Jewish wedding traditions adopted by non-Jewish couple

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

COMMUNION is meant to be just that - amongst other things, a sign of those who, in the case of the RC church, are in communion with the Church. If you are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, be it because you belong to another sect or know yourself to be in a state of grave sin, don't believe in the real presence or aren't a Christian, you don't take communion. To do so would be to do what this thread started out being about - to take something which is a religious tradition (in the case of communion, a sacrament) infused with a very specific meaning and purpose and to adopt it for another reason.

Except in the situation in which it was brought up here, it's not really the same:

Originally Posted by ellebud

At the wedding that we attended where everyone was offered communion (the Archbishop specifically invited all: Christian or Jew, Catholic, Muslim or atheist) . . . .

That's a different situation -- it's not people adopting the rites or rituals of another religion for their own purposes, it's people being invited (however incorrectly) to participate in the rite of another religion by someone in that religion. (And, of course, I'd say there's a difference in non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians when it comes to communion in the Roman Catholic Church. That notice in the missal does provide for non-Catholic Christians to take communion under specific circumstances.)

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

(And, of course, I'd say there's a difference in non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians when it comes to communion in the Roman Catholic Church. That notice in the missal does provide for non-Catholic Christians to take communion under specific circumstances.)

It outlines those sects which the Roman Catholics recognize and which the RCs consider able to take communion, but also notes that non-RCs should follow the dictates of their religious organization. I'll have to pay special attention to it this Sunday - I know it lists those groups. There are extraordinary circumstances in which I know priests can give communion to non-RCs, but I doubt that attending a wedding would be one of them. I don't know why a non-Christian would want to take communion, or what the Archbishop was thinking. If he thinks of it as merely symbolic, sounds like he'd be happier in ECUSA!

The chuppahs are gorgeous.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I don't know why a non-Christian would want to take communion, or what the Archbishop was thinking. If he thinks of it as merely symbolic, sounds like he'd be happier in ECUSA!

Hey! We believe in the Real Presence. That being said, this sounds like a bishop we would want.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Hey! We believe in the Real Presence. That being said, this sounds like a bishop we would want.

I meant the Real Presence as in transubstantiation - which of course ECUSA does not believe in, as per article XXIX of the Articles of Religion. I apologize for not being clearer. // end communion hijack, at least as far as I'm concerned.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

It outlines those sects which the Roman Catholics recognize and which the RCs consider able to take communion, but also notes that non-RCs should follow the dictates of their religious organization. I'll have to pay special attention to it this Sunday - I know it lists those groups. There are extraordinary circumstances in which I know priests can give communion to non-RCs, but I doubt that attending a wedding would be one of them.

I'm sure that a wedding isn't one of them, but that really wasn't my point. I think you're reading more into what I said than I intended. My first point were simply that the statement "If you are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church . . . you don't take communion" was a bit of an overstatement. My second (and main) point was that what ellebud described was not, I don't think, the same as what the article in the OP describes. The article describes two people who decide to appropriate religious traditions of a religion they do not claim as their own because they like those traditions and want something "different." What ellebud described is an officiating clergyman violating the canons of his own religion (perhaps so as not to seem inhospitable, but who knows), effectively placing a burden on others to know what the rules are. In the first instance, it's people not of the religion who might be seen as acting inappropriately; in the second instance, it's the member of (and authority figure in) the religion who would be seen to be acting inappropriately.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I meant the Real Presence as in transubstantiation - which of course ECUSA does not believe in, as per article XXIX of the Articles of Religion. I apologize for not being clearer. // end communion hijack, at least as far as I'm concerned.

It is a highjack, but as long as we've gone there: a major pet peeve of mine is to equate transubstantiation and Real Presence. Transubstation is a way (based on Aristotelian philosophy) of explaining and understanding the Real Presence, but it is hardly the only way. While it is the official understanding of the Real Presence of the Roman Catholic Church, many Christians (including some Roman Catholics I know of, not to mention those who agree with Article XXIX of the Articles of Religion) fully believe in the Real Presence without adhering to transubstantiation as an explanation of that Presence.

[/pet peeve rant off]

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm sure that a wedding isn't one of them, but that really wasn't my point. I think you're reading more into what I said than I intended. My first point were simply that the statement "If you are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church . . . you don't take communion" was a bit of an overstatement. My second (and main) point was that what ellebud described was not, I don't think, the same as what the article in the OP describes. The article describes two people who decide to appropriate religious traditions of a religion they do not claim as their own because they like those traditions and want something "different." What ellebud described is an officiating clergyman violating the canons of his own religion (perhaps so as not to seem inhospitable, but who knows), effectively placing a burden on others to know what the rules are. In the first instance, it's people not of the religion who might be seen as acting inappropriately; in the second instance, it's the member of (and authority figure in) the religion who would be seen to be acting inappropriately.

It is a highjack, but as long as we've gone there: a major pet peeve of mine is to equate transubstantiation and Real Presence. Transubstation is a way (based on Aristotelian philosophy) of explaining and understanding the Real Presence, but it is hardly the only way. While it is the official understanding of the Real Presence of the Roman Catholic Church, many Christians (including some Roman Catholics I know of, not to mention those who agree with Article XXIX of the Articles of Religion) fully believe in the Real Presence without adhering to transubstantiation as an explanation of that Presence.

[/pet peeve rant off]

Okay, I lied and am back on the hijack for a moment.

I apologize for not being clear about speaking to the hijack as opposed to the op.

It is of course a matter of how Real Presence is defined - since I was coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, that was how I was using it, which I thought was clear. I will make sure to clearly state transubstantiation if that is what I mean as opposed to the broader concept of the Real Presence in mixed company. // real end of my hijack - maybe.