Multiple communicating
Twangist
Shipmate
Due to helping out musically, it looks like I'll be at 2 consecutive communion services on Easter Sunday. In the back of my mind I have the thought that it's considered bad form (for want of a better phrase) to receive the sacrament twice on one day (except for Christmas day if one is midnight or something). Is this a thing?
Comments
For what it’s worth, my take on it is that it is bad form (to borrow your phrase) to seek out communion multiple times on one day. On the other hand, if you are at different services because you are needed to enable the service, then it may be better to communicate more than once, than to stand out as not communicating at one or other of the services.
Does that make sense to you?
Twice on a Sunday? Three times in a rural or urban team ministry ? OK, you'll be busy proclaiming, but St Paul doesn't seem to be too fussed.
(P.S. I thought this thread would be about how churches might communicate in multiple ways, eg by leaflets, pew sheets, oral notices, word of mouth, websites, social media ..., and which was most effective!).
If its a case that the organist leads the choir to the communion rail then you have two choices: either explain to the second lot that you will have already made your communion and so they should go without you; or lead them up and then kneel for a blessing or just stand behind them.
I myself end up communicating twice pretty much every Sunday, because I attend English language worship with one group of people at 8 a.m., and then Vietnamese worship with another group at 11. And besides the fact that I WANT to come to the Lord as often as I get the chance, there's the optics of it--if I start refusing to commune with one group or another, they're likely to assume I've got a personal problem with them. And that's not the case.
I have a friend who is trying to attend Mass in every Catholic church in our city during Lent
which has sometimes meant attending more than one Mass on any given day.His priest encourage him to go to Communion at every Mass he attends.
Nenya - Ecclesiantics Host
I'll get me coat ...
But my two happ'orth would be that it depends on whatever the custom is within one's particular Christian tradition, and individual conscience.
In @Twangist's Anglican context I'd have thought it would be perfectly acceptable for him to receive a blessing instead of communion during the second service, but clearly the sky isn't going to fall in if he receives twice.
We Orthodox only receive communion once on a Sunday but that doesn't necessarily equate to once in 24 hours. You child receive communion at the Easter Vigil late at night and then come back to church on Sunday morning for the Liturgy and receive there.
Not everyone will receive communion at an Orthodox service and that for a whole range of reasons.
We wouldn't, of course, prescribe how others should or shouldn't arrange their own customs and traditions.
"Communing" (including "communed" TBC) is the way I prefer to express it.
I go along with the perspective "Communing is made for man, not man for communing." I wouldn't stress over any of these man-made (IMHO) rules. For others YMMV.
He's not said a word to me, so I'll keep on in happy ignorance till he does.
No, seriously, I don't proselytise (I hope!), but neither do I have a problem with some kind of divine/human synergia in the development of these things.
Take the development of the NT canon, for instance. It didn't drop down out of the sky on golden tablets. Likewise the Creeds.
@LatchKeyKid - forgive me, but I always roll my eyes when people take about 'man-made traditions' as if that's always going to be a 'bad thing'.
Of course traditions are made by human beings.
Who else would make them? Dolphins? Chickens? Termites? Aliens from the Planet Zarg?
See my response to @Lamb Chopped above.
Besides, who is to say that whatever traditions you happen to observe - and we all observe them - are any less 'man-made' than anyone else's?
I really don't get this. It's a false dichotomy.
That said, I don't believe @Twangist is going to get into trouble with the Almighty, the Anglican authorities or anyone else whatever he decides to do on this one.
That's not what it's all about.
However we cut it the Christian Church is both a human and a divine institution at one and the same time.
Sorry - one of these both/and things ...
I'm not out to challenge or say you are 'wrong' or anything of the kind.
Of course we all mess up and of course we can concoct traditions that get in the way or apply our understanding of Big T Tradition/s in a cack-handed or wonky way that causes harm. Nobody is saying otherwise.
