|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: When is a eucharist not a eucharist?
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To go back to my question, does Communion fail to be all that it could be if all we explicitely remember in our words is part of the Last Supper narrative?
I realize your dialogue is not with me and I can't answer for Zach82, so I hope you won't mind if I continue to contribute.
In terms of the service in which the receiving of communion takes place, whether things can be done in a better way is certainly a fair question to ask. And the answer is bound to be yes, almost always. Is it possible that there has ever been a church service which someone has not criticized in some way?
Some people perhaps may not appreciate or get value from their communion if they don't have it presented in such a way that satisfies them. Some people are never satisfied. And some people have particular needs which ought to be recognized and seen to. A need to understand, to prepare adquately, to feel an emotional or intellectual connection with what's going on. To an extent, we must all fall into this category.
But so far as the communion itself goes (from an Anglican viewpoint) it can hardly fail to be what it should or could be, because it is the Body and Blood of Christ. However we may fail in presentation or reception or the negotiables surrounding the sacrament, unless the Spirit refuses the invitation to consecrate the elements, the communion makes us partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ (among other things) which is precisely what it is intended to do. Job done.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But so far as the communion itself goes (from an Anglican viewpoint) it can hardly fail to be what it should or could be, because it is the Body and Blood of Christ.
Christ may not be the words, but he is the Word. He is set forth in the Eucharist by the words and the actions which form part of the sacrament. Therefore, success looks assured. On the other hand, neither biblical texts nor sacraments can order God around, so failure is always possible. Christ has given us his assurance of being with us and among us, but we have no way of holding him to this, or binding him to us, other than the love he has always promised. So I suppose, to me, the answer to the question "when is a eucharist not a eucharist?" is when it not intended by those gathered to offer it, of whom the celebrant is merely the "arms and legs", to be focus and means of expression of God's infinite love. If it is done for any other reason, it must fail, because we do not bring to it the necessary means of receiving it: an open-hearted intention to receive that love.
[ 14. March 2013, 16:02: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I would add that the, even if for some reason the service of the Word is not performed along with the service of the Table within a particular Eucharist, it still takes place in the Church, which is never without the context of the Gospel. The Church has been living, telling and rehearsing the Gospel for 2000 years. And it's not like the Word is proclaimed anew at each service because the congregation has forgotten it in the span of a week!
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I add even MORE furtherer that Jesus has promised that he gives himself in the Eucharist, and nothing can remove or lessen God's promises. But we can fail to discern the body in the Eucharist and in each other, and this can cut us off from the grace we actually receive. Proclaiming the Gospel is part of helping us discern the body. Word and Sacrament are mutually reinforcing means of bringing us to union with God.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
So I suppose, to me, the answer to the question "when is a eucharist not a eucharist?" is when it not intended by those gathered to offer it, of whom the celebrant is merely the "arms and legs", to be focus and means of expression of God's infinite love. If it is done for any other reason, it must fail, because we do not bring to it the necessary means of receiving it: an open-hearted intention to receive that love.
I think you make some very fair points especially about ordering God around. It's only through God's great graciousness that the communion is possible, not because we will it to happen. And maybe we are, or I am being presumptuous that it happens every time? I don't know. I guess I tend to think of the communion as a kind of long-standing engagement for anyone wishing to partake - a perpetual invitation from God who promises always to be there when we truly move towards him.
And that it's there irrespective of the hearts and motives of the celebrant or even of the majority of the congregation. The idea, to me, that a celebration of communion wouldn't genuinelly provide the recipient with the Body and Blood of Christ just seems unbelievable. But again, I don't know. Maybe if there wasn't a single believing heart in the building, it wouldn't be communion?!
I still think God would show up - though as Zach82 suggests, the efficacy of the communion would necessarily be limited by its poor reception. Zach refers to one of my own favourite reflections on communion about 'discerning the Body' - which has always spoken to me of the responsibility, so far as we are able to respond, of the recipient.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Fool of the ship
It is Reformed understanding that Christ as the Word is present in the act of Word being proclaimed. That because it is in his nature to be that. I would suggest a theology of proclamation that did not take this into consideration is lacking.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm trying to get at an answer to my earlier question, how much of the service can you do without before the Communion fails to be all that it could be?
