Thread: The Breaking of the Bread Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024933
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
Something that's been bugging me for a while...

In the 1662 BCP (and in the 1549/52 versions) Holy Communion service, the bread is broken while the president is describing Jesus' actions at the Last Supper.

This seems to me an eminently sensible time to do it.

However, in the ASB (1980) and Common Worship order 1 (2000), it is separated from the words of institution and instead takes place later, with the versicle / response

quote:

We break this bread to share in the body of Christ.
Though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in the one bread.
I'm less than convinced by the change.

My guess would be that it dates back to sacrificial mass theology (as hated by the Reformers), where it is seen as the re-sacrificing of Jesus. But I don't know the answer, and I strongly suspect that's a straw man.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Partly, I think it depends whether you think that breaking the bread is an intrinsic part of the eucharistic action (part of what makes the eucharist the eucharist), or a simple necessity that allows several people to share one loaf.

If you think it's the former, I think you might be more likely to break the bread during the institution narrative in the eucharistic prayer. If you think it's the latter, you might break the bread immediately before it is distributed to the people.

The ASB fudged it (as it did so many things) by having an action that suggested the latter, accompanied by words that suggested the former.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
I'd tend to say that Communion is (among other things) a re-enactment of the Last Supper, and hence the breaking is important.

I'd have expected the only people to think that it just needs to be broken so that it can be distributed to be noticeably lower church than me, but I'm pretty sure they weren't the ones writing CW...
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
My guess is that the Anglican revisions were influenced by Gregory Dix's 'four action' theory of the eucharist: taking, blessing, breaking, giving. There was a fad among some liturgists (still in favour in some places) not to touch the bread and wine at all during the eucharistic prayer, until the final elevation at the doxology.

That is not of course Roman Catholic practice, but the deferral of the Fraction until later certainly is. Aidan Kavanagh explains: 'The eucharist is not a mnemonic tableau of an historical event. It is a sweeping thanksgiving for the whole of the Father's benevolence toward the world and his people in Christ and the Holy Spirit... Mimicking the details of what Jesus did at only one of those meals thus historicizes a mystery which transcends time and place...'

I don't know of any churches that use 'little wafers' without also using at least one big one which is big enough to be broken, and seen by the congregation. Little wafers are one of my bêtes noirs, but no more so than little pre-sliced cubes of bread. There is no reason why large wafers, preferably just one but if necessary more, shouldn't be used exclusively.

Anyway, even if the bread is broken at the words of institution, this can only be a symbolic fraction: breaking into enough pieces for a congregation is going to have to be done later unless the prayer is interrupted.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I'd tend to say that Communion is (among other things) a re-enactment of the Last Supper, and hence the breaking is important.

I'd have expected the only people to think that it just needs to be broken so that it can be distributed to be noticeably lower church than me, but I'm pretty sure they weren't the ones writing CW...
Conversely, it may be (I'm speculating here) that seeing it as a re-enactment suggests a memorialist view, whereas seeing it as a ritualisation suggests ... um ... something else*.

The difference in my mind being, a re-enactment requires the words and actions to happen just as we're told they happened at the Last Supper, whereas a ritualisation may be freer to change word and action in order to change the whole thing into something rather different.

I'm of the latter turn of mind. I don't think the eucharist is a re-enactment of the Last Supper. I think it's a ritual act presenting our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Christ's sacrifice of himself, a faint foreshadowing of the heavenly banquet, and probably some other stuff too*. As part of the whole thing, there's a little bit where the action slows and pauses, and the story of the Last Supper is told.


*Sorry, I'm glossing over a lot here to avoid a horribly long post.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I'd tend to say that Communion is (among other things) a re-enactment of the Last Supper, and hence the breaking is important.

I'd have expected the only people to think that it just needs to be broken so that it can be distributed to be noticeably lower church than me, but I'm pretty sure they weren't the ones writing CW...
Once, I've even heard a bishop say that in the Communion service we were re-enacting the Last Supper. I opened my eyes and looked up at him.

The whole of Jesus' life is there, including the night he was betrayed, but something much more is going on. We're re-presenting Calvary:

"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

And because his is risen, his is both in and out of space and time draws us to himself in the Holy Sacrifice.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
We can agree there are loads of important aspects and emphases of Communion - past, present, future; upwards, inwards, outwards and so on.

