This is perhaps another rabbit trail and the discussion over this should be moved. Are you seperating the "agape meal" from the eucharistic celebration? Blessings

First I completely aggree with you, the Eucharist is the greastest gift we are given. However, if I am reading you correctly and the gifts have always been present in the Church, to which I also agree, why did the Spirit fall so powerfully during the Charismatic renewal. Those in the renewal taught that the gift of the Spirit recieved at Confirmation was "unleashed." For those in the renewal the Eucharist became "alive" in a powerful new way, for many in the Church. Desire for the Word of God was renewed.
I agree with you, but the Franciscan movement, which was very charismatic, was sent to the Church " falling down." Yes, the Eucharist is the greatest gift, but the Church loses that understanding and the Spirit must renew the love, the passion, and the reverence for what it has been given. Yes, the gifts are used and often overlooked. Discernement and wisdom are univited guests in the Church more often than not, but that is the purpose of the charismatic gifts, to edify the Church and grow us into a deeper and fuller appreciation of the one who comes before us in broken bread and crushed grape is the fullness of our Lord, body, blood soul and divinity.

At one time they were, although never a universal practice, all one big event or consecutive events as mentioned by St. Paul, The Didache, St. Ignatius, Hippolytus, Tertullian and others. However, as the gluttony, drunkenness and charismatic abuses (1 Cor. 9-15) continued, the Agape meal was separated from the Eucharist altogether and eventually disappeared in some places. Also it appears to have been conducted at various times and places, sometimes preceding the Eucharist and at other times proceeding after the Eucharist.

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/love-feast.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01200b.htm

The renewal of the gifts from Edward Irving till today does not mean they had completely dissipated, it just means the emphasis was renewed. There were “Charismatics” before Irving and even tongue-talking Pentecostals before Agnes Ozman. Killian McDonnell and Fr. George Montague in Fanning the Flame! document how Confirmation is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately so few understand this. However not understanding their Confirmation does not mean they do not have the gifts, it is just they haven't fanned the flame. It is not a matter of what but how and when the gifts are to be expressed, so that the Author of Decency and Order is glorified, the Church is edified and the sinner is convicted and converted.

I am persuaded that the a missing element of the Convergence Movement was in not seeing the Agape Feast restored. The Agape is similar to the old Charismatic "Believer's Meetings" from the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's but with liturgy. See Acts 13:1-7

However we need to allow the Holy Spirit to use us outside the four walls and in the marketplace.

We need and have the Spirit's gifts. Jesus is our Example of who, what, when, where, why and how the gifts are to be utilized. It is not Hagin, Hagee, Hinn, Hill, Hamon and the Hunters who are our role models. That being said, I am not implying they do not have gifts, since they do have the Holy Spirit by virtue of their Sacramental Baptism.

Guest,

Yours is a very complex question for which we have only sparse evidence in the first two centuries after Jesus death and resurrection. I think that you are right in saying that there is no Biblical premise for the gifts being a regular or liturgical part of the Eucharist. This is not to say that they were absent in the laity when the Eucharist was being celebrated. Many Christians over the centuries have, however, found that the Holy Spirit does not necessarily operate according to our forms. There are countless instances where the Holy Spirit makes His presence know during the Eucharist where various of His giftings are present. Two famous ones are the Eucharistic experiences of both St. Thomas Aquinas near the end of his life and St. Seraphim of Sarov. In both cases the power of the Holy Spirit was clearly present.

There is one action of the Eucharist, there may be more, that suggests a spiritual gift being in operation. When the priest invokes the presence of the Holy Spirit placing his hands over the elements this does have the appearance of "laying on of hands" only not of healing but as a symbolic representation of the action being accomplished. I leave it to the liturgists to tell me if this makes any sense of not.

This was put out as one of the ICCEC "Bishop's Best!" back in 1997. It was Adler at his best and reflects my assertion that 1997 was the ICCEC's AD 1054. The Bishop who told him the story about the Messianic Jewish understanding of the Melchidekan priesthood versus Aaronic priesthood and the Temple versus the Synagogue was Bishop Zampino.