Is any service 'all that it could be'? A worship leader might do well to keep a thought like that in mind when planning the service.
I admit the "all that it could be" is because I don't consider 'valid' to be and appropriate term to use. I strongly suspect we can do everything 'wrong' and it would still be Communion; God is gracious that way. Which doesn't excuse us for not trying our best.
quote:
And doesn't the answer depend on: what are the legitimate expectations contingent on a) church tradition b) custom c) what one believes God is trying to say or do?
Of course. I mentioned earlier in the thread that there would be a context, and the church tradition and customs
is part of that context. What may work for a small Reformed congregation will probably not work in a large Anglican Cathederal, what works on a main Sunday worship may be inappropriate for a midweek Communion at a chaplaincy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I thought you were a memorialist because it's the only way I can make sense of your questions. If the bread and wine actually become the Word of God, then all these questions about proclamation are resolved. It is the Word of God.
True, I don't believe the bread and wine change in any way. However, at Communion Christ is present in a particular way such that we in some real, but mysterious, sense eat and drink him and are sustained by him. Something happens that is more than what happens at other times when we remember Christ.
None of which alters the fact that we celebrate Communion to remember Christ, and therefore there needs to be a memorial.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I thought you were a memorialist because it's the only way I can make sense of your questions. If the bread and wine actually become the Word of God, then all these questions about proclamation are resolved. It is the Word of God.
True, I don't believe the bread and wine change in any way. However, at Communion Christ is present in a particular way such that we in some real, but mysterious, sense eat and drink him and are sustained by him. Something happens that is more than what happens at other times when we remember Christ.
None of which alters the fact that we celebrate Communion to remember Christ, and therefore there needs to be a memorial.
Since you don't like the word memorialist, then I can rephrase: if you are going to presuppose that Christ is received only in an abstract, intellectual manner, then obviously it would be meaningless to the uninitiated.
Since the Eucharist is always celebrated in the context of the Church, it is never without the context necessary to make it a memorial. The congregation knows the story.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Since the Eucharist is always celebrated in the context of the Church, it is never without the context necessary to make it a memorial. The congregation knows the story.
Yes, on that I'd agree. Which is where my question comes in, how much of that context can you remove? I just realised that part of the potential confusion is that I'm in part answering a question raised on a different thread; I'm getting mixed up with threads, so no surprises if things aren't clear.
On that thread, Kalr LB posted an account of an informal pub service
quote:
After an unstructured couple of hours of chat and questionable attempts to exercise prophecy (don't ask; you don't want to know) someone put some grape juice and rolls on the table, muttered something about having some bread and grape juice, and closed the meeting sort of offering them up is someone wanted some.
That reads like something where there has been little context. Is that still a Eucharist?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Grape juice? In a pub? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Since the Eucharist is always celebrated in the context of the Church, it is never without the context necessary to make it a memorial. The congregation knows the story.
Yes, on that I'd agree. Which is where my question comes in, how much of that context can you remove? I just realised that part of the potential confusion is that I'm in part answering a question raised on a different thread; I'm getting mixed up with threads, so no surprises if things aren't clear.
On that thread, Kalr LB posted an account of an informal pub service
quote:
After an unstructured couple of hours of chat and questionable attempts to exercise prophecy (don't ask; you don't want to know) someone put some grape juice and rolls on the table, muttered something about having some bread and grape juice, and closed the meeting sort of offering them up is someone wanted some.
That reads like something where there has been little context. Is that still a Eucharist?
In my tradition, no, since the Eucharist is defined by form, matter, and intention, all of which are lacking in your scenario. The Eucharist is a memorial, but simply being a memorial is not enough to be a Eucharist. In my tradition, anyway.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
In Anglican terms the compulsory elements of a communion are basically: summary of the law, confession/absolution,...
Then neartly every eucharist i have been to for the past 50 years wasn't Anglican.
Never, ever have the summary of the law. Do have 6 or 9fold kyrie,
Until Common Worship, we never had the confession/absolution on a weekday. Still don't at the Easter vigil, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday or Candlemas.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
FWIW, here's my stab at the absolute minimum for a valid Eucharist (other than the elements themselves:
1. Two or more people gathered together. If you're by yourself it ain't Communion; you can certainly commune with God on your own, but Communion is inherently an act of a gathered community.