What I am doing is simply pointing out that all of us here who profess to be Christians and to know Christ worship the Christ who has been presented to us by Tradition - through the scriptures, teaching and witness of the Church - in whatever form that takes - sermons, prayer, hymnody, iconography etc etc etc.
However it's mediated to us and in whatever small t or Big T Tradition or paradigm we operate within, that's where it has come from.
Christ challenged those traditions that caused harm or which deflected people from the 'main thing' as it were. He wasn't challenging the whole body of Jewish belief as it were, but the way it could be misapplied.
I really don't understand why we have to set up these false dichotomies and dislocate the Church from the Bible or the Bible from the Church or Christ from his Church (however defined).
It's this both/and thing again.
Do you think that Pharisees rolled their eyes at Jesus when He used such terminology (according to the Gospel writers)?
It was a 'man-made' tradition to have mince pies at Christmas. It was also a 'man-made' tradition for Cromwell to ban them.
Although, that's not strictly historically accurate but it will serve as an analogy.
I've come across plenty of liturgical and sacramental Pharisees in my time. Equally, I've come across plenty of people who are Pharisaically self-righteous about their lack of formal liturgies, perceived lack of 'tradition' and their belief that they are truer to the NT and the Gospel than those nasty people in that other church down the road.
That's the point I'm making. We've all got traditions whether we like it or not and we can all be Pharisaical about them if we aren't careful.
It so happens, that within Orthodox Holy Tradition it is recommended/required that we only receive communion once on any particular day. That doesn't mean that those who observe that are in any position to judge or criticise those who do things differently.
Nor does it mean that this 'rule' is binding on other Christians who may have a different approach or their own traditions around the frequency of receiving communion.
I jest at times but if you read my posts you'll see that nowhere have I dared stipulate any rule or restriction for @Twangist or anyone else.
If I were an Anglican I would probably just receive communion the first time it was offered and then a 'blessing' after that or, as Twangist has wisely decided, ask the presiding clergy about the matter.
Problem solved.
I'm sure there were plenty of Jewish traditions that Christ didn't 'call out' and which he was happy to go along with. The attitudes and practices he criticised were when people Pharisaically imposed them to the detriment of the main point/s or applied them in a 'look at me' or self-righteous way.
It would be a fair call and a fair cop to deploy the Pharisaical charge if someone were to say, 'How dare you even contemplate receiving communion more than once in a day Twangist and @Lamb Chopped. You miserable sinners! Don't you know that this is proscribed by Holy Tradition?!'
But nobody here is saying that.
The 'man-made' charge is a red herring. How is it any less 'man-made' to receive communion 2, 3, 4 or 15 times in one day rather than just the once?
It strikes me that traditions or Tradition only becomes 'man-made' in a pejorative sense if they run counter to what how 'we' think they ought to be done or conducted.
If someone else does something we don't like it becomes a 'man-made tradition' devoid of any spiritual worth.
We become the judge and jury.
We become the Pharisees. If we aren't careful.
'When in Rome ...'
In an Orthodox context I would only receive communion once on any particular day. If I were Lutheran or Baptist or whatever else I would follow whatever the rubrics were in those contexts.
Simple.
God isn't going to whack people over the head for observing and following whatever rubrics apply in their own churches or traditions.
He will have something to say to those Big T Tradition people who 'weaponise' it against anyone else who believes or acts differently.
No one Tradition or tradition has a monopoly on Pharisaisism or hypocrisy.
We must guard against that wherever it may be found.
In the Orthodox tradition,as far as I understand, a priest will only celebrate the eucharist once on any given day. In the Latin tradition priests often celebrate Mass twice or even three times on any given day for the convenience of the faithful. And,of course the Latin eucharist is in general of much shorter length than the Orthodox one.
Each time a priest is the celebrant at Mass he would receive communion but there might be times when a priest attended Mass not as the celebrant and then he would not be able to receive communion if he had already celebrated Mass himself.
A concrete example might be of a preist who had celebrated Mass for his community and then later attended some other celebration ,say a funeral, where he would not be permitted to receive communion.