I was speaking in reference to the 9 charismatic gifts mentioned by St Paul in 1 Cor. 12. Where in Scripture and in History have we seen the following during Mass or the Eucharistic celebration:

Tongues
Interpretation
Prophecy
Word of Wisdom
Word of Knowledge
Faith
Healings
Miracles
Discerning of Sprits

I am not saying that gifts are not present in the celebrants, I am asking if we see a precedence for expecting the manifestation during Mass. The Mass has not been a time, historically or Biblically, to showcase the Charismatic gifts but the Eucharistic "Gifts of God for the People of God!" There was a time to showcase them daily and even during the Agape.

A "Spirit-filled" Catholic wrote recently, "Every Mass is charismatic because the Holy Spirit moves powerfully through them all as He brings forth the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Without the work of the Holy Spirit we would have neither. You find that the Catholic Church is very much one of propriety and order, things are always, or should, be done that way."

I think we have forgtotten that it is not about the manifestation of the "gifts", but the Giver of the giftings that is to be the focus.

The manifestation of the gifts is given for two purposes ONLY: 1) to point to and glorify God, and 2) to edify the church in its work (liturgia).

All I have seen in scripture clearly indicates that the gifts of the spirit are to bring people closer to God and to commune with Jesus in the Holy Spirit. Peter exercised the gifts several times - outside the church (worship) setting in his everyday life. This was given BY GOD to draw men to Christ, not so men could have something to destinguish them form other believers.

This is an age old argument about the charismatic giftings. Discernment is a key gift. I kind of use the rule, if the evident gift does not point to God, but instead points back at the individual, it is most likely not of God, but an ecstatic utterance of the individual. This is a real problem in much of Pentecostalism and Charismatic circles. The focus is on manifestation and not the glorifying of the giver of life - and giftings.

Paul talks of the gifts for the life of the church, but he speaks of the Eucharist as the primary worship of the church; as a time when we are present with christ and christ is present with and in us, in the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup.

The postings on the manifestation of the Spirit during the Agape meal and not during the Eucharistic celebration in the Corinthian church, if I have understood you correctly, is problematic for me. As we know the oldest celebration of the Eucharist took the form of a meal, following the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath and elements of the paschal meal, not the paschal meal alone as Jungman (The Early Liturgy, which I highly recommend) has correctly noted. The sabbath meal also called the "chaburah meal," (chaburah, means a meeting of friends) that was comprised of three parts; breaking bread, the meal, the cup. Among the accounts of the Last Supper, the greatest aggreement is found in the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline epistles. In reading I Cor. 11:25 we find the phrase; " In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood.' " The Greek text uses the term "deipnesai" meaning, eating of supper. Thus, we may conclude that the cup was consecrated and distributedafter the meal. The bread therefore was the first or initail act before the meal. The father of a household blessed the bread and distributed it to his guests.
I give this background to establish the charismatic gifts were not at the begining of the celebration of the Lord's Supper, nor at the end of the Lord's Supper, in a seperate "Agape" meal. The meal and the manifestation of the Spirit were at the heart of the Lord's supper for the Corinithian church. The entire celebration was "the Lord's Supper" (kyriakon deipnon). The Eucharistic celebration was the sacramental celebration and meal (at the core) together which comprised the liturgical celebration. This practice did not last long. We know from the prayers of the Didiache that this was the pratice of the church at time.
I do agree that over the course of time the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup (the sacramental acts) were joined and themeal was dropped from the center. However, I do not believe it was due to drunkeness and gluttony (although this was true of the Corinthian church). The decline of the Charismatic gifts can be attributed to the heresies that arose, especially Montanism.
Blessings

Sources for further study are noted above. Also if you can find them Fr. Hanssens, S.J. who was a professor of liturgy at the Gregorian University published several articles in support of this veiw. His articles are dated, but Jungman mentioned him.

