Sure, but there are certainly Orthodox people who almost certainly would regard receiving communion as a means of gaining meritorious brownie points.
The wife of a Romanian deacon was telling us how much trouble a rural priest she knew has in getting older people to receive communion.
They either believed you had to be completely morally perfect in the first place before being able to receive or else had imbibed vario8s superstitious ideas.
Some took the Pauline stricture on examining oneself and the reference to 'some have fallen asleep' so seriously that they believed they would shorten their lives if they received at all.
So it was better not to receive communion then you would live longer.
They were surprised when some of their elderly neighbours went on to live another 5 or 6 years once they'd started receiving communion again.
So yes, treating the sacraments like magic is a real issue.
However we cut it, the rule is intended as a safeguard as well as emphasising the integrity of the eucharist as a single collective act of worship.
Those two aspects are the rationale behind the rule and I reiterate, it's an 'in-house' rule and not one we would expect Christians from other traditions to observe just because we do.
For pastoral reasons there is often more than one celebration of the eucharist on any day in any Catholic church and I think that the same thing applies in Anglican churches.
Even in Presbyterian churches here is Scotland on 'Communion Sunday', certainly in the towns, there will be more than one celebration of the Lord's Supper.
A Catholic Mass is generally significantly shorter than the Orthodox eucharist and the faithful are expected to be present for the whole of the Mass or at least a significant part of it. (Whether they do or do not is completely an other question.)
As far as I know there is no 'obligation' for an Orthodox Christian to be present for all of the eucharistic service and people will come and go as suits them.
As our Orthodox posters have said there has been a rule since the early days of the Church
that one should not receive Communion more than once a day and this rule has been followed until recently by the RC Church (with the exception of priests given permission to binate or trinate)
GG mentioned the reluctance of people to communicate which was also the case in the RC Church even until the Vatican council. This has changed now in the RC Church and many Catholics would find it normal (all other things being equal) to receive Communion at each Mass which they attend. So if for any reason they attend a second Mass on any given day they may also receive Communion.
I don’t think anyone is saying that rules should 'prevail over being neighbourly.'
For instance, if I as an Orthodox Christian visited your house during a fasting season and you offered me 'non-fasting' food out of your goodness and hospitality I would receive it rather than refuse it pietistically and Pharisaically thereby potentially causing offence.
In Orthodox terms it is better to break a rule than cause offence or put somebody to extra trouble by causing them to prepare vegan food instead of whatever they had already prepared.
Is our insistence on no more than one communion a day 'unneighbourly'?
Well, you may disagree, but I'd suggest it isn't unless we sought to impose it on those who do differently. If a man with a beard, a funny hat and a stick turned up at Forthview's RC parish and denounced them for allowing more than one Mass a day, that would be unneighbourly.
As to whether it is pastorally insensitive only to allow one communion a day, that's all down to context. If the RCC, the Anglicans, Lutherans or any other Christian church believes that to be the case then they are well within their rights to do so and to arrange their practice to accommodate that conviction.
Yes, we Orthodox would claim to follow the practice of the Early Church in this respect but we wouldn't insist that any one would do the same - unless they became Orthodox themselves of course.
As for Orthodox Christians wandering in willy-nilly during the Liturgy at any point to suit themselves - well yes, but practices vary. It's more common among some cultures/ethnicities than others. In my particular setting most people try to arrive on time and stay for the whole service and although it's not frowned upon to arrive late, there is a 'cut off point'.
I've known our priest refuse communion to people who have turned up after a certain point in the service.
Mileages vary.
Talking of which and talking of rules. I'm going to discipline myself to observe a self imposed one, which is to refrain from posting here until Easter now that Holy Week is upon us.
Some would argue that this is the most 'neighbourly' thing I could possibly do and that I ought to stay away even longer!
Be that as it may, and steeling myself in my resolve to resist temptation by peeking at what you'll all be posting this coming week, may I wish you all a wonderful week - whether you deem it 'Holy' or not - and a blessed Easter when it arrives.
Because I’m evil, and I figure I’ll hear Gamaliel’s brain frying all the way over here—I’m on the road coming back from yet a third communion in a single day—American English host congregation, our Vietnamese home congregation, and now an Indian home communion with a cancer patient and her family. Sizzle sizzzle...
