In my bulletin each Communion Sunday it says this,
Our celebration of the Lord’s Supper reflects the fact that what Jesus puts into our mouths in this sacrament is not just bread and wine but also his own body and blood for our forgiveness. Those who hold to this confession as members of other LC-MS congregations are welcome to join us for this celebration. We rejoice that all Christians who recognize their sin and trust Jesus for their salvation have saving faith. Yet not all Christians share the same beliefs. Since the Bible teaches us that receiving the Lord’s Supper together implies that we share the same beliefs, we ask that those who wish to receive Communion with this congregation first learn what we believe…Whether or not you receive the Lord’s Supper today, please use the time during the distribution to sing the hymns, meditate on God’s Word, and pray.
But here is what other Christians read:
YOU CANNOT COME.
Being that I believe in the truth of the first statement, I cannot by any means just leave it unspoken or steward the supper in a way that contradicts it. But I must admit that at times I wonder if our practice could be done in way that would confess better than while we are not in altar and pulpit fellowship with many other Christians, we do recognize a bond with all Christians through Baptism into Christ. I am not sure that “sit and sing†does that. Is there a way to both recognize division and celebrate that we are still baptized into the same Christ?
I have pondered encouraging all to come forward to receive a blessing, but I still wonder if that would cause confusion regarding fellowship. While those coming forward would not receive the common cup or loaf, they would be at the common rail, which from afar is the symbol of fellowship people see.
Recently in researching something I came across a practice of the eastern Church that seems like it is a practice that is meant to (or could be used to) accomplish the balance I have wondered about. I want to be clear. I am not suggesting this practice be implemented. I am far from even understanding the practice thoroughly. But I hope throwing this out will increase my understanding as dialogue ensues.
From Wikipedia, the definitive source for knowledge in our day.
The Antidoron (Greek: ἈντίδωÏον, AntÃdÅron) is ordinary leavened bread which is blessed but not consecrated and distributed in Eastern Orthodox Churches. It comes from the remains of the loaves of bread (prosphora) from which portions are cut for consecration as the Eucharist during the Divine Liturgy
it is the custom in many Orthodox parishes to distribute the antidoron to visitors and catechumens as a sign of fellowship, or to bring a few pieces home to a relative who could not attend liturgy.
Basically, before the bread is consecrated, some of the “ends†are cut off and blessed rather than being consecrated. Antidoron means literally “instead of the gifts.†They are then served, as I understand it, after the Supper to all those Christians unable for some reason to join the congregation. ((I am still researching. Some claim the antidoron should only be given to Orthodox Christians. But most of these still suggest another piece of bread, not blessed, should be offered to all Christians. Read here for a brief explanation of the differing views and practices.)) Obviously, there are a lot of things surrounding this practice which might not serve our confession well. But I wonder if the idea of offering something to those who are not in altar fellowship with us would be a good idea as a way of noting our oneness in Christ through Baptism?
I covet your thoughts and your knowledge of this practice.
Phil,
A couple of thoughts for you. The Antidoron is received by Orthodox Christians immediately after partaking of the Eucharist. The reason for this is practical; the participants of the Eucharist eat this to ensure that any particles of the bread (which is already intincted) from the eucharist is removed from the teeth and digested. That is why (and unfortunately not very well taught nor practiced) that it is inappropriate to kiss an icon after receiving the Eucharist since some of the consecrated bread could be left on the icon which is a huge no-no.
I remember many years ago when I went to my first Orthodox liturgy someone from the congregation brought me the antidoron after he had received the Eucharist. I didn’t know what I was to do with it so I put it in my pocket (I did later consume it). After doing some research on the topic, I discovered that the antidoron is reserved only for Orthodox Christians. It is not to be a “bread of fellowship” or a token of how sad it is that we cannot partake of the Eucharist together (which is what you mention in your footnote). That is what it has become in America with its religious pluralism. Also, many Orthodox Christians (largely under the influence of Protestantism and the Englightenment) partake of the Eucharist maybe once or twice a year but receive the antidoron in its place after Liturgy when they come forward to venerate the cross. THe antidoron is not to be a substitute for the eucharist, but, unfortunately, this is what it has become. A great reteaching about the importance of the eucharist and its frequent reception needs to be made throughout the Eastern Churches here in America and throughout the world. Which leads me into my next point.
You think that the antidoron will be way to note our oneness in Christ in baptism. Phil, how can we all be one in baptism and yet not be one in partaking of the Eucharist? There can’t be! That’s ecclesiological schizophrenia! Baptism and all the sacraments are valid (I hate that term, but I can’t come up with a better one this late in the evening) because they are administered through the Church. The Eucharist is communion with God and thereby communion with all believers who partake. It is the summit of our worship since He is the offerer and the offered. That is why the Eucharist is served at all liturgies (there is no liturgy without the Eucharist). Our oneness comes through the Christ’s Church. Heretics and schismatics have removed themselves from the church. They may be god-fearing people, but they are not of the body of Christ. Yes, that is hard to say and even harder to preach but such is the reality. That is why we should focus not on the union of the churches, but the union of the heretics and schismatics to the Church, that is the the Holy Orthodox Church.
YOur suggestion then with regards to the Antidoron then is purely symbolism over substance. Also, it is just something that is alien to the Western expression of Christianity; it has never been part of it. I would advise that instead of placating people with trinkets about how we are all one, that you focus instead of uniting all to the One Church. Granted, it will never happen in this age, but only in the age to come.
You “coveted” opinions. Such are mine.
Chris, a question. Are you saying that the One Church is the Orthodox Church? And do you mean that to be understood as a particular institution or what we might call the “invisible church.” I do truly value your reminder that it is far better to work towards unity than to create a balm for the wounds of division.
Phil,
Of course, the One Church is the Holy Orthodox Church. As far as your clarifying question, that category is alien to the consensus Patruum and is a 17th century innovation so I cannot give you any answer beyond that. The church is not “institutional”; it is the body of Christ. I know that you’re trying to bait me and it won’t work. Sorry.
You capitalize Holy Orthodox Church. What do you mean by this term?
Phil,
You are either reading too much into this or you are trying to bait me. I capitalize it just like one capitalizes proper names.