation of the Holy Spirit, and that the contact is not localized in the bread and wine. Lutherans and Anglicans generally do localize the presence in the elements in one way or another, but without believing in transubstantiation. The "low church" folks, which would include Baptists, generally see it as a memorial. Presumably they also expect to encounter Christ, but only as they would in any act of worship. As for the liturgy, every denomination has its own. There is no specific prayer of consecration that is considered essential by all Protestants. The only things I would consider to be essential to a Communion are the use of bread and wine (uh... fruit of the vine), and the use of the "words of institution". These may be taken either from the account of the last supper in the Synoptics (e.g. Mk 14:22 before the bread and Mk 14:23-25 before the cup) or from I Cor (I Cor 11:23-24 before the bread and I Cor 11:25 before the cup). All versions include the words "this is my body". Of course any actual liturgy will contain more than this. I generally prefer a liturgy that has more of the traditional elements. But I'd say that the only invariable parts of the liturgy are those two. This is exactly parallel to Baptism, where the two requirements are the use of water and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (and "the intent to do what the Church does", i.e. that it is intended to be a Christian sacrament, and not part of a play, etc.). Plastic cups are not of course a Protestant requirement. I've used a common loaf and common cup. If people drink directly from the cup, wine with a certain percent alcohol must be used, for sanitary reasons. More commonly, a common cup is administered by "intinction", i.e. dipping a hunk of bread into the cup. There are also several ways of having the congregation participate. Some sit in their seats and have the elements passed around. Others come forward in groups and kneel at the front. The old Presbyterian method (almost never used anymore) was to have tables at the front, and have people come in groups to sit at the table. There are also differences in age requirements. The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows baptized children to participate, with no specific age limit. The implication is that they request it, and must have at least some understanding of the significance of the sacrament. This can make for some awkward moments for the server: do you offer to serve a little tyke? (This is one reason for using ordained deacons and elders to serve, I guess: on-the-spot policy decisions.) I would not be surprised to see stricter requirements in other churches. These days most Protestant churches have "open communion". This means that any (baptized?) Christian is invited to participate. This is normally made explicit in an invitation, given somewhere near the beginning. There are however some churches that still practice closed communion, sometimes for reasons of Church discipline (that is, they want to make sure that people are properly prepared) and sometimes because they want to restrict participation to those who have the same understanding of communion. I believe closed communion is now fairly rare, but I could be wrong. I've certainly never run into it (not even in Catholic churches, interestingly enough). By the way, it's fairly important not to use the term priest in this context for a Protestant minister. Priest implies that a sacrifice is being done, and Protestants generally (except maybe high church Anglicans?) do not believe they are sacrificing Christ again. --clh]
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (11/10/89)
> I believe closed communion is now fairly rare, but I could be wrong. > I've certainly never run into it (not even in Catholic churches, > interestingly enough). Well, it's rather difficult to determine who is a Catholic and who is not when distributing communion, unless that person is known to the minister, announces their particular confession somehow, or is obviously unfamiliar with what to do (difficult to imagine for most Christians who celebrate a communion service.) Until this topic had been discussed on the net this past year, the "problem" had never occurred to me. In Catholic Churches, the presumption is, if you're standing in line to receive the Eucharist, you're Catholic. Whether you are or not is a different matter. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (11/10/89)
In article <Oct.29.22.21.50.1989.3567@athos.rutgers.edu> our moderator writes: >By the way, it's fairly important not to use the term priest in this >context for a Protestant minister. Priest implies that a sacrifice is >being done, and Protestants generally (except maybe high church >Anglicans?) do not believe they are sacrificing Christ again. This may be a problem of misinterpreting your wording, but Catholics don't believe that they are sacrificing Christ again. Rather, the Mass is a reenactment of the SAME sacrifice as Calvary. I'm also uneasy with the implication above that the "priest" is somehow sacrificing Christ. That's not really correct, although I am too jetlagged from the change to standard time to attempt a clarification of that right now. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu [I'd be interested in the distinction. I understand that the sacrifice is the same one as Calvary. But I had always understood that the mass is a sacrifice. --clh]
harry@atmos.washington.edu (Harry Edmon) (11/10/89)
Our beloved moderator in this comments in this article refers to "closed" communion. The proper name for this, at least in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), is "close" communion. The two reasons given, that a person be properly prepared and that those participating have the same understanding of communion, are the reasons for it. The LCMS does have a synodical policy of close communion, with each congregation to use proper pastoral care in its administration. Our congregation handles this by printing in the bulletin our belief that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ, and invite those who believe likewise to join us. If the person is going to attend communion in our church regularly, we ask them to talk to the Pastor. After all, only the person involved and God know if the person is properly instructed on communion and if they believe the same as we do. I might add that the LCMS also allows exception to the close communion rule in certain other circumstances such as for military chaplins. -- Harry Edmon INTERNET: harry@atmos.washington.edu (206) 543-0547 UUCP: uw-beaver!atmos.washington.edu!harry Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, AK-40 University of Washington
conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (11/14/89)
[This is in response to a dialog between Steve Dyer and me. I had thought that Catholics doctrine implied that a priest was performing a sacrifice during communion. Steve commented that although there are sacrificial aspects, it isn't sacrificing Christ again. The Mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary. I asked for clarification. --clh] Perhaps I can clarify the situation (or at least throw gas on the flames :-)). Just to be definitive, the following is an excerpt from the Decrees of the Council of Trent, (as quoted in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Mass, Roman"): Should anyone say that in the Mass there is not offered a true and genuine sacrifice or that to be offered means nothing more than that Christ is given us to eat, _anathema sit_... Should anyone say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise or thanksgiving, or but a bare commemoration of the sacrifice on the cross, and not propitiatory..._anathema sit_... Now, having stated definitively what Catholics don't believe, let me try and explain what we do believe. There is one unique sacrifice made for our sins--the sacrifice on the Cross. It cannot in any way be repeated. The mystery of the mass is that in it we are united with this event, across time and space. But we are not present as passive observers: the sacrifice of the mass comes when we unite ourselves to the sacrifice of Christ, offering _ourselves_ through Him to the Father. This is possible only through God's grace, received in Baptism. One way of looking at this is our sacrifice is a renewal of our baptismal vows; however, I'm not confident this completely captures the depth of what is happening, since the sacrament is a sign of God's action, not ours. Well, I hope this clarifies the question--if anyone wants, I can look into this further. (Also the NCE article above is quite good.) Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (11/15/89)
Our Fearless Moderator writes: >By the way, it's fairly important not to use the term priest in this >context for a Protestant minister. Priest implies that a sacrifice is >being done, and Protestants generally (except maybe high church >Anglicans?) do not believe they are sacrificing Christ again. Sorry, but this isn't correct. The Episcopal minister whose part is to read the eucharistic prayer and the words of institution, and who breaks the bread, is a priest-- whether high or low. Trying to get a firm grip on which presiding minister is a priest and which is not is a slippery proposition. The key point seems to be this notion of "sacrament". Regardless of the speicific details, this is one point where the anglicans are close akin to the Roman Catholics (and the eastern churches) and quite apart from most other protestants. It seems that the reason priests are called such is that they are the chief representatives/ actors in the sacramental acts of the church. They are both sign and reality of the priesthood of believers. -- C. Wingate + "Our God, to whom we turn When weary with illusion, + Whose stars serenely burn Above this earth's confusion, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Thine is the mighty plan, The steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + In which the world began, Endures, and shall endure."