Week Five Communion

And you thought the notes for week four were long!

Here are my notes for last week's session. Tomorrow we will talk a little about the Anabaptist tradition, as well as some newer voices on communion. See you then.

Communion Week Five

Brief overview of where we have been:

Table Practices, The Great Banquet (Kingdom language), Early Church history (Didache, 1^st Century), 15 centuries (How the Mass changes)

Intro - Embrace the whole long story of the church as our own. God is infinitely able to deal with humanity. Varieties of sinfulness are immense, but so are varieties of faithfulness across time and geography.

This will help us grasp how this "old, old story of Jesus and his love" transforms the broken world around us.

Eastern Church           

In those first centuries after Jesus' death there was no separation (East and West) - the church was catholic (universal). One common body.

Though, one important distiction was the use of Greek in the East and Latin in the West. These differences affect the formation of faith and worship in different parts of the world - but there are also psychological differences.

West - Precise use of language - very concerned (in a literal way) of the material elements of the bread and wine.

East - Delighted in symbolism, visual and allegorical approaches to theology and prayer.

Religious disputes turn into political disputes and the grow distinct during the 10^th and 11^th Century and the two churches split.

There are a lot of what seem like minor difference (what kind of bread to be used) and some major ones (does the Nicene Creed say "The Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son,", Greek, or "The Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son," Western, Latin interpretation).

The Orthodox Church while having lots in common with the Roman Catholic Church, actually have a lot more contact with Protestants these days. They see the split during the 16^th Century ( The Reformation) as a "domestic problem within the Western Church". And if the Western church could get itself together, then East and West might actually join again and unity might become a real option.

Pope John Paul II shows that the Catholics were interested too - "if the eastern and Western Churches remain divided by the year 2000, he would see his papacy as a failure".

Three things to note about the Orthodox Liturgy (that we might learn from)

1. Kingdom of God - Thee liturgy, unchanged fro 15 centuries, begins with Blessed is the Kingdom. The liturgy presents the journey of the church into the Kingdom Of God. Declaring this Kingdom to be the goal "of all our desires and interests of or whole life."

2. A repetition of the Beatitudes in every service (heard before the Gospel reading) - again, these distill Jesus' life and teachings. A vision of the Kingdom that is hear, and we are invited into what is not yet.

3. An emphasis on the Resurrection - some Protestant churches focus on the crucifixion and death of Christ - would do well to be aware of this imbalance, and have more joyful attention to the resurrection and the coming of the Kingdom. (Eleanor Kreider).

Reformation

• Created both positive and negative results for Communion.

• Concerns: more wider participation (not just the priest), services modeled on scripture, more preaching, more FREQUENT communion.

Still, a penitential tone persisted, as did Clerical power.

The worship service

Both the East and West followed the pattern of a two part worship.

One: Readings, Sermon Prayer (from Jewish background)

Two: Thanksgiving prayer, the story of the Last Supper, breaking the bread, sharing the cup. (Distinctively Christian).

By the middle ages the emphasis in on the second part - all the readings were said or sung in Latin (there might be some preaching in some churches, but pretty inconsequential) - a language almost no one understood. So basically the people heard the word, but couldn't understand it.

As said before you had to take Communion once a year (after confessing you just got the bread) - the Priest took the cup on behalf of everybody.

The theology of Sacrifice was huge - unscruplour priests said the only antidote for Hell was the Mass. And more mass. And pictures, statues, vestments, religious relics etc.

Is it any wonder that things blew up?

What did the Reformers Want?

To return the worship and mass to the people. Points:

1. Go back to scripture - discard some of the abusive church traditions
2. Frequent Communion Services
3. People could take the bread AND the Wine.
4. Fuller participation in hymns, responses, psalms (in their language)
5. Fuller Bible readings and more extensive sermons.

Contentious Issues           

They still argued amongst themselves, notably about Christ's presence in the elements.

Swiss and German leaned toward the symbolic view. Christ's presence was in the hearts of those taking the eucharist. 

Huldrich Zwingli (Swiss): "the true body of Chirst is present by contemplation of faith"

Some Anabaptists: "Christ's presence through the Spirit of the Community gathered around the table."

Martin Luther - Christ was present in the bread and the wine. Likened it to a union of fire and iron, when the iron gets fire-hot. Every part is in both the iron and the fire.