I guess I'm interested in the concept of Communion as being something other than what was instituted at the Last Supper. I see "do this in remembrance of me" as being the controlling text - that Communion is a re-enactment of the Last Supper and hence a continually re-enacted sacramental parable of the sacrifice of the Cross.

(And no, I don't especially like cubes of bread either but at least they were all baked as part of one loaf.)
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
In the 1662 BCP (and in the 1549/52 versions) Holy Communion service, the bread is broken while the president is describing Jesus' actions at the Last Supper......However, in the ASB (1980) and Common Worship order 1 (2000)......I'm less than convinced by the change.
It was 1552 and 1662 that made the 'change'. All ancient liturgies had the breaking during the agnus Dei or similar and ASB restored that.

So the 'change' is a mere 400-year-old blip in a church on a tiny island called England out of 2 millennia of liturgy.

(Also, I am fairly sure the fraction did not take place during the Dominical words in 1549 either)

[ 10. October 2012, 15:54: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:

(And no, I don't especially like cubes of bread either but at least they were all baked as part of one loaf.)
Do you imagine every individual wafer was baked on its own?
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I guess I'm interested in the concept of Communion as being something other than what was instituted at the Last Supper. I see "do this in remembrance of me" as being the controlling text - that Communion is a re-enactment of the Last Supper and hence a continually re-enacted sacramental parable of the sacrifice of the Cross.
But the word that is typically translated as "remembrance" in English has a rather deeper meaning in the original Greek, especially when considered in the context of Judaism. The phrase is perhaps better translated as "Do this as a memorial for me." The concept of a memorial in Judaism would have the undertones of making a past event a present reality in which those making the memorial participate. The prime example of this would be the seder. (See Exodus 12 -- "this day shall be for you a memorial.") The seder is more than a re-enactment of the Passover; it is a participation in it. "This night" is different from all others not just because our ancestors were brought forth from the land of Egypt, but because we were. The recitation associated with the offering of the first fruits (Deut. 26) offers another example.

And Jesus doesn't say "do this to remember this night" or "this supper"; he says "to remember me." As others have noted, what is memorialized in the Eucharist is more than the Last Supper. It is the whole of the paschal mystery.

I think that looking at the Eucharist as re-enactment of the Last Supper misses and perhaps even obscures the deeper meanings.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This question is, I suppose, related also to the parallel thread about sacrifice.

Can any shipmate tell me whether I am correct that in some churches (and if so, which?) the bread, in stead of being broken with the hands, is cut with a spear, which represents the spear which Longinus stuck in Jesus's side on the cross to ascertain whether he was dead?
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
What Nick Tamen said - [Overused]

I was always under the impression that the breaking of the bread happens after the Eucharistic prayer because breaking the bread is the sacrifice. In the BCP the fraction is followed with: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us / Therefore let us keep the feast"

That might be why the first English prayer book moved it - to get away from the idea of the Mass as sacrifice (which I'd guess is why our tradition moved the epiclesis till after the words of institution - anyone know?).

"Sacrifice," of course, means several things here. There is the participation in Christ's sacrifice, whether you locate that only on the Cross or in his whole Incarnation. There's also the fact that we are offering bread and wine to God (to become the Body and Blood of Christ), which is returned to us to eat and drink - much like ancient sacrificial victims, whether animal meat or grain or whatever, were given to priests or people to consume. Whatever we give to God, God gives back to us, transformed, in order to transform us. Ultimately, "sacrifice" means "make sacred." We also offer ourselves, a living sacrifice (the BCP has this language explicitly, and the people cross themselves just as the priest has crossed the elements).

[ETA: But at any rate, especially if you hold to transubstantiation, you wouldn't break the bread until it has become the Body of Christ. However, since RCs have the epiclesis before the words of institution, and people bow at the words, "do this in remembrance of me" (or whatever the exact wording is), I suppose that's the point when the transubstantiation is believed to have happened, so the fraction, I suppose could take place there?]

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There was a fad among some liturgists (still in favour in some places) not to touch the bread and wine at all during the eucharistic prayer, until the final elevation at the doxology.

That is not of course Roman Catholic practice,
The BCP (1979, at least) requires that all the elements be touched. I've noticed when I attend Mass at the Jesuit School of Theology here in Berkeley that the priest only touches the bread he's elevating, etc., and the chalice of wine - not any additional bread or wine that may be on the altar for consecration. Is that the common RC practice?

