Oh, come on! -or- What part of "Drink ye all of it" don't you understand?
If you wear surgical gloves for absolution and the holy handshake, and a surgical mask while baptizing the youngins then you'll want to look into this.
Right, I thought this was a spoof site. I'm afraid it isn't. They are actually serious.
In the history of the Christian Church I have yet to see a single confirmed case of the Lord's Supper as a vector for disease. Not one. In the whole St. Agnes fisco, there was not a single case of anyone in that church coming down with Hepatitis from participation in the mass, whether partaking of the Lord's Supper, or otherwise. And yet these opportunists use that incident to sell their wares. In the IT community we call this sort of thing spreading FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, and we ridicule those who do.
What this company is doing is shameless and disgusting.
It is good and right so to condemn and denigrate such things. Much the same critique, meanwhile, is also merited by products being promoted by our own church body, such as this: http://www.cph.org/p-9815-disposable-communion-cups-box-of-1000.aspx?REName=&plk=0
And as a nice contrast to these things, take a look at the beautiful reverence of the manner of Communion in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q3rrV6W3_0
Two wrongs don't make a right. Both individual cups for the laity and the removal of the Cup from the laity are innovations contrary to the Lord's loving Word: Drink ye all of it. The removal of the cup from the laity ostensibly flows from a desire not to spill the precious Blood. The individual cups ostensibly stems from a desire to reduce disease. The Romanists cover their error with a theory about nature of the Supper - concomitance - that where there is Body there is Blood, for Jesus is living. The individual-cuppists cover their error with a theory abut the nature of the Supper - that Jesus' use of one cup is accidental to the nature of the Supper, that He doesn't mind and and it doesn't matter if more than one is used.
For all I know both theories may be right. I certainly don't think believing either theory or even acting on either theory would make the Lord's Supper invalid in a Church that did it. Indeed, many folks might be forced into the practice of the theories even when they don't really believe the theory. For centuries many Romanists have longed for the cup, but being under Roman canon law they receive only under one kind. For decades, many Lutheran pastors and laymen have labored to do away with the individual cups, but being under the unwritten canons of American Lutheranism (the hardest sort to reform!) they must live with the cups (myself included).
So. . . I wish the Romanists would restore the chalice to their poor flocks. And I wish we Lutherans would stop selling throw away individual cups to our poor flocks.
Jeff-mn, So, you "don't find the video [of traditional manner of administering and receving Holy Communion] more reverent than the cph link [where we see a top level LCMS "ministry" promoting and selling sacramentarian communion-ware]." This is an amazing statement. You then back up that statement with this argument: "At least the cph link is encouraging the reception of the blood of Christ." Here we see that in the video you are considering what is not being done (people drinking the precious Bood of Christ) and letting that be a major factor in your assessment regarding whether or not the video is reverent. That is willful blindness and an unreasonable line of argument.
Now on the one hand, unlike you, I do think the scene in the video is more reverent, far more reverent, than the use, promotion, and sale of Methodist style communion ware, plastic shot glasses which promote as much waste and desecration as reception of the Blood of Christ. And on the other hand, my praising of the reverent behavior in the video (on both sids of the altar rail) does not in any way imply agreement with the centuries old practice of the priest being the only one who drinks the Blood of Christ.
By the way, lest one think I am merely an advocate for Rome, let me make clear that the scene in the video is all too rare in the Roman Catholic Church. Sure in the minds of Lutherans who think of Rome only in terms of the categories of five centuries ago, it might be exactly what they envision when they think of Rome, but I assure you it is the minority style of worship in that communion. Rome, we might say, has gone from one type of extreme to another. They don't have the individual cups, but they have several other modern innovations, which drive the church's practice away from the time tested rubrics of old. The other thing many of these innovations have in common is that (as you suggest with regard to the little toy cups) it could be argued that they "encourage" the reception of the Blood of Christ. Not that I would be thus encouraged by these things, but the unsuspecting, poorly catechized, all-too-feminized modern Catholic might indeed feel encouraged by some of these innovations, like the practice of lay ministers of the Eucharist (actually we have them too, but use other terms like "elders" or "field workers" or the really impressive sounding "vicars"), big glass or clay communion vessels, and music that makes me want to drink for different reasons (this too happens in our own churches).
No, just because a thing may be said to "encourage" or "promote" participation or a sense of ownership, or whatever, does not in itself commend it as worthy of use in the worship of Christ our Immanuel, the God-man Who is truly present on our altars.