Calvin - Since the acension, Christ's humanity is in heaven, but in the Eucharist the Spirit "transfuses life into us form the flesh of Christ."

How did they reform?           

Sola scriptura - all doctrine and faith are based on scripture, not church tradition - a good idea, except the NT does not give models or instructions.

So… they either accommodated or reacted.

Example - Luther told people they cold take communion more frequently, they resisted the change, so he told them to take the initiative. If you want communion, tell the pastor. And if no one asks, then the service will only contain the service of the word (the first part). And will be shorter.

This shorter service became the norm - not because of scripture - but accommodating what people would bear.

What does Luther Keep?

If scriptures didn't forbid something, he kept it. Like the elevation of the host.

What did he radically remove?

He purged the Canon of short prayers within the Roman Mass. He called "the abominable concoction drawn form everyone's sewer and cesspool." - no mention of sacrifice remains. He also takes out the Nicene Creed - and the Word, notably in the sermon becomes the focal point of the service.

Hymns are now in the people's language - participation that creates a folk mass to educate the unlearned. This refocusing on the sermon makes the Lord Supper a marginal postscript at the end of  a service. (What a change?!!!)

Question:

Where does the communion service fit for you in Grain of Wheat? Is it central? Is it an afterthought? Do things lead up to it? Or is the teaching (homily) the center?

Zwingli and Calvin

Zwingli - Reminding

(Same era as Luther)

Based on scripture, Baptism and the Lord's Supper must be observed. But they are signs of God's redemption, visual aids, reminders to God's grace and forgiveness. He was strongly against the idea that Christ was in the bread and wine - accused of "emptying the sacraments". Demoting the Eucharistic to a reminder.

Some thing Zwingli gets judged to harshly around this and that he said that Communion wasn't just a "looking back and remembering", but an encounter with Christ in the present, with other participants (the community) around the table.

Interesting the idea of community though.

There were no congregational response or music - participation was listening. Spare buildings (nothing visual - very Swiss) where people were taught, exhorted (cautioned) and edified (instructed and improved).

This does, incidentally, lead to a whole style of worship still around today.

Calvin           

(2^nd generation reformer)

Held a high sacramental view of Communion. Christ fully in the Supper by means of the Holy Spirit. Something to be experienced, not explained.

He hoped that Communion would become a weekly part of Sunday worship but the people resisted and ended up with a monthly service.

Question

How do you understand this remembrance? Is that what communion is for you? How is Christ present?

Clerical Order           

Though the reformers gave the Mass back to the people - they hung onto the order, the separation between clery and laity. The ministers preached the word, gave out the sacraments, and governed the church.

So, while they reformed a lot, they didn't touch the most sensitive nerve at all: the power of the Clergy.

What was accomplished?

• they didn't fully break out of the medival mindset into pure scriptural worship. There was still a lot of stress on the sin of individuals and the need for confession before coming to the table.

• things were still focused (in the West) on the cross, on sacrifice and a penitential tone to communion services

• BUT  - they simplified worship into ordinary language, they increased participation of the congregation, congregational singing, a new emphasis on teaching.

• ordinary people still resisted frequent communion (recall the 1^st Century weekly love feasts - mentioned in acts and Corinthians) - it was too much to ask

• unfortunately the Communion service gets pushed to the margins, at the end, reduced in importance when compared to the teaching

Major Irony Point

People took the question of communion so seriously that they tortured, drownded and exiled each other over what was said in the liturgy. Literally a burning issue (not my pun). All the reformers agreed on the importance of Communion.

Yet - after all the terror and tradgedy - the Catholic Church in spite of daily mass, ordinary people took Communion once a year.

And it was the same in the Reformed Churches. Communion was held to be so important, that you could only do it a few times a year. And the ceremonies of preparation were rigourous and exhausting. The Eucharist was no longer at the center of a conregation's worship life.

Questions leading into next time:

Was the excitement of hearing the Bible read and taught so great that the table paled in comparison?

Was the food of the table so inwardly obsessive that it seemed "impossible to eat"?

Why had the table of the Lord become so unapproachable, so inaccessible?

Next time:           

How would 16^th century Anabaptists respond to a communion service in Amsterdam, in Winnipeg, at Grain of Wheat?