Recently I attended a noonday Mass (Sept. 11, it so happened) at the Oakland (RC) cathedral, and was surprised to see the priest break the bread (large wafer) at the words of institution! Was that a slip on his part? I've never seen it done in a Catholic or Episcopal Mass.

[ 10. October 2012, 23:24: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
(which I'd guess is why our tradition moved the epiclesis till after the words of institution - anyone know?).
I think that's the default position in most Eastern anaphoras, with the other way around more common in the West.

quote:

The BCP (1979, at least) requires that all the elements be touched. I've noticed when I attend Mass at the Jesuit School of Theology here in Berkeley that the priest only touches the bread he's elevating, etc., and the chalice of wine - not any additional bread or wine that may be on the altar for consecration. Is that the common RC practice?
You don't have to touch all the elements. At most parish Sunday masses, it would impossible to touch them all at once. At large Episcopalian Eucharists, is the presiding priest meant to touch all the elements in succession at a particular moment in the Eucharistic Prayer? I've never noticed this.

quote:

Recently I attended a noonday Mass (Sept. 11, it so happened) at the Oakland (RC) cathedral, and was surprised to see the priest break the bread (large wafer) at the words of institution! Was that a slip on his part? I've never seen it done in a Catholic or Episcopal Mass.
I guess you can get away with that when you have no bishop... It was popular for a while, amongst priests who though they were play-acting Jesus rather than acting in the person of his head, but I thought that had died out. Maybe it was simple forgetfulness. The host is to be broken during the Lamb of God.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Mimicking the details of what Jesus did at only one of those meals thus historicizes a mystery which transcends time and place...'
As much as I enjoy some Kavanagh every now and then, wouldn't that also mean it is a bit silly for the priest to elevate his eyes skyward during the Roman Canon? Yet this is still in the rubrics. I'm not sure this justification could be used for the fraction, unless it also covers other ritual actions, including the taking/lifting of the bread and cup.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The fraction roved around a little bit historically speaking. Before Gregory the Great it was after the Canon; then it was during the Agnus, but eventually drifted to during the doxology at the end of the Prayer 'Delier us, O lord, from all evils...' after the Lord's Prayer. The Commixture then took lace during the Pax.

The 1662 BCP position is peculiar and does not reflect what was in the 1559 BCP which prescribes no manual acts for the celebrant during the Prayer of Consecration. These were introduced in 1662 and reflect a Laudian rather than a Memorialist or Cranmerian understanding of the Eucharist. I do not have my 1549 handy, but IIRC, I think the instructions there are simply for the priest to take the bread and the Cup into his hands at the Words of Institution or Consecration and forbid him to elevate them.

About all that can be said is that the precedents are very definitely in favour of breaking the bread somewhere between the end of the Canon and the Priest's Communion. Even Cranmer's more Reformed second thoughts seem have been to have been to push this action later in the service rather than isolate it as some sort of mimicking of Our Lord's action at the Supper in the middle of the Institution Narrative. This would be consistent with his 'True Presence' beliefs which were not far from those of Calvin and Bucer.

Modern Anglican uses tend to divide a bit wraggedly between those who have the fraction at the end of the Canon (Scottish 1982), those who do it between the Lord's Prayer and Communion with its own special versicle and response, and those who follow traditional or modern RC practice. I tend to favour a purely functional fraction during the Agnus Dei, but having grown up on the 1662 I often have a liturgical Brain-fart and break the Bread at the words of institution!

PD

[ 11. October 2012, 05:25: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
Just checking the 1549 and 1552...

1549 has the priest taking the bread and cup in his hands at the institution / consecration - (same as 1662 but with no breaking specified).
The institution / consecration is a long way before the reception (allegedly because people thought God was more present between consecration and reception, hence more likely to listen to prayers). There is no specified fraction; elevation is forbidden.

1552 has the institution immediately before the reception, with no manual actions specified at all (and of course no formal language of consecration).

1559 same as 1552 in that respect.

All very interesting. So far, though, the only justifications I've seen for the specific location of the fraction in Common Worship are either tradition (which is a valid reason but was presumably started for some other reason) or the belief that the fraction is in some sense the reenactment / representation of Calvary.
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
The reason the fraction is not part of the eucharistic prayer in ASB and CW is that, as noted above, these rites follow Dix's Four Action Shape - as do most modern rites and as was generally the case in the past. BCP / Cranmer is the historical odd one out.