Once this permission had been given to priests it was felt necessary to extend it to all of the faithful with the 'rule' that full attendance at a second Mass allows one to receive communion as art of one's attendance at the Mass.
Traditions may be fun for the club, but can end up majoring on the minors and losing the plot of Christianity.
My point is that all of us, not just ultra-traditionalists can end up majoring on the minors.
I've been involved in churches right across the spectrum from highly evangelical and charismatic to highly sacramental. Pharisaism isn't the sole preserve of any. It can be found anywhere and everywhere.
As regards the number of times a communicant can communicate in one day - which is what this thread is about - then surely that's a matter for whichever Christian tradition or context we are involved with?
If we are involved with something less sacramental in tone then the number of times we receive communion on one particular day is going to less of an issue than it is for those of us in more sacramental contexts.
It would be Pharisaical for people in either context to insist that everyone should take their particular stance on the issue.
That's all I'm saying.
It ain't for me to stipulate how often you receive communion or how you should regard it. The same applies in reverse.
Whatever rules and rubrics - and there will be some - are adopted within your particular group - is a matter for your own group to determine.
The rest of us can't legislate for that nor should we try to do so.
I don't see anyone here doing that.
I might discuss or debate with a Salvationist, say, as to why they don't observe some form of eucharistic practice. But I wouldn't insist that they adopt such a thing purely because I think it's important.
Neither would I seek to dictate to anyone here how often they receive communion and how they should go about it.
Spiritual gifts are going to be 'majors' for Pentecostals and charismatics in a way they aren't going to be a 'major' for people in other traditions.
Certain forms of church government become a 'major' in some circles.
You might consider some of my 'majors' minors or vice versa.
Who decides where the weight and emphasis should be?
But the discourse of Matt 23 provides an approach.
Particularly
Sure. It's not as if I'm unaware of those verses.
My point is that they can and do apply to all of us in one form or other if we aren't careful.
What I'm saying is that if a Christian group decides that it's best to only communicate once on any particular day that is up to them. If another Christian group practices something different then again, that's up to them.
I'd suggest it only becomes Pharisaical in the sense you are referring to here if they start demanding that all other groups or all other Christians should adopt the same practice whether they want to or not.
So, FWIW, I don't find it Pharisaical in the least that my particular Church recommends receiving communion only once on any particular day. I accept it as part of the way things are done. It's no skin off my nose if I can only receive the Body and Blood of Christ once rather than 2, 3, 4 or 35 times on one day.
At least I can receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Think about that for a moment!
If another Christian body has a different way of doing it then fine, I'm not going to impose the same rule on them even if it lay within my power to do so.
Likewise, it would be Pharisaical for Shipmates who do receive communion several times a day to insist that I should do so.
I don't see any if them doing that either.
What I do see, I'm afraid, is you quoting those scriptures as if they only apply to 'other' people and that they can't possibly apply to all of us at some time or other.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but that's how it's coming across to me. As though it only applies to those nasty sacramental people over there ...
But that doesn't mean that different Christian traditions can't have 'rules' about frequency.
I'll admit it's a lot harder to have 'rules' about sincerity!
I'm not advocating an Inquisition or Sincerity Police.
I was wondering when I made the OP if only communicating was a thing not a figment of my distant memory and if so what the rationale is?
There are no doubt other reasons among other groups.
It's when rules override justice and mercy.
There's a prominent prophetic tradition criticising the use of rules regardless of whether they hurt people.
As if he has the right to determine what other Christian bodies should do on the basis of a proof-text.
Thing is, what one of us here might consider 'unnecessary', someone else might see as a non-negotiable.
The issue then is to examine and discuss why that might be without imputing bad faith to those who differ from ourselves.
There might be any number of reasons why particular traditions do particular things and we can only speculate what those might be, as @Lamb Chopped has done, until such time as we hear from the horse's mouth as it were, whether it be RC, Orthodox, Coptic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Independent or whatever else.
@Twangist answered his own question. Ask the officiating ministers/clergy in his particular context.
