Point of Clarification
This is in regards to the king's comment today about baking bread. My point was that it is ludicrous because it has no basis within the act or within the history of the act; it has no teeth within the practice to grab onto. His comment about the one giant loaf has some teeth because it does take the one loaf model to another level. And frankly, I like it. It just takes a large oven to make a large loaf of bread and so big churches should now have big ovens. Nevertheless, his point about taking a symbol too far is still present.
The problem is that we still talk as if it doesn't matter. This might be a practical issue because our practices vary so strongly, but it is still a troubling one. If it doesn't matter what we do then we have no reason to do it. If the Holy Spirit works equally no matter how we come together or perform the liturgy, and Christ is ambiguously present no matter what we eat, then, as the chaplain put it, all food is sacrament; there is no distinctive or purpose for Eucharist.
I don't think that that is the case. I think that it matters. The procedures matter because of the history we are a part of, the history which is defined by the presence of the Holy Spirit, not incidental to its presence. The history that comes to me and my tradition in a certain way and in which I and we (my tradition) participate. It is not a history friendly to the novel, it is not a practice friendly to the novel, just like theology is not a pursuit friendly to the novel (Arius and Pelagius were very novel theologians).
And it comes down to heresy, Can there be a heresy today? Can there be a heresy without excommunication? Hopefully that will get a response.
The problem is that we still talk as if it doesn't matter. This might be a practical issue because our practices vary so strongly, but it is still a troubling one. If it doesn't matter what we do then we have no reason to do it. If the Holy Spirit works equally no matter how we come together or perform the liturgy, and Christ is ambiguously present no matter what we eat, then, as the chaplain put it, all food is sacrament; there is no distinctive or purpose for Eucharist.
I don't think that that is the case. I think that it matters. The procedures matter because of the history we are a part of, the history which is defined by the presence of the Holy Spirit, not incidental to its presence. The history that comes to me and my tradition in a certain way and in which I and we (my tradition) participate. It is not a history friendly to the novel, it is not a practice friendly to the novel, just like theology is not a pursuit friendly to the novel (Arius and Pelagius were very novel theologians).
And it comes down to heresy, Can there be a heresy today? Can there be a heresy without excommunication? Hopefully that will get a response.
posted by Unknown at 4:32 PM
3 Comments:
I think that the primary thing that is important in communion is not the specific way in which it is taken (I'd say there are about 70 right ways), but rather the more important thing is that we understand as a community why we're doing what we're doing. At the same time (read: speaking out of both sides of my mouth) I don't want to turn communion into something that requires intellectual assent for it to "work." The bottom line for me is that I think communion brings us into God's presence so that God's grace can change us more into the image of Jesus Christ. I think there are about 70 ways that this can happen. Yes there are "banks" or "borders" but I don't think any of us are outside of those (practically speaking).
Tom
Wilson,
Do you think it matters whether leavened or unleavened bread is used?
Tom
little tom, I don't think I have any say about it. I, being a singular person, can only look at eucharist apophatically and must submit myself to scripture and my tradition to see what it can be.
Post a Comment
<< Home