However, moe recent thinking has nuanced Dix. He saw the Four Actions as equal but nowadays we (liturgists) twend to see the taking and breaking as functional - i.e. you take in order to give thanks over and you break in order to share. Logically then breaking the bread might be parallelled by pouring wine but no tradition I know of has done that. It is possible to put too much theological wqeight on taking and breaking - the former becomes 'offertory' in Dix.

I don't think we are exactly reenacting the last supper - anamnesis has a rather broader / subtler meaning than that.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
One could argue that if you use 'real' bread, there is no need for a specific 'fraction' since you break a piece off in front of each communicant as you go along.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Logically then breaking the bread might be parallelled by pouring wine but no tradition I know of has done that.
Actually, that was very popular amongst RCs for a while after the council. It was only recently the practice of consecrating in carafes and then pouring during the Agnus Dei was stopped. One of the books we read for Liturgical Celebration class still says to do it and the prof has to remind us that that's not allowed anymore.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Logically then breaking the bread might be parallelled by pouring wine but no tradition I know of has done that.
Actually, that was very popular amongst RCs for a while after the council. It was only recently the practice of consecrating in carafes and then pouring during the Agnus Dei was stopped. One of the books we read for Liturgical Celebration class still says to do it and the prof has to remind us that that's not allowed anymore.
Accompanying the breaking of the bread with the pouring of the wine is the norm in my Presbyterian experience.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
The reason the fraction is not part of the eucharistic prayer in ASB and CW is that, as noted above, these rites follow Dix's Four Action Shape - as do most modern rites and as was generally the case in the past. BCP / Cranmer is the historical odd one out.

However, moe recent thinking has nuanced Dix. He saw the Four Actions as equal but nowadays we (liturgists) twend to see the taking and breaking as functional - i.e. you take in order to give thanks over and you break in order to share. Logically then breaking the bread might be parallelled by pouring wine but no tradition I know of has done that. It is possible to put too much theological wqeight on taking and breaking - the former becomes 'offertory' in Dix.

I don't think we are exactly reenacting the last supper - anamnesis has a rather broader / subtler meaning than that.
I think that Charles (as always!!) has the basic facts of the matter clearly explained.

I must admit that, having read Dix when I was studying Theology as university MANY years ago, I was never convinced by his arguments and have always been rather puzzled by the (at times slavish) adherence to his views within the C of E.

I'm glad that more recent Anglican liturgical thinking has drawn back from über-Dixian positions! I well remember a training day on the Eucharist given by my diocesan director of clergy education. His directions on how to preside at the Eucharist were pure Dix and he gave the impression that this was the ONLY way to do it. I took great joy at my first presiding at the Eucharist in NOT following his instructions to the letter!
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
I'm not a big fan of Dix - he always strikes me as the sort of person who thought the Reformation was a Bad Thing.

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
I don't think we are exactly reenacting the last supper - anamnesis has a rather broader / subtler meaning than that.
Well, yes. At the same time, we need to be clear that Communion springs primarily from the Last Supper rather than (for example) the feeding of the 5k, the cross, or the meal on the road to Emmaus. Why else is the institution narrative always from the Last Supper?
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One could argue that if you use 'real' bread, there is no need for a specific 'fraction' since you break a piece off in front of each communicant as you go along.
Having worked in a 'real bread' parish for some years, we suffered through (and I use the verb deliberately) two different breaking methods. The first was done by the celebrant at the VP altar, during an extended Fraction Anthem -- it always seemed to take forever. The second form was as Leo describes, breaking a piece off the loaf in front of each. This always looked clumsy, as if the loaf (and tray) were about to hit the floor, and always resulted in lots of crumbs all over the floor. A 'housling cloth' (sp?) would have been helpful.
It was a relief when we reverted to what one of our older ladies called 'those nice little round things that the sweet nuns bake' (And no, I didn't make that up!
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I'm not a big fan of Dix - he always strikes me as the sort of person who thought the Reformation was a Bad Thing.

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
I don't think we are exactly reenacting the last supper - anamnesis has a rather broader / subtler meaning than that.
Well, yes. At the same time, we need to be clear that Communion springs primarily from the Last Supper rather than (for example) the feeding of the 5k, the cross, or the meal on the road to Emmaus. Why else is the institution narrative always from the Last Supper?
Because it was instituted at the Last Supper. That doesn't mean it's all about the Last Supper, or even that it primarily springs from it.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I'd tend to say that Communion is (among other things) a re-enactment of the Last Supper, and hence the breaking is important.

