Part of my function as a chaplain is to perform commuion when a patient would like it as well as part of those Sunday Worship services I lead. At first I would not have thought this would lead to any trouble. My friends and I have shared communion with each other a number of times without thinking more about it than we thought necessary. Yet an issue did arise when my giving out communion was thought of. It turns out that all of the present chaplains of the VA are of more liturgical and high church denominations (a catholic priest and two Lutherans ministers) yet here I was fresh out of a Baptist seminary with only an M.Div. to my name. The question was how to consecrate the elements when I was officiating and how to dispose of them once I was done. At the core of this is the Catholic and Lutheran belief that when the priest says the prayer, the bread and wine somehow actually become the body and blod of Christ. This is called transubstatiation or consubstatiation depending on the tradition. Hence the consectation is when this takes place and the authority of the one doing the consecrating is a crucial question. In most protestant denominations the bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ in communion, but they do not become them. Hence, my ability to share communion with my friends was unencombered by my lack of ordination.
What struck me throughout this, in addition to the different understanding of what was happening at communion and the amount of necessary ceremony around it, I was also struck by an interesting paradox. Many Lutheran and Catholic churches I have been in practice Open Table or allow any one to come and take communion who wishes. Though this is certainly more the case with Lutherans and other high church protestant denominations. In many Baptist and free churces, the Table is much more closed. Some churches only allow those who have membership to have communion while others offer it only to all those who have recieved Jesus into thier hearts. Do you see the paradox yet? Baptists and other free churches beleive the bread and wine are only symbols of Christ's body and blood yet restrict who should take it. Lutherans and Catholics bielieve the blood and wine actually become Christ's body and blood at the moment of consectration yet allow anyone who wishes to take and eat it. I know I'm probably way over generalizing, but do you see my point?
Please understand I'm not trying to say that one is any better or any less true than the other. To me, whether the bread and wine in some mysitcal way become the body and blood of Christ or they just act as symbols does not make a difference. What really matters is that Christ is present to the beleiver when they take communion. Commnets? Questions? Queries? Ask away!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, I must say I have never been in a Catholic church that has offered communion to non-catholics or an evangelical church who hasn't offered it to all who believe in Christ. So I'm not sure about the paradox (though I do so love them!). You do mention how protestants do only offer it to people who are "trusting in jesus as their savior," and that is generally true, though evolving, I think. This wasn't the case at Ld. You probably realized that I never used such language and it wasn't that I didn't think about it. I think the Lord offers freely to all who wish to come. The very act of choosing to partake of communion is in my mind the kind of faith God desires.
Just in case the paradox got misplaced among my wondering words, let me state it as plainly as I can. It seemd as bit odd to me that those for whom Communion is merely symbolic care more about who takes it than those who consider Communion a literal encounter with Christ's body and blood. Would it not make better sense for it tobe the other way around? It just seemd a bit ironic to me.
Post a Comment