Another excellent resource is the 4 volume series by Stanley M. Burgess on the Holy Spirit in the history of the Church. Herndrickson Publisher.

At one time they were, although never a universal practice, all one big event or consecutive events as mentioned by St. Paul, The Didache, St. Ignatius, Hippolytus, Tertullian and others. However, as the gluttony, drunkenness and charismatic abuses (1 Cor. 9-15) continued, the Agape meal was separated from the Eucharist altogether and eventually disappeared in some places. Also it appears to have been conducted at various times and places, sometimes preceding the Eucharist and at other times proceeding after the Eucharist.

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/love-feast.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01200b.htm [/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]
The postings on the manifestation of the Spirit during the Agape meal and not during the Eucharistic celebration in the Corinthian church, if I have understood you correctly, is problematic for me. As we know the oldest celebration of the Eucharist took the form of a meal, following the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath and elements of the paschal meal, not the paschal meal alone as Jungman (The Early Liturgy, which I highly recommend) has correctly noted. The sabbath meal also called the "chaburah meal," (chaburah, means a meeting of friends) that was comprised of three parts; breaking bread, the meal, the cup. Among the accounts of the Last Supper, the greatest aggreement is found in the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline epistles. In reading I Cor. 11:25 we find the phrase; " In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood.' " The Greek text uses the term "deipnesai" meaning, eating of supper. Thus, we may conclude that the cup was consecrated and distributedafter the meal. The bread therefore was the first or initail act before the meal. The father of a household blessed the bread and distributed it to his guests.
I give this background to establish the charismatic gifts were not at the begining of the celebration of the Lord's Supper, nor at the end of the Lord's Supper, in a seperate "Agape" meal. The meal and the manifestation of the Spirit were at the heart of the Lord's supper for the Corinithian church. The entire celebration was "the Lord's Supper" (kyriakon deipnon). The Eucharistic celebration was the sacramental celebration and meal (at the core) together which comprised the liturgical celebration. This practice did not last long. We know from the prayers of the Didiache that this was the pratice of the church at time.
I do agree that over the course of time the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup (the sacramental acts) were joined and themeal was dropped from the center. However, I do not believe it was due to drunkeness and gluttony (although this was true of the Corinthian church). The decline of the Charismatic gifts can be attributed to the heresies that arose, especially Montanism.
Blessings

Sources for further study are noted above. Also if you can find them Fr. Hanssens, S.J. who was a professor of liturgy at the Gregorian University published several articles in support of this veiw. His articles are dated, but Jungman mentioned him.[/QUOTE]

I am the one who posted that and I mostly agree with you and appreciate the insights. I would only add that there are recorded instances where the meal later being separated from the Fourth Cup/ Eucharist took place after the Mass. This was later as the Church became multi-ethnic and developed leaving the contexts of the Passover and perhaps the funeral rite. The intent was to state that the time for sharing ones gifts with the Body was done decently and not at the Fourth Cup...it was done in the context of the whole feast, the Agape. I would think, to be Charismatic Episcopal would be to understand this. The time for individual lay person to stand and share their charism was outside of the Eucharist, which was funerary in nature and a very solemn time. Do you agree? Tertullian (Pre-Montanist) says, at the end of the feast, they would gather together and each would fufill St Paul's instruction based on 1 Cor. 14.:

26 What is it then, brothers? When you come together, each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has another language, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to build each other up.

27 If any man speaks in another language, let it be two, or at the most three, and in turn; and let one interpret.

28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself, and to God.

29 Let the prophets speak, two or three, and let the others discern.

30 But if a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first keep silent.

31 For you all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted.

32 The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets,

33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the assemblies of the saints,

34 let your wives keep silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as the law also says.

35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly.

36 What? Was it from you that the word of God went out? Or did it come to you alone?

37 If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him recognize the things which I write to you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.