Historically the place for the fraction is the Agnus Dei. Breaking the bread during the words of institution has always seemed to me a bit like turning the Eucharist into a play, or one of those silly kids' songs with "motions".

The Eucharist is not the Last Supper; it recalls it. It's not a play, and the priest isn't Jesus.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
... It was only recently the practice of consecrating in carafes and then pouring during the Agnus Dei was stopped. One of the books we read for Liturgical Celebration class still says to do it and the prof has to remind us that that's not allowed anymore.
Why? Like a lot of 'things Ecclesiantic', it seems a very odd issue to be dogmatic about.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
There's too much possibility of spillage. The only movement of Precious Blood out of a vessel should be into through the lips of the faithful, not into another vessel.
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
First, thanks to Hart and others for expanding my liturgical education about wine pouring. An anecdote about Arthur Couratin (CofE liturgist from middle of last century)- he was absent mindedly presiding at the eucharist (in Durham Cathedral I think) and was heard to say "Likewise after supper he took the cup, broke it and said...".

The Agnus Dei was apparently originally incorporated into the eucharist as a mediaeval worship song to 'cover'the fraction - i.e. breaking the bread into sufficient pieces for the communicants so you don't break off a piece for each person as you pass along the line. (I still try to break off enough - we use real bread - before I start down the line each time).

If one follows the institution narrative accounts literally in re-enacting the Last Supper then you do follow the Dixian Four Action shape as the accounts have Jesus giving thanks before breaking the bread.

1Cor. 11:26 is I think a key text (at least I tell students it is...) - there you have past, present and future all linked in the eucharist: we proclaim now what happened then (ie the death of Jesus, not the Last Supper) but looking to the parousia.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Because it was instituted at the Last Supper. That doesn't mean it's all about the Last Supper, or even that it primarily springs from it.
Of course it isn't about the Last Supper. Even the Last Supper itself isn't about the Last Supper. But it is about the Cross and Resurrection, and our sharing in those by faith, just as the Last Supper is about the cross and resurrection.

All of this is making me think that perhaps ditching the Fraction is the best way to go. I certainly haven't seen anyone rushing to defend the CW liturgy in any terms other than appealing to decidedly unReformed theology or tradition based on no-longer-extant needs. And if the 1662 rubrics are based on Laudian theology (as seems distinctly possible), that seems good enough reason in itself to ditch them.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
All of this is making me think that perhaps ditching the Fraction is the best way to go.
Though the action seems significant enough that the Book of Acts refers to the Eucharist as "the breaking of the bread," and Paul has a few things to say about the "the bread that we break." So while Dix may have over emphasized the fraction, I would be loath to ditch it.
 
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :
 
quote:
we use real bread
Does this mean leavened bread? Did Jesus then use fake bread at the Last Supper? Most scholars agree that what he used was unleavened; for me that makes it more, not less, 'real' than the bread I use for my sandwiches.

'Getting real' demands that we get rid of our modern Western cultural prejudices and acknowledge that the leavened bread used today at the Divine Liturgy, and the unleavened bread used at the Mass, are both 'real' bread.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
All of this is making me think that perhaps ditching the Fraction is the best way to go.
Though the action seems significant enough that the Book of Acts refers to the Eucharist as "the breaking of the bread," and Paul has a few things to say about the "the bread that we break." So while Dix may have over emphasized the fraction, I would be loath to ditch it.
I wonder to what extent (if at all) Jewish practice came into play at same point here. As I understand it, the long-standing (at least as far back as the Talmud) practice for the blessing of bread requires both the recitation of the ritual blessing and the breaking of the bread. The pattern -- at least on Sabbath and holy days -- is that the loaves previously placed on the table and covered are uncovered, the blessing is recited while the loaves are held by the one saying the blessing, and after the blessing the bread is broken and shared by all present. (No words are spoken until all have eaten of the bread.) It is the presence of bread and the use of the blessing that distinguishes a meal from, say, a snack, and in Jewish usage, "breaking bread" means the recitation of this blessing and sharing of the bread.