I don't think it's ever been an issue for me before, but yesterday I went to the local sunrise service and then the 10.30 morning service at our local Anglican Church. Both were communion services - and I thought of this thread as I took communion at both. I reckoned if the vicar, who was officiating at the first and taking a supportive role at the second, could communicate at both I could do the same.
As I've tried to say multiple times on this thread (ha! see what I did there?), what we Orthodox do or don't do isn't binding on Christians of other traditions - such as Lutherans, Anglicans, RCs, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals etc etc etc.
I'll acknowledge that we might prefer other Christians to do things our way, and you will find Orthodox who are intensely critical and Pharisaical about what believers in other churches and denominations do or don't do.
I can't pretend that I don't fall into that trap myself at times.
Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!
But I'm not going to sit in judgement on you celebrating three communions in one day because:
It's none of my business.
It's not for me to say what you should or shouldn't do within your own tradition and context.
I'm probably a much worse sinner than you and certainly don't do the highly commendable work you do with refugees and minority-groups.
Whilst I believe that one communion a day is in keeping with ancient and early Church practice, it doesn't necessarily follow that this has to be binding on you or anyone else who happens to practice differently.
I don't believe that God is going to get all hissy because people practice things within their own traditions and contexts that differ from how they are done in my particular Big T Tradition.
Mother Maria Skobtsova famously said that she wouldn't be asked how many church services she'd attended or how many prostrations she'd made but whether she'd fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those in prison ... 'and that is all I shall be asked.'
Yes, I believe in Holy Tradition but see it as a framework not a straitjacket.
God bless you in your service of Christ and his people.
Despite playing at four major services during Holy Week/Easter I could only communicate once as I was otherwise occupied accompanying the singing. The once was on Good Friday when our parish deacon invited me into the sacristy where the blessed sacrament was reserved at the end of the service.
Yes, I thought you were teasing. But at the same time thought it might be worth setting out some kind of 'manifesto' of where I'm coming from in all of this.
For all I know that may have been completely redundant.
As I started this!!
I had a chat with the rector when I got a chance and he (presumably in line with the tradition of this church (open evangelical)) is comfortable with folk receiving at more than one service, he feels that it indicates being in communion with that particular gathered congregation (in addition to everything else it signifies).
In practice taking communion at the second service wasn't really viable for the kind of reasons @Alan29 describes.
The choir I direct at a RC parish sang for both Easter AM Masses, and when Communion time arrived at Mass#2, every one of them took part without hesitation. In fact, when I asked one of them about it after Mass, they looked at me quizzically, and laughed. Just sharing.
As I started this!!
I had a chat with the rector when I got a chance and he (presumably in line with the tradition of this church (open evangelical)) is comfortable with folk receiving at more than one service, he feels that it indicates being in communion with that particular gathered congregation (in addition to everything else it signifies).
In practice taking communion at the second service wasn't really viable for the kind of reasons @Alan29 describes.
I do not think one gets extra merit from communing twice. My practice is always to receive at the first mass I am able to and then with any subsequent mass to receive if there is reason (e.g. if serving the chalice). So tonight I unexpectedly received for the second time when the person who said they would serve did not turn up so I ended up on the chalice. I was there to do the washing up.
The wife of a Romanian deacon was telling us about old villagers in a rural part of that country who believed there was merit in not communicating at all.
The Pauline injunction on not receiving in an 'unworthy manner' had been distorted into a folk-belief that unless one was thoroughly morally perfect in every way then to receive communicate meant an early death.
Some of these people genuinely believed it would shorten their lives if they received communion and their neighbours were surprised when they lived another 4 or 5 years after being persuaded to receive communion regularly by their priest.
I didn't read @Jengie Jon's post as implying she believed she was accumulating brownie-points though.
My mother-in-law won't take communion because she didn't/couldn't keep the vows she made in church when marrying her first husband (they divorced quite quickly; Mrs Feet is from her second marriage). Nothing I say seems to convince her that she is as welcome at the Lord's table as anyone.