It ain't for the rest of us to decide what their answer might be, still less to accuse them of Pharisaisism if their answer doesn't accord with what we think they should say.
However, I would make the point that, for the most point, this is something we each have to do for ourselves- the prophetic call is to to make the examination, not necessarily that it will have a particular outcome.
On the other hand, prophets often upset those who are on the sharp end of their words.
Part of the reason is stop people treating the sacrament as magic or to build up 'merits' or brownie points.
The other reason is that tye priest is only allowed to celebrate the eucharist once a day from the same altar. The eucharist is seen as a single, unifying act of worship.
Also, as the priest consumes the left overs as it were he can't begin to celebrate another eucharist until they are consumed.
But that's how we do it. We don't seek to legislate for anyone else.
'When in Rome ...'
On sacred cows in general, @ThunderBunk, yes, we all have those and they do need to be examined.
No
'I'm so vain, I bet I think this thread is about me ...'
No, seriously, context is everything in matters like this.
Those who put a limit on the amount of 'communicating' one can do in a day and those who don't each have a rationale for their discipline and practice.
We need to understand what that is in each instance. Clearly, it's not an issue or consideration in some contexts, but it is in others and there are reasons for both.
As with anything else, common sense should apply. I'm starting with a stinking spring cold and wasn't feeling too well when I made my confession and attended the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts last night.
I felt so groggy that I returned home without receiving communion, had something to eat and went to bed early.
Nobody had an issue with that and people got in touch to see if I was OK. I wasn't Pharisaically expected to hang on until the end.
I'm not having a go at the Anglicans but our priest told me about an Anglican colleague from his CofE days whose wife had a heart attack and was rushed to hospital while he was celebrating the eucharist.
The sidesmen waited until he'd finished before telling him what had happened. In our setting he'd have been notified immediately and then dashed off to see if she was alright. If the Holy Gifts had already been consecrated then a deacon or subdeacon would have taken over.
Otherwise the service would have stopped at the point the priest had to leave.
Heck, on the Sunday I was 'received' our priest tripped and broke a hip before he could consecrate the elements and so there was no communion that day.
Elsewhere there might have been 'lay-presidency' or some other arrangement.
It's all down to context.
If someone wants to put a rule in place which has a good purpose behind it (eg drive on the same side of the road as everyone else) then fine. If the good purpose becomes redundant then bin the rule rather than hanging on to something that serves no purpose and can even cause confusion/harm.
So why is this a rule for some?
The thing that @Lamb Chopped correctly surmised about avoiding any semblance of accumulating merits or brownie points was just one reason.
Whether we think this is an effective measure or not is another issue, but that's one of the intentions behind the rule.
The other, as I tried to explain upthread, is that from an Orthodox perspective the eucharist represents a single and integrated collective act of worship.
Repeating it several times a day from the same altar, particularly if the remaining elements have not been consumed by the priest, is seen as undermining or compromising that.
It's all to do with Orthodox understanding of the eucharist. The practice flows out of that.
Other Christian traditions which take a different approach or understanding will have practices which reflect that.
What I don't understand is why it should be so apparently abhorrent or controversial that the Orthodox Christian Tradition only allows one communion per day when it's not as if we are trying to legislate how many times a day other Christians celebrate the eucharist/communion/Lord's Supper in their own contexts.
I'm not trying to tell you how many times a day you should receive communion @The Rogue.
That's entirely a matter for the good people and my fellow Christians in whichever ecclesial context you are involved with.
As I keep saying, 'When in Rome ...'
I will repeat myself in order to ensure clarity.
The no more than once-a-day rule is something adopted by the Orthodox Church and possibly individuals or particular parishes/congregations across various churches and denominations who may have a similar eucharistic theology and practice. Or other reasons perhaps which I am unaware of.
It isn't 'binding' on anyone else.
I'd no more stipulate how many times a day Shipmates should receive communion in one day than I'd try to dictate what they ate for breakfast.
Hope that clarifies things.