38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

39 Therefore, brothers, desire earnestly to prophesy, and don't forbid speaking with other languages.

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Thanks you Ken, for posting Katie's disertation. I relate so very much to what she said and went through...I have experienced it personally and still do. Only recently on another forum I wrote that I do not speak or pray in tongues. My verbal prayers are in English...I have never had any urge for them to be otherwise and as far as I can tell My Lord answers back in english. The only exception is during 'silent' contemplative and/or meditative prayer when there is no verbal communication but there is a 'knowing' a form of 'thoughts' 'an absorption of wisdom' all of which come from the work of the Most Holy Spirit God within me.

I think we need to remember that St. Paul said that the gift of tongues was the 'least of the gifts' -- not the first. Yes we read evidence but that was to give an outward show to those with the Apostle Peter that these gentiles had been accepted by God as was His will for all the gentiles to be accepted, with or without the gift of tongues.

blessings,

Nell

It is the least, yet it is still a gift from the Spirit and one not to be diminished. If God felt it important enough to give, then we ought to gratefully and readily receive it and use it properly. One tendency is for folks to respond to some abuse of the gift by overreacting calling it unimportant or irrelevant.

The Apostle didn't prohibit the gift or speak against it, only it's not being used in proper order. Paul went on to encourage everyone to speak in tongues (as he did more than all of them) and even more so to prophesy. And the purpose of the gift is more than just a sign. It is more importantly a prayer language and worship language ("I will pray in the Spirit . . . I will sing in the Spirit"). When the Spirit prays through us, He prays God's perfect will, so it's an irreplaceable tool for intercession. In addition, scripture says when we speak in tongues, we edify (build up) ourselves. I view it as a way to strengthren my spirit and to keep it tuned to the Holy Spirit so I can better hear His voice and follow His directions. That place from which we initiate tongues is the same place we hear God for prophetic words and words of knowledge and wisdom. So tongues frequently function as a door that leads to greater gifts that can benefit others. One common error is the tendency for folks to begin speaking in tongues and view that as the end goal which is the reason it can be abused. Instead, it's the starting point that should lead us to greater depths and functionings in the Spirit.

Ken, thank you for the excellent response. I hope this does not get to detailed for others, if so I apologize. First, concerning the Fourth cup you mentioned. The late Fr. Hannses (again this is in Jungman) proposed the end of the meal was not the fourth cup but the third. As we all know the paschal meal demanded four different times during the meal the cups were filled and drunk. The third cup was the "poterion eulogias" the cup of blessing. This is the cup that was filled immediately following the meals end. The head of the family (naturally we are speaking of a Jewish family) stood lifted the cup a little and said the prayer of thanksgiving, This prayer was a proper and solemn drink giving thanks for the meat and drink and for all the benefits God had bestowed on His people. If Fr. Hannses is correct, and I believe he his, this was the cup our Lord employed at his Last Supper. After the disciples had eaten, our Lord said a prayer of thanksgiving and gave his blood to the apostles under the species of wine.
As to the second point, yes I agree that at the end of the meal, the cup was to be "proper and solemn" a time of reflection. I'll even go one step further and state that when Paul is instructing the Corinthian church, he belives that the entire celebration was a sacramental act . Please take note I Cor. 11:26-30. v.26 states: "For as often sa you eat this bread and drink ths cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. The entire celebration, the bread, the meal, and the cup are a to proclaim the Lord's death till he comes(I will not get into the eschatology of this verse). What this means is the charismatic gifts are part of the proclaimation, as well as the fellowship. We cannot seperate the bread- meal- cup, all equally proclaim Jesus and His sacrifice as well as our redemption, that was what Paul was trying to teach them. Yes this is serious. The person of the Holy Spirit is host of the banquet and we are the invited guests. The Corinthian church was abusing this entire liturgical celebration. I'll stop here but interpret verse 29 and 30 in this context.
I agree that there was definately abuse by the Corinthians, but the abuse centered not only on the gifts (let everything be done decently and in order) but on the exclusion of other christians in the community, the divisions that existed. The reason Chp. 13 is placed between the ministeries and gifts of the Spirit was a breakdown in the church regarding "agape." The meal's place at the heart of the celebration (the agape) was to reflect the heart of each christian, one towards the other, they failed.
Ken I hope that I have answered the question. I do not believe that the solemn and proper attitude is not due to a "funerary." I believe with Fr. Hannses that the solemn nature is due to the nature of the third cup. Either way we agree to the solemn nature of the cup.
As to the CEC understanding of this at this point in time, I give them grace. I have taught RCIA, scripture, and theology/spirituality to Roman Catholic laity for a number of years. I have seen numerous times the struggle in people to understand ceratin teachings. Each person recieves at their own ability. I grant them grace. Some will never recieve certain teachings, I grant them grace. The CEC has a serious problem with training their clergy. Howvever, their are those like me who have been working diligently to teach and instruct. To help establish a seminary that will empower those to be priests and deacons that will honor our Lord not only with their lives, but with their minds. Until then, I teach, I pray, I weep, and seek to change what can be changed, but most importantly I seek to grant them grace to grow, for we are a very young commuion. Until then I love them as I have and do love the Roman Catholic church and in much of my theology the Eastern Orthodox church. Again I apologize for the lenghth of this post. Blessings