In a similar vein, my parish church continues to maintain a list of members and "adherents". Some of the latter are people like me who are Christians of other denominations, but the bulk are a hangover from the past when Communion was a Very Big Deal in the Kirk and was presaged by a visit from the district elder to assess your worthiness to receive. Some folk didn't think it worth it so never asked to be on the communion roll. The Kirk now practises open communion so the separate lists are now redundant in that regard.
Many years ago the English Catholic novelist ,David Lodge, wrote a book called 'How far can you go ?' In it he compared the Catholic mindset to a game of Snakes and Ladders.
A 'good deed' would raise you up whilst a 'mortal sin' would bring you crashing down.
For those who discuss the chances of getting to Heaven in the afterlife or plunging in to Hell there are only two possibilities for this to happen.
Either the Good Lord chooses us and dismisses others. This means the chosen can do whatever they want while those who are not chosen can do nothing to save themselves.
Or else it may be that the Good Lord offers Salvation/Heaven to all but we have to in some way accept that offer. This is what the Catholic Church means by the 'Treasury of Merit' which is perhaps by now a somewhat outdated concept. It is easy ? to accept the Lord's offer with our lips but we have to try to follow the commandments to love God and to love our neighbour. Every good action ,including the gaining of Indulgencies, increases our 'merit' because it makes it more easy for us to continue with our good actions of loving God and loving our neighbour.
That being said I do not think that those who go to Communion more than once a day are generally thinking principally in this way. It has become more or less the norm to go to Communion if one attends Mass, so, if for any reason one attends a second Mass one could go again to Communion.
Comments
The wife of a Romanian deacon was telling us how much trouble a rural priest she knew has in getting older people to receive communion.
They either believed you had to be completely morally perfect in the first place before being able to receive or else had imbibed vario8s superstitious ideas.
Some took the Pauline stricture on examining oneself and the reference to 'some have fallen asleep' so seriously that they believed they would shorten their lives if they received at all.
So it was better not to receive communion then you would live longer.
They were surprised when some of their elderly neighbours went on to live another 5 or 6 years once they'd started receiving communion again.
So yes, treating the sacraments like magic is a real issue.
However we cut it, the rule is intended as a safeguard as well as emphasising the integrity of the eucharist as a single collective act of worship.
Those two aspects are the rationale behind the rule and I reiterate, it's an 'in-house' rule and not one we would expect Christians from other traditions to observe just because we do.
Even in Presbyterian churches here is Scotland on 'Communion Sunday', certainly in the towns, there will be more than one celebration of the Lord's Supper.
A Catholic Mass is generally significantly shorter than the Orthodox eucharist and the faithful are expected to be present for the whole of the Mass or at least a significant part of it. (Whether they do or do not is completely an other question.)
As far as I know there is no 'obligation' for an Orthodox Christian to be present for all of the eucharistic service and people will come and go as suits them.
As our Orthodox posters have said there has been a rule since the early days of the Church
that one should not receive Communion more than once a day and this rule has been followed until recently by the RC Church (with the exception of priests given permission to binate or trinate)
GG mentioned the reluctance of people to communicate which was also the case in the RC Church even until the Vatican council. This has changed now in the RC Church and many Catholics would find it normal (all other things being equal) to receive Communion at each Mass which they attend. So if for any reason they attend a second Mass on any given day they may also receive Communion.
So why is this a rule for some?[/quote]
It's just a general principle. Rules shouldn't prevail over being neighbourly.
They are not the Laws of the Medes and the Persians.
For instance, if I as an Orthodox Christian visited your house during a fasting season and you offered me 'non-fasting' food out of your goodness and hospitality I would receive it rather than refuse it pietistically and Pharisaically thereby potentially causing offence.
In Orthodox terms it is better to break a rule than cause offence or put somebody to extra trouble by causing them to prepare vegan food instead of whatever they had already prepared.
Is our insistence on no more than one communion a day 'unneighbourly'?
Well, you may disagree, but I'd suggest it isn't unless we sought to impose it on those who do differently. If a man with a beard, a funny hat and a stick turned up at Forthview's RC parish and denounced them for allowing more than one Mass a day, that would be unneighbourly.
