Consecration
Who do you believe consecrates the Eucharist at Liturgy?
The ordained minister celebrant.
The Community Assembled Through the ordained minister celebrant.
The Community Assembled Including the celebrant--ordained or not.
Other.
Results of an informal
Results of an informal unscientific survey among friends:
Who is it that Consecrates the Eucharist at Liturgy?
No. of users who responded to this question: 64 (68.82%) - No. of users who did not answer this question: 29
The Community Assembled 44%
The Community Assembled Through the Celebrant 23%
The Ordained Minister Celebrant 19%
Other 14%
Love, John
See my website: Sacred Quest at www.torchlake.com/poetman
I believe that the words of
I believe that the words of consecration and the act of Consecration involve the community and the celebrant together. At this stage in my life---I believe that the celebrant should be consecrated. But my ideas as to who the consecrated celebrant should be are not necessarily who the official Church states the celebrant should be. I believe that if and when the time comes that people are seeking to be in Communion (sacramentally), to receive Communion (sacramentally) but there is no consecrated/ordained priest around, that joining together and repeating Jesus' words, "Do this...." that Jesus would indeed be present sacramentally. I believe this, because I believe that Jesus would so wish it as well.
With so many dioceses merging parishes because of the priest shortage, Poetman's question holds much discussion. Who can the celebrant be? Or is a consectated celebrant needed. And yes, I agree with Dennis' twist of Newhope's statement. Because of the changes occuring in just about every diocese in America/Canada---people are going to need to spiritually grow, to spiritually mature very quickly. This spiritual maturity should "uniquely be found in the community of believers under Christ."
As a codger I tend to agree
As a codger I tend to agree with Little Bear. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the "Sacraments" are the outward, ritualized (in the good sense) events (liturgies) that celebrate that which has been done divinely in time and which, through His gift, are beyond time and space in their efficacy. They are accessible in faith regardless of the Sacraments themselves.
I believe however, that the sacramental liturgies should not be understimated in their validity or in their necessity for human beings. We humans need symbols and rituals as incarnational embodiments of our shared values, our totems, so to speak. Socialogically, we need to hold hands around an icon to which we have endowed the sense of sharing and participating and valuing.
I believe that Christ's living incarnation in Sacraments reciprocates, responds to, is the nourishment to that thirst, to that 'wired-in' characteristic of man.
Therefore, I believe, that the sacraments are to the human race what the monastic life is to the Church - a beautiful ornament, an ornate decoration, an incarnation of essential 'element', a beautiful eccentricism, like the archive and preserver of a source document to a civilizational event the essence of which is now independent of the document but valued as an icon, needing deepening, encouragement.
The sacramental efficacy of Christ's act is accessible to all regardless of proximity to de facto Sacrament or custodian. But for me, the closer the better. Clergy are 'servants to the temple' but the temple is the hearts and soul of the people. Churches are like monuments, offices, and dormatories of the servants. Is this an answer? Does this say something about the role of priest, of institutional Church?
The eucharist was instituted
The eucharist was instituted at a family meal. The celebrant was the head of the family. It would seem then by extention that when the family gathers at Mass it is they together with the leader who comes from among them who are the channels for the miracle. It is always Christ who consecrates.
And I also believe Jesus
And I also believe Jesus said, "wherever two or three are gathered, there I also am" NOT "wherever a priest and two or three are gathered" .......
Newhope writes: "I do not
Newhope writes: "I do not believe that the spiritual maturity necessary...is commonly found in most believers....". How about "...is uniquely found in the community of believers under Christ"?
I quite agree, Dennis, but I
I quite agree, Dennis, but I think the ancient and prevailing worldview of centrism-staticism still captures perhaps most Christian believers and interferes with the vision and achievement of personal Christian maturity.
Yes but....doesn't it all
Yes but....doesn't it all really boil down to the meaning of "...under Christ". I will indulge, for the moment in a bit of silly idealism.
For me "...under Christ" means in His companionship, within His message. It is quite the opposite of "centrism-staticism". The real "rapture" for me is not the few who have held absolutely to the book and the chair after the cafeteria folk are excluded, but the Chrislike, the real "wannabes" who are prepared to tolerate, nay more, love each other and respect differences yet remain in the room without rancour, holding their opinions, listening, refining, helping,united in the one thing that is "absolute". Silly, eh?
This question opens
This question opens the door for a radical reformation of the church from the ground up. I do not believe that the spiritual maturity necessary to handle such enormous changes is commonly found in most believers, including myself.
However, should speculation on these issues allow for new ways to re-image church and ministry, then spiritual renewal within the existing church structures is possible. This is part of the vision of Vatican II, a light I hope will not be allowed to go out. a hope I sincerely believe the church cannot do without.
Let's see if we can push the
Let's see if we can push the poll a little wider. I just made a poll here on NCRcafe.org where people can vote. Here's the link, http://ncrcafe.org/node/2116.
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management