I think it also warrants acknowledgment that we also have communion under one kind in the LCMS - and it almost always involves the use of the individual cups.
It is not all that uncommon to find LCMS churches that put grape juice in some of the cups and encourage people to drink them under the false impression that this is Christ's blood. Such people are communing only under one kind. This is nothing more than a "kinder and gentler" withholding of the chalice from the laity, a form of the popery of individual preference. And it is a direct consequence of the individual cup, as when we used to exclusively heed the Lord's invitation to "take this all of you and drink from it" there was no provision to pretend that non-wine could be the Lord's blood for those individuals with a non-alcohol preference. In those days, communion was a communal act, and everyone drank of the same cup of the Lord's blood. No-one could pretend that juice was blood.
Piepkorn made the argument that the individual glasses were not a bad thing as they encouraged otherwise squeamish communicants to take the Lord's Supper. His point is well-taken, but the little cups have also given us the unintended consequence of the grape-juice option of communing under one kind, not to mention the acts of desecration that occur when the stewards of the mysteries have to oversee dozens of cups of the Lord's blood out of his control instead of just one that stays in his hands.
I find it also interesting that no Roman Catholic churches use the Purity Solutions Communion Gun, whereas some churches that call themselves Lutheran do. I think this is a sad case of those living in glass houses throwing stones. If we cannot even abide by Augsburg 22 (whether by using the Communion Gun or by shot glasses with Welch's juice), I don't think we have a lot of moral authority to point the finger at the Roman Catholics when they also violate it.
I introduced the chalice to my first parish and reintroduced the chalice at my current (second) parish after it had been discontinued. I think you need to tread lightly here since speaking against the individual cups is speaking against what is now 2-3 generations of its (in many cases exclusive) use. I make a point of letting people know that I commune under the chalice not by personal preference but by Biblical expectation and assumption but I do not attack those who commune under individual cups. I have found that over time more than half moved to the chalice with just my example. It will not be a 100% turnover but it continues to increase. Catechesis with the children will help this and most of my confirmands commune under the chalice.
Comments are moderated. Neither spam, vulgarity, comments that are insulting, slanderous or otherwise unbefitting of Christian dignity nor anonymous posts will be published.
Watch their videos on YouTube. Can you say "SNL"?
ReplyDeleteOh, Fr. Hollywood! Why? I can only say this in reply:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5BMQ-xpTog
Right, I thought this was a spoof site. I'm afraid it isn't. They are actually serious.
ReplyDeleteIn the history of the Christian Church I have yet to see a single confirmed case of the Lord's Supper as a vector for disease. Not one. In the whole St. Agnes fisco, there was not a single case of anyone in that church coming down with Hepatitis from participation in the mass, whether partaking of the Lord's Supper, or otherwise. And yet these opportunists use that incident to sell their wares. In the IT community we call this sort of thing spreading FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, and we ridicule those who do.
What this company is doing is shameless and disgusting.
Now ask me what I REALLY think about this.
It is good and right so to condemn and denigrate such things. Much the same critique, meanwhile, is also merited by products being promoted by our own church body, such as this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cph.org/p-9815-disposable-communion-cups-box-of-1000.aspx?REName=&plk=0
And as a nice contrast to these things, take a look at the beautiful reverence of the manner of Communion in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q3rrV6W3_0
Brother Gaba,
ReplyDeleteI don't find the video more reverent than the cph link. At least the cph link is encouraging the reception of the blood of Christ.
Jeff-mn,
ReplyDeleteTwo wrongs don't make a right. Both individual cups for the laity and the removal of the Cup from the laity are innovations contrary to the Lord's loving Word: Drink ye all of it. The removal of the cup from the laity ostensibly flows from a desire not to spill the precious Blood. The individual cups ostensibly stems from a desire to reduce disease. The Romanists cover their error with a theory about nature of the Supper - concomitance - that where there is Body there is Blood, for Jesus is living. The individual-cuppists cover their error with a theory abut the nature of the Supper - that Jesus' use of one cup is accidental to the nature of the Supper, that He doesn't mind and and it doesn't matter if more than one is used.
For all I know both theories may be right. I certainly don't think believing either theory or even acting on either theory would make the Lord's Supper invalid in a Church that did it. Indeed, many folks might be forced into the practice of the theories even when they don't really believe the theory. For centuries many Romanists have longed for the cup, but being under Roman canon law they receive only under one kind. For decades, many Lutheran pastors and laymen have labored to do away with the individual cups, but being under the unwritten canons of American Lutheranism (the hardest sort to reform!) they must live with the cups (myself included).