As to whether it is pastorally insensitive only to allow one communion a day, that's all down to context. If the RCC, the Anglicans, Lutherans or any other Christian church believes that to be the case then they are well within their rights to do so and to arrange their practice to accommodate that conviction.
Yes, we Orthodox would claim to follow the practice of the Early Church in this respect but we wouldn't insist that any one would do the same - unless they became Orthodox themselves of course.
As for Orthodox Christians wandering in willy-nilly during the Liturgy at any point to suit themselves - well yes, but practices vary. It's more common among some cultures/ethnicities than others. In my particular setting most people try to arrive on time and stay for the whole service and although it's not frowned upon to arrive late, there is a 'cut off point'.
I've known our priest refuse communion to people who have turned up after a certain point in the service.
Mileages vary.
Talking of which and talking of rules. I'm going to discipline myself to observe a self imposed one, which is to refrain from posting here until Easter now that Holy Week is upon us.
Some would argue that this is the most 'neighbourly' thing I could possibly do and that I ought to stay away even longer!
Be that as it may, and steeling myself in my resolve to resist temptation by peeking at what you'll all be posting this coming week, may I wish you all a wonderful week - whether you deem it 'Holy' or not - and a blessed Easter when it arrives.
Peace be to all!
As I've tried to say multiple times on this thread (ha! see what I did there?), what we Orthodox do or don't do isn't binding on Christians of other traditions - such as Lutherans, Anglicans, RCs, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals etc etc etc.
I'll acknowledge that we might prefer other Christians to do things our way, and you will find Orthodox who are intensely critical and Pharisaical about what believers in other churches and denominations do or don't do.
I can't pretend that I don't fall into that trap myself at times.
Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!
But I'm not going to sit in judgement on you celebrating three communions in one day because:
Yes, I believe in Holy Tradition but see it as a framework not a straitjacket.
God bless you in your service of Christ and his people.
For all I know that may have been completely redundant.
I had a chat with the rector when I got a chance and he (presumably in line with the tradition of this church (open evangelical)) is comfortable with folk receiving at more than one service, he feels that it indicates being in communion with that particular gathered congregation (in addition to everything else it signifies).
In practice taking communion at the second service wasn't really viable for the kind of reasons @Alan29 describes.
Sorted.
The wife of a Romanian deacon was telling us about old villagers in a rural part of that country who believed there was merit in not communicating at all.
The Pauline injunction on not receiving in an 'unworthy manner' had been distorted into a folk-belief that unless one was thoroughly morally perfect in every way then to receive communicate meant an early death.
Some of these people genuinely believed it would shorten their lives if they received communion and their neighbours were surprised when they lived another 4 or 5 years after being persuaded to receive communion regularly by their priest.
I didn't read @Jengie Jon's post as implying she believed she was accumulating brownie-points though.
In a similar vein, my parish church continues to maintain a list of members and "adherents". Some of the latter are people like me who are Christians of other denominations, but the bulk are a hangover from the past when Communion was a Very Big Deal in the Kirk and was presaged by a visit from the district elder to assess your worthiness to receive. Some folk didn't think it worth it so never asked to be on the communion roll. The Kirk now practises open communion so the separate lists are now redundant in that regard.
A 'good deed' would raise you up whilst a 'mortal sin' would bring you crashing down.
For those who discuss the chances of getting to Heaven in the afterlife or plunging in to Hell there are only two possibilities for this to happen.
Either the Good Lord chooses us and dismisses others. This means the chosen can do whatever they want while those who are not chosen can do nothing to save themselves.
Or else it may be that the Good Lord offers Salvation/Heaven to all but we have to in some way accept that offer. This is what the Catholic Church means by the 'Treasury of Merit' which is perhaps by now a somewhat outdated concept. It is easy ? to accept the Lord's offer with our lips but we have to try to follow the commandments to love God and to love our neighbour. Every good action ,including the gaining of Indulgencies, increases our 'merit' because it makes it more easy for us to continue with our good actions of loving God and loving our neighbour.
That being said I do not think that those who go to Communion more than once a day are generally thinking principally in this way. It has become more or less the norm to go to Communion if one attends Mass, so, if for any reason one attends a second Mass one could go again to Communion.