By contrast, for kiddush as well as the more general blessing for wine, the cup is filled prior to the blessing being said.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Though the action seems significant enough that the Book of Acts refers to the Eucharist as "the breaking of the bread," and Paul has a few things to say about the "the bread that we break." So while Dix may have over emphasized the fraction, I would be loath to ditch it.
And that is a very good argument for keeping it in.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
I remember reading somewhere ages ago now - it might have been Couratin, can't remember - that in a Lutheran rite the fraction is of little significance whereas in a Calvinist rite it is in fact very important.
To me it is more functional than anything else - a convenient way of distributing the consecrated species.Whether that's because I'm largely sympathetic to Lutheran eucharistic thinking I don't know! [Smile] And no doubt Olaf or somebody will post to the effect that I'm quite wrong!
One thing is that in 1662 the fraction comes before the words of institution, ie before what a lot of people would regard as the moment of consecration. In the modern rites it comes after the Prayer of Consecration
It suggests - the rites from Series 1 onwards possibly a more Lutheran view of the Eucharist and your views on this will depend on whether you adopt a Calvinistic view of the Eucharist or a Lutheran ( or Catholic) view
And I suspect it also depends on whether on how you view the Cross in relation to the Resurrection. 1662 , beautiful as it is seems to me to be not altogether satisfying in this respect.....An Orthodoxen or even an Anglican who has Orthodox sympathies will give a different answer to this than will someone who is more Reformed in their views. A lot of things about the Eucharist will depend on your starting point perhaps?

[ 12. October 2012, 16:07: Message edited by: Stephen ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
in 1662 the fraction comes before the words of institution,
1662 has the fraction where Jesus did the fraction!
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Apologies Leo - you are quite right - which only goes to show how used I'm not to 1662
I've only encountered it in England to be honest - we've had a revised Eucharist here in Wales since 1967 - and I don't know of churches off the top of my head that use it round here, although I think they can do so
Should have checked!
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
Could you point me to a rite you'd consider more "Calvinist"? What do they do with the fraction?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Well there is a comparison between two of Calvin's own rites in this paper on Calvin and Worship. The fraction in both is clearly after the words of Institution. However Calvin is not normative for Reformed worship but it is in a similar place in the most historic of the current URC worship book.

However in the Church of Scotland the fraction seems to be placed both within the institution and following as a separate act.

I have not been able to find what Zwingli did in Zurich (and am struggling to find one by Bucer that is easily available) so there is nothing definitive.

Jengie
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Well I suppose

something like this

( Scroll down to the Lord's Supper)

Also something a friend of mine told me about how Holy Communion was done in his Congregational church many years back ( of course it might all have changed by now and I may not be remembering it accurately)
It seems that the words of institution were said, the bread broken and distributed and shared and the same procedure with the cup. I think I've got it right.
According to Wiki the Plymouth Brethren

do something similar

Again you'll need to scroll down

Although I think perhaps Jengie is more well-informed on this than me....
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Whilst I was in EnZed for five years I was doing BCP twice a week and contemporary rites two or three or more times a week, and without noticing slipped into the habit of breaking twice. Actually, theologically, I don't supoose it's a huge sin, but it's not quite liturgically just so.

I usually had three or four CD sized wafers for my main congregation, about two for my smaller Sunday congregation, and used the visually somewhat confused "priest and peoples" (we all share the same bread but some is more the same than others) for midweeks. In each case I was doing a quaint cracking for the words of institution, breaking completely at the Fraction - and of course the completion of the act during the Agnus Dei. Which is all the Agnus Dei is there for but that's another thread.

I was doing it here twice, too, until a retired bishop in my congregation called me over "young man ... I want a word with you". [Hot and Hormonal]

He called me young! I was immediately won over and desisted. I'm a shameless theological hussy.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Stephen

Standard Non-Conformist practice up to the middle of twentieth century. The practice also went like this


Some Churches of Christ who had communion weekly kept that order right up to 1981.

The low key approach seems to have grown up due to historical circumstance. In times of persecution due to the difficulty of getting ministers to celebrate when communion would be celebrated infrequently. This led to the normal life of the congregation going on independently of it. Secondly the meal has always been a meal of the faithful. The growth of the evangelical service of the Word which attracted the non-committed meant that putting it in with such services was difficult. The high Scots way with its infrequent communion but seasons which included preparation (fasting, evangelical services and moral inspections of individuals) as well as communion was too alien.

Jengie
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0