Thanks! I will read the sources you provided. It sounds extremely interesting.

The Catholic Church believes, "If we study the texts relative to the Supper, the last solemn meal taken by Our Lord with His disciples, we shall find that it was the Passover Supper, with the changes wrought by time on the primitive ritual (funeral feast), since it took place in the evening, and the guests reclined at the table. As the liturgical meal draws to a close, the Host introduces a new rite, and bids those present to repeat it when He shall have ceased to be with them. This done, they sing the customary hymn and withdraw. Such is the meal that Our Lord would have renewed, but it is plain that He did not command the repetition of the Passover Supper during the year, since it could have no meaning except on the Feast itself. Now the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles state that the repast of the Breaking of Bread took place very often, perhaps daily. (Acts 2:42) That which was repeated was, therefore, not the liturgical feast of the Jewish ritual, but the event introduced by Our Lord into this feast when, after the drinking of the fourth cup, He instituted the Breaking of Bread, the Eucharist. To what degree this new rite, repeated by the faithful, departed from the rite and formulæ of the Passover Supper, we have no means, at the present time, of determining. It is probable, however, that, in repeating the Eucharist, it was deemed fit to preserve certain portions of the Passover Supper, as much out of respect for what had taken place in the Cœnaculum as from the impossibility of breaking roughly with the Jewish Passover rite, so intimately linked by the circumstances with the Eucharistic one.
This, at its origin, is clearly marked as funerary in its intention, a fact attested by the most ancient testimonies that have come down to us. Our Lord, in instituting the Eucharist, used these words: "As often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this chalice, you shall show forth the Lord's Death". Nothing could be clearer. Our Lord chose the means generally used in His time, namely: the funeral banquet, to bind together those who remained faithful to the memory of Him who had gone. We must, however, be on our guard against associating the thought of sadness with the Eucharistic Supper, regarded in this light. If the memory of the Master's Passion made the commemoration of these last hours in any measure sad, the glorious thought of the Resurrection gave this meeting of the brethren its joyous aspect. The Christian assembly was held in the evening, and was continued far into the night. The supper, preaching, common prayer, the breaking of the bread, took up several hours; the meeting began on Saturday and ended on Sunday, thus passing from the commemoration of the sad hours to that of the triumphant moment of the Resurrection and the Eucharistic feast in very truth "showed forth the Lord's ‘Death’, as it will until He come". Our Lord's command was understood and obeyed."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01200b.htm