2. Someone present should be authorized to celebrate by an ecclesial body. I don't think this has to be someone in "apostolic succession," but it is important for things to be done decently and in order.
3. A blessing of the elements needs to be said. Just passing out bread and wine is not Communion. I've seen this happen at a megachurch I visited and did not participate.
4. The celebrant must wear a maniple (just kidding).
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
2. Someone present should be authorized to celebrate by an ecclesial body. I don't think this has to be someone in "apostolic succession," but it is important for things to be done decently and in order.
I confess to not understanding this. Whilst I can agree that things should be done in good order, I can't see how that can affect the validity of the sacrament.
If I may make a comparison, anyone may baptize, and a baptism with water and the Triune Name is valid. In the interests of good order, baptism should be done by an ordained minister and preferably in the context of a regular assembly of the church, but these aren't necessary for validity.
So if you don't think the apostolic succession is necessary, then surely three Christian friends gathering together, and nominating Dave to preside is valid?
If you do believe apostolic succession is necessary in some form, then Dave needs to have been validly ordained or commissioned in the apostolic succession, however you understand that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So if you don't think the apostolic succession is necessary, then surely three Christian friends gathering together, and nominating Dave to preside is valid?
I suppose Al Eluia wouldn't consider three Christian friends gathering together to be an 'ecclesial body'. Such a celebration of Communion would be perfectly okay in my view, however.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I suppose Al Eluia wouldn't consider three Christian friends gathering together to be an 'ecclesial body'. Such a celebration of Communion would be perfectly okay in my view, however.
Certainly nothing sinister about it, and perfectly valid as a service of worship. Probably shouldn't be counted as a Eucharist, though, in the service register if it's an Anglican church.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So if you don't think the apostolic succession is necessary, then surely three Christian friends gathering together, and nominating Dave to preside is valid?
I suppose Al Eluia wouldn't consider three Christian friends gathering together to be an 'ecclesial body'. Such a celebration of Communion would be perfectly okay in my view, however.
Though, whether three friends gathering together would be an ecclesial body with authority to appoint Dave to preside will depend upon their ecclesiology. As said, in the more Catholic churches like the Anglicans, those three friends may be an ecclesial body but not authorised to appoint Dave to preside (unless Dave is an ordained minister anyway). Within Congregationalism (in Scotland, which is what I'm familiar with, at any rate) the ecclesial body with such authority would be the Church Meeting - and three friends meeting would not constitute such a Meeting (it would need to be called, announced at least two weeks in advance, have an appointed chair and secretary etc). And, now most Congregational churches are in the URC there's an additional denominational authority to be called on as well.
Your Ecclesiology would need to be very loose to consider three mates getting together to be an ecclesial body with any authority of that sort. Although, a church could develop a theology, with the ecclesial authority of that church, which stated that Communion could be celebrated at any time members of the church gathered, and that the Communion be presided over by one (or more) of the members present, selected by the members present. Which is slightly different, as it's not just an ad hoc arrangement.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Oblatus - I expect you're correct regarding the Anglican context but I was speaking specifically from my perspective (I'm part of a Vineyard church).
Alan Cresswell - I'm not certain but I think my church would be fine with a group of friends gathering informally and celebrating Communion together. The authority for any of the people gathered to preside* would be implicit, but I think it would be there; you could describe it as a 'Why not?' approach. I know this approach will not sit comfortably with many Christians, of course!
*I use the word 'preside' in a loose sense; what would happen, I expect, is that the person whose idea it was to share Communion at the gathering would bring the bread and wine / juice, with that person and maybe others saying something based on the relevant Bible passages. All very informal, quite possibly with no one obviously leading.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
In Anglican terms the compulsory elements of a communion are basically: summary of the law, confession/absolution,...
Then neartly every eucharist i have been to for the past 50 years wasn't Anglican.
Never, ever have the summary of the law. Do have 6 or 9fold kyrie,
Until Common Worship, we never had the confession/absolution on a weekday. Still don't at the Easter vigil, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday or Candlemas.
I think I did say that these were 'basically' the elements? But you're quite right that mid-weeks and exceptional eucharists do have their own requirements. In true Anglican tradition 'compulsory' is more about custom/tradition than compulsion. More about what you learn at college should be included in the bog-standard communion, than what you'll probably end up doing, depending on the custom of your current church.
