Administration of Holy Communion - post covid 19

Not really. They receive Christ but they can't receive him to t heir benefit but to their condemnation. That is what the article is saying. What I was trying to say is that they can't receive Christ to their benefit because they dont' have faith or that is how I read it.

 

I have no argument with this. I am just not sure that dispensing the Blessed Sacrament, in disposable recyclable plastic cups differentiates this from a 7-up from Maccas.

I, if you have followed closely, have not argued for a physical change, and I strongty reject your repeated stance on this subject. Receptionism, whilst I consider it a valid position for Anglicans, it is not the only position for Anglicans, nor is it a required position for Anglicans.

Yes you have, and repetition is not the same as veracity. I am not at all sure that people are engaging in eisegesis as you suggest. A great deal of the matter of this discussion will ultimately hing on how you understand the meaning of the greek word Anamnesis. In the context of the people for who this was first said, it is not simply 'you will remember when', so much as a calling of salvific history into the present, which is why it is so closely associated with the promise of the Lord to be with us when 2 or 3 are gathered in his name.

We do not presume to come to this your table, O merciful Lord,
trusting in our own righteousness,
but in your abundant and great mercies.
We are not worthy so much as to gather up
the crumbs under your table;
but you are the same Lord
whose character is always to have mercy.
Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord,
so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ,
and to drink his blood,
that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,
and our souls washed through his most precious blood,
and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.​

This article is entirely consistent with the 1 Corinthians 11 text discussed earlier. The force of this is surely that sacraments are not magic. We do not make people Christian by getting them to participate in communion.

 

In our diocese, we received in one kind throughout 2021, and just recently returned to offering both kinds. We use the common chalice, in keeping with tradition. No grape juice, no plastic cups. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

 

Oh, I see. You're saying that they do receive Christ, but it does not benefit them. Then I'm pretty sure you're contradicting Article 29 which says, "in no wise are they partakers of Christ." To receive Christ in the Eucharist is to partake of Christ, and to not partake of Him is to not receive Him. The Article teaches that the unbeliever does not partake of Christ when partaking of the elements; another way to say it is that the unbeliever does not receive Christ when receiving the elements, and this is receptionism. Article 29 is teaching this.

 

And how do we eat His flesh and drink His blood? Not physically, as you and I both agree, but "by faith, with thanksgiving" (the main point I was making was this, not the "remembrance" word which obviously sparked your comments about anamnesis... I understand how you feel about that word "remembrance").

As for whether receptionism is or is not the only position for Anglicans, please see my comments in post #24.

I agree that disposable mini-cups are not optimal by any means, and the chalice is far and away to be preferred.

 

Debate over the nature of Christ’s Presence probably belongs in a different thread. I think the OP’s question had more to do with practice than doctrine: Can we go back to doing things the way they were done before in a post-COVID world? It’s a fair question. I personally think we can, but also that it remains a legitimate question and is worthy of thoughtful dialogue.

 

We just read it different and that is ok.