Comments on: Shared Eucharist – Should it be a Priority for the Irish Churches?

By: Gladys Ganiel

Gladys Ganiel — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:54:28 +0000

Hi Wesley,

You write, “By saying everything is right and permissible to the bearer of that belief, brings about and anarchy not a consciences.”

I certainly don’t think that is the position of all post-moderns. I think a healthy contribution that post modernism has made is pointing out that there are a lot of competing truth claims actually out there. So when people claim that one belief about a particular issue is absolutely true it requires an awful lot of confidence (which may or may not be unfounded). This doesn’t necessarily have to descend into relativism, or saying that all moral judgements are equally valid.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:10:48 +0000

Ps thanks Tim for your post

By: Wesley

Wesley — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:06:02 +0000

People often say implicitly that when you see things my way we can have unity, or in this case sit down together at communion. This on the face of it is seen or regarded as a “”bigot” forcing his or her view or belief on another, but what if what he or she believes is the truth? (Wither forcefully or lovingly communicated) In our post-modern society we have come to the point, that holding an absolute is not possible, that truth as an absolute does not exist because of human filters that are applied to it in it’s interpretation. This philosophical argument sounds to all intensive purposes absolutely true, yet it falls by it’s own sword. What starts of as an argument (in the apologetic sense) to defuse bigotry or strongly held beliefs, becomes a ghetto mentality in it own right, it itself becomes insular and bigoted, it moves from the forum of “healthy beliefs” sparing and debating for the truth, into a group of people who’s minds are muddied by debate for debate’s sake. Its subtle debate does little to find the truth, but much in furthering the confusion among the masses who seek it. By saying everything is right and permissible to the bearer of that belief, brings about and anarchy not a consciences. This delusion that grips those in this camp it is then forced upon others in the name of unity (their only unity is in the delusion they’re in) . Semantics, clever argument and rebuttal of the truth gives their intellectual prowess wings, only to plunge to their demise because of the waxy substance they have used to bind their argument together with.

In conclusion: let us establish what is truth and follow it, not the whim of man, let us find true unity in Christ not in what we do or don’t do!

By: Tim Moore

Tim Moore — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:59:28 +0000

Wesley, thank you for your response.

I think the challenge of a shared Eucharist is acknowledging the value of the different meanings that the Lord’s Supper has taken on within and between different Christian communities. In my opinion, one finds the sacrament devalued because of others’ differences only when one chooses to let it be so. I believe the significance of the act of celebrating the Lord’s Supper is greater than the meaning attributed to it by the consecrating president or receiving individual or community.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:16:05 +0000

I have read the other post and find that some common ground exists for discussion regarding this sometimes-heated debate but we need to ask, what gives the sacrament value in the first place? Is it our taking of it? Is it the style in which it is given by priest or pastor? Or is it in our acknowledgment of it as a covenant made by or in Christ’ blood? And also what the said covenant produces by way of graces toward the recipient? It cannot be a matter of how I see it or how it appears to others, it must of it’s self contain meaning and purpose. Often it’s our interpretation of a sacrament that lessens its appeal or divides opinion within us. You say potato I say potato…… (doesn’t work in print) but when interpretation eclipses the original reason for giving it, we must come back to it’s instigation and it’s reason for being “Do this in remembrance of me……..” I believe until we agree what it is we cannot agree to take it together as this further blurs the reason for the sacrament in the first place. Often the agenda for unity sidelines the core reason why we celebrate a sacrament or religious practice as we do! Distinctiveness is not an enemy to unity but a good friend who tells it how it is.

By: Gladys Ganiel

Gladys Ganiel — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:07:59 +0000

Tim and Wesley, Thanks for your comments on this post.

Tim, I appreciate your comment, “but how can we be sure that all those even within a certain religious denomination or local congregation sincerely share the same prescribed beliefs and understanding of the meaning of the sacrament?”

Wesley, I think some theologians, clergy, and really interested laypeople share your view about the differences between what the Eucharist/Communion means (transubstantiation, or remembrance, etc), and that they are not necessarily bigoted. But I have a hunch that very few ‘punters in the pews’ as it were, would be able to articulate the ‘official’ basis of the difference.

Tim, your comment here is similar to a comment posted on my facebook by a friend, and I agree that it is an interesting place to start any possible conversation about shared Eucharist/Communion:

“I do not believe that the sacrament is devalued when people with different interpretations share the same consecrated elements; I think this needs to be the basis of any future standpoint on shared Eucharist.”

By: Tim Moore

Tim Moore — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:28:10 +0000

The division may well be theological, but unfortuantely, I don’t believe it is separate from bigotry.

I accept that there are different theological standpoints on the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (trying to use a neutral-ish term), but how can we be sure that all those even within a certain religious denomination or local congregation sincerely share the same prescribed beliefs and understanding of the meaning of the sacrament? I do not believe that the sacrament is devalued when people with different interpretations share the same consecrated elements; I think this needs to be the basis of any future standpoint on shared Eucharist.

One of Peter Rollins’s recent blog posts, which examines Paul’s proposition that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28), is relevant to this thread. Here, Rollins explores how the above verse has been hitherto deployed to differentiate between Christian and non-Christian identity:

“Instead of raising one concrete identity above and beyond all the others should we not follow this logic to the end and place the very distinction between ‘Christian’ and ‘non-Christian’ alongside all the others?

“In other words, when we identify as followers of Christ we are not laying down all our other identities (republican or democrat, rich or poor, gay or straight) in order to affirm only one as truly important. Rather we lay down every identity, enacting what, in theology, is called kenosis. This is where we partake in Christ who became nothing, divesting himself of everything to become a servant.

“Here we do not lay down our identity only to pick up our new identity in Christ. Rather it is in laying down all our identities that we directly identify with Christ.”
(An Economy of Nobodys and Nothings, 2 Feb 2010, http://www.peterrollins.net/blog)

As a cornerstone of Christian identity, I believe the Lord’s Supper has also been appropriated within the centuries-old identity politics of the Church. There are many rich and valuable theologies of the Eucharist which deserve further study, yet this has brought about an understanding of the Eucharist, especially its position (or lack of position) in worship that continues to serve as a marker of difference, “in order to affirm only one [theology of Eucharist] as truly important”, which goes against the unity that so many Christians believe is imperative to their faith.

Whether as an act of sacrifice, veneration, remembrance, or of fellowship, we have an opportunity through the sharing of the Lord’s Supper, paraphrasing Rollins, to lay down all our identities so that we can identify directly with Christ.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:21:00 +0000

Its may be sad in some peoples minds that what this ritual (your words) does, is make a division between what Roman Catholics call the “Eucharist” and what protestants call “Communion” yet the division exists because; one is an act of remembrance, while the other is hailed as an act of sacrifice. For the Christian (born again believer) we believe as the scripture says in 1 Peter 3:18 “For Christ died for sins once for all, ……….” Christ is not sacrificed again and again according to the celebration of the Eucharist rather Sacrifice for sin is a completed act by Christ upon the cross so “born again Christians” through the celebration of the Communion simply remember his death and affirm their relationship with Him. The Division is theological not bigotry. Hope this helps