So. . . I wish the Romanists would restore the chalice to their poor flocks. And I wish we Lutherans would stop selling throw away individual cups to our poor flocks.
+HRC
Jeff-mn,
ReplyDeleteSo, you "don't find the video [of traditional manner of administering and receving Holy Communion] more reverent than the cph link [where we see a top level LCMS "ministry" promoting and selling sacramentarian communion-ware]." This is an amazing statement. You then back up that statement with this argument: "At least the cph link is encouraging the reception of the blood of Christ." Here we see that in the video you are considering what is not being done (people drinking the precious Bood of Christ) and letting that be a major factor in your assessment regarding whether or not the video is reverent. That is willful blindness and an unreasonable line of argument.
Now on the one hand, unlike you, I do think the scene in the video is more reverent, far more reverent, than the use, promotion, and sale of Methodist style communion ware, plastic shot glasses which promote as much waste and desecration as reception of the Blood of Christ. And on the other hand, my praising of the reverent behavior in the video (on both sids of the altar rail) does not in any way imply agreement with the centuries old practice of the priest being the only one who drinks the Blood of Christ.
By the way, lest one think I am merely an advocate for Rome, let me make clear that the scene in the video is all too rare in the Roman Catholic Church. Sure in the minds of Lutherans who think of Rome only in terms of the categories of five centuries ago, it might be exactly what they envision when they think of Rome, but I assure you it is the minority style of worship in that communion. Rome, we might say, has gone from one type of extreme to another. They don't have the individual cups, but they have several other modern innovations, which drive the church's practice away from the time tested rubrics of old. The other thing many of these innovations have in common is that (as you suggest with regard to the little toy cups) it could be argued that they "encourage" the reception of the Blood of Christ. Not that I would be thus encouraged by these things, but the unsuspecting, poorly catechized, all-too-feminized modern Catholic might indeed feel encouraged by some of these innovations, like the practice of lay ministers of the Eucharist (actually we have them too, but use other terms like "elders" or "field workers" or the really impressive sounding "vicars"), big glass or clay communion vessels, and music that makes me want to drink for different reasons (this too happens in our own churches).
No, just because a thing may be said to "encourage" or "promote" participation or a sense of ownership, or whatever, does not in itself commend it as worthy of use in the worship of Christ our Immanuel, the God-man Who is truly present on our altars.
I think it also warrants acknowledgment that we also have communion under one kind in the LCMS - and it almost always involves the use of the individual cups.
ReplyDeleteIt is not all that uncommon to find LCMS churches that put grape juice in some of the cups and encourage people to drink them under the false impression that this is Christ's blood. Such people are communing only under one kind. This is nothing more than a "kinder and gentler" withholding of the chalice from the laity, a form of the popery of individual preference. And it is a direct consequence of the individual cup, as when we used to exclusively heed the Lord's invitation to "take this all of you and drink from it" there was no provision to pretend that non-wine could be the Lord's blood for those individuals with a non-alcohol preference. In those days, communion was a communal act, and everyone drank of the same cup of the Lord's blood. No-one could pretend that juice was blood.
Piepkorn made the argument that the individual glasses were not a bad thing as they encouraged otherwise squeamish communicants to take the Lord's Supper. His point is well-taken, but the little cups have also given us the unintended consequence of the grape-juice option of communing under one kind, not to mention the acts of desecration that occur when the stewards of the mysteries have to oversee dozens of cups of the Lord's blood out of his control instead of just one that stays in his hands.
I find it also interesting that no Roman Catholic churches use the Purity Solutions Communion Gun, whereas some churches that call themselves Lutheran do. I think this is a sad case of those living in glass houses throwing stones. If we cannot even abide by Augsburg 22 (whether by using the Communion Gun or by shot glasses with Welch's juice), I don't think we have a lot of moral authority to point the finger at the Roman Catholics when they also violate it.
I introduced the chalice to my first parish and reintroduced the chalice at my current (second) parish after it had been discontinued. I think you need to tread lightly here since speaking against the individual cups is speaking against what is now 2-3 generations of its (in many cases exclusive) use. I make a point of letting people know that I commune under the chalice not by personal preference but by Biblical expectation and assumption but I do not attack those who commune under individual cups. I have found that over time more than half moved to the chalice with just my example. It will not be a 100% turnover but it continues to increase. Catechesis with the children will help this and most of my confirmands commune under the chalice.
ReplyDelete