Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: schism and communion Message-ID: Date: 23 Sep 89 09:02:58 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 70 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I think that OFM gets off to a good start in his reply, but that things eventually go ary. The comment about institution, I agree, is at the root of this. I think one problem we have with the RC church over this is that their position on authority has the effect of appearing to negate this; if the eucharist is what it is, then what The Church says it is would seem to be of limited relevance. Turning it into a point of church discipline more or less guarantees protestantism. ANyway, that grumping out the way, I would note in passing that the episcopal liturgies tend to treat breaking of the bread as an essential part of the act. The whole meaning of ordination is somewhat controversial in the episcopal church. On one fringe we have dogmatic belief in apostolic succession (the so-called pipeline theory of grace). In the other direction we have Urban Holmes saying that the orders are not of dominical ordinance and are simply preferable above all other systems. Holmes certainly has a point, because the gospels simply do not say what the proper minister for the eucharist is-- and as protestants, anglicans surely must bow to scripture to at least this degree. This "spiritual presence" model is unclear to me to the extent that the model seems to be saying, by implication, that the role of the elements is symbolic. This is a consequence of the negative comment about "physical contact with the elements"; clearly there is *some* symbolic value invoolved, and the comment seems to forbid any other effective role. Anglicans are a bit messy about this, but "real presence" says that the "physical contact" does mean something more than just physical eating or a symbol of some other divine activity. The confession cited may flatly deny a "merely" symbolic role, but with the denial of real presence, I don't see what other role is possible. It is interesting to me that the confession seems to imply that a view of the elements as purely symbolic represents a trap. Symbolism as a theory is actually rather commonly held. It also seems to commonly lead to various sorts of aberrations; the elements tend to metamorphosize into almost any potable and any bakery item (for some reason, the cases I have heard of all involved Coca-Cola and cookies), and the whole thing often turns into a sort genericized god-celebration. (BTW, ancient practice already has a solution to the alcohol problem: communion need only be taken in one kind.) If we are going to have communion among the theories, we at least have some obligation to be pretty pure about the elements. For us hyper-sacramental types, following the instructions is of some pretty high importance; I have trouble seeing what the problem might be in humoring us on this point. This may seem to be a triviality, but a lot of current communion practice can be traced to this sort of gripe. Personally, I find wafers to be a pretty poor symbol-- not bread at all, and not broken either. If we are going to have intercommunion with the RC church, however, we would appear to need unleavened bread, and the fragmentation bomb effect of matzoh (or most bread, for that matter) is one of the reasons we have wafers in the first place. On the other hand, are not cookies a bit too casual? Here we have two contradictory trends: by the "symbolists", to take "mere" symbolism as licence, and by their opposite numbers, to treat the elements downright superstitiously. The point of all this is that the differences in the theories have effects beyond simple validity; they affect one's whole attitude towards the sacrament. C. Wingate + "Our God, to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + whose stars serenely burn above this earth's confusion, mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu + thine is the mightly plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + in which the world began, endures, and shall endure." [The Reformed confessions do not deny the real presence. They say that Christ's body is really present for us in communion. They simply claim that it is not localized in the elements. The significance of the elements is to provide a visible representation of something that is happening invisibly. Of course the symbols have to be appropriate. How can they make the reality of the sacrament visible if they are not appropriate symbols? --clh]