Ken: [QUOTE=Guest,Aug 1 2006, 11:26 AM] [QUOTE=kenfollis@juno.com,Aug 1 2006, 08:00 AM] I am the one who posted that and I mostly agree with you and appreciate the insights. I would only add that there are recorded instances where the meal later being separated from the Fourth Cup/ Eucharist took place after the Mass. This was later as the Church became multi-ethnic and developed leaving the contexts of the Passover and perhaps the funeral rite. The intent was to state that the time for sharing ones gifts with the Body was done decently and not at the Fourth Cup...it was done in the context of the whole feast, the Agape. I would think, to be Charismatic Episcopal would be to understand this. The time for individual lay person to stand and share their charism was outside of the Eucharist, which was funerary in nature and a very solemn time. Do you agree? Tertullian (Pre-Montanist) says, at the end of the feast, they would gather together and each would fufill St Paul's instruction based on 1 Cor. 14.

Guest: [QUOTE/] Ken, thank you for the excellent response. I hope this does not get to detailed for others, if so I apologize. First, concerning the Fourth cup you mentioned. The late Fr. Hannses (again this is in Jungman) proposed the end of the meal was not the fourth cup but the third. As we all know the paschal meal demanded four different times during the meal the cups were filled and drunk. The third cup was the "poterion eulogias" the cup of blessing. This is the cup that was filled immediately following the meals end. The head of the family (naturally we are speaking of a Jewish family) stood lifted the cup a little and said the prayer of thanksgiving, This prayer was a proper and solemn drink giving thanks for the meat and drink and for all the benefits God had bestowed on His people. If Fr. Hannses is correct, and I believe he his, this was the cup our Lord employed at his Last Supper. After the disciples had eaten, our Lord said a prayer of thanksgiving and gave his blood to the apostles under the species of wine.
As to the second point, yes I agree that at the end of the meal, the cup was to be "proper and solemn" a time of reflection. [/QUOTE]

Ken: I really enjoy this aspect of the Third Cup...I will look more into it.

Meanwhile, here is what I meant by The Fourth Cup. (You will need 3D glasses B) for this one. Just "cut and paste" if it is hard to read.)

http://webpages.marshall.edu/~trimbol3/4thcup4.htm

I was involved in a parish of what was then the Eastern and Central Province. When the Diocese of the South Central was established, oversight of the parish (but not the two seminarians, then studying at Nashotah House) was moved to South Central. For a variety of reasons which are not germane right now, that parish was folded and re-opened under different leadership. It lasted several months and was again folded.

Toward the end of the existence of the first parish and during the brief duration of the second, there were regular financial statements made to the congregation and to the bishop. After I, too, moved to Nashotah House, and the parish was again folded, an accounting was made.

I was also involved in an extremely sick and dysfunctional parish in Racine, WI, (part of the Central Province) which is no longer in existence, nor is the former Rector any longer part of the CEC. There were huge issues regarding leadership abuse, abuse of the confessional, financial mismanagement etc.

The final CEC parish in which I was involved was a small parish in rural SE Wisconsin. Of the four CEC churches I served, this was the best, most supportive, and healtiest by far. And regular financial -- and spiritual reports -- were made to the bishop and to the congregation. That church is still in existence, and its rector is a fine, decent, and godly man, with whom it was an absolute pleasure to work.

Ken, I apologize for not replying sooner. First, the liturgy developed and changed over time. Here I will quote from the "Encyclopedia of Theology, The Concise Sacramentum Mundi" page 460. " During the 2nd and 3rd centuries the outlines of the eucharistic service becomes clearly visible. The meal has disappeared. The prayer of Thanksgiving is now the chief feature of the rite." Also, "Between the two acts (the bread and the cup, my clarification) the meal took its course along the formal lines such as we know from the later agape. . . . The two sacramental acts must very soon have been brought together, with the result that the eucharist could be held either before of afer the meal, or even separated from it althogther."
By the time of Tertullian the meal was gone, thus since there was no longer any format for the gifts, or hymns it was moved to the end.
As I noted in another post the the meal disappered somtime after the Didache was written. By the time of Justin Martyr 150 and later Hippoltyus 215 the eucharistic celebration tally perfectly with each other.

Thanks for the insight...