Though omitting or mucking about with the consecration prayer, or the general structure would probably quite legitimately raise a complaint.
The summary of the Law as in 'Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ says...', I suppose, would not be seen as important by some. I'm just going by the rubric. For midweeks, I omit it, myself. As I would the Gloria and the Creed. The Kyries are (at least CofI-wise) optional. Though the Kyrie confessions are rather a nice change. After the invitation to the table, we tend to say nothing at all. In most CofE churches I remember, there would nearly always have been an Agnus Dei and some kind of 'Behold, the Lamb of God....' or something similar; but we rarely if ever do that in this corner of Anglicanism.
And the rubrics instructing the use of The Beatitudes and the Recital of the 10 Commandments in place of 'the summary of the Law' are only very occasionaly observed in our shack.
I personally wouldn't feel happy omitting the confession and absolution. Mainly because I wouldn't see the point in doing so whereas I can see very good reasons why approaching God after permitting him to remove our sins, before receiving Christ in the sacrament, is a good thing.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Anselmina --
While I generally agree with what you say, and with what you've said on this thread, please go a little easy on what "Anglicans" have in their rubrics. This is, obviously, a global website and this thread wasn't limited to what goes on in the CofE or the various anglican churches in the British Isles. So it's a bit offputting to read that the summary of the law is required in Anglican rubrics -- when it clearly is not so required by the rubrics in at least that part of the Anglican communion I call home.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
John Holding, I apologise. I should've made it plain I was talking from my own experience of CofE and CofI worship.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The summary of the Law.... I'm just going by the rubric.
Which rubric. I am 99% certain there is no such rubric.
The only rubric pertaining to anything like this is 1662 where the 10 Commandments were mandated or the 1928 where the summary of the law was an alternative.
I have hardly ever encountered either - it seems to have been only very low/evangelical churches that used them.
MOTR to anglo-catholics always used/use the kyries.
Indeed, musical mass settings would be odd without them.
[ 17. March 2013, 15:00: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Maybe Anselmina is referring to a rubric in the C of I?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
leo, you seem terribly anxious about all this 'summary of the law' business!
In answer to someone's question, I make a reference to some part of a liturgy being compulsory for a certain service and quite rightly someone picks up on the reference being inaccurate. Which I happily admit. But you seem almost distressed at the thought; either that I'm wrong, or that you've missed something. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) I have a feeling it's the former?
So just for your peace of mind here it is: the CofE rubric concerning the summary of the law does indeed use the word 'may'. So if any celebrant wishes to omit it, they are perfectly free to do so. Phew! What a relief! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Heaven knows I've omitted it plenty of times myself. The BCP, however, does not use the word 'may'. So omission is clearly a matter of personal whim. The CofI rubric does not use the word 'may'. So ditto. Incidentally, I mention in passing, I exercise this whim myself on occasion.
Now frankly I don't care what bits others miss out or include (apart from my already mentioned personal reservation with regard to structure and the consecration prayer itself). I really hope this will enable you to get some sleep tonight!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
In our AC church in Britain, we used to use the Summary of the Law during Lent - it was omitted on other occasions. That seemed a good compromise, and entirely rubrical!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
The Summary of the Law...
Why am I thinking of Rudyard Kipling's Jungle books?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
If memory serves we had the summary of the law every week when I was growing up, followed by the Kyrie during Lent and Advent or the Gloria otherwise. I'm not sure there are many churches towards the lower end of the candle, as leo implies, that have chasuble, (occasional) incense, reserved sacrament et al.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
In our AC church in Britain, we used to use the Summary of the Law during Lent - it was omitted on other occasions. That seemed a good compromise, and entirely rubrical!
In the Methodist Worship Book it's included in Advent and Lent.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
leo, you seem terribly anxious about all this 'summary of the law' business!
Because you said that it was an essential part of an Anglican eucharist. Which would mean that i have only been to about 3 such eucharists in my entire 50 years as a communicant.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Yes that's right, leo. I did. And then I wrote a lot of other stuff making it clear what I meant. Even apologising where I'd been inaccurate. But clearly you couldn't be bothered to read it. I won't waste my time in future.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In Communion we share bread and wine because Jesus said "do this, in memory of me".
The only two places where "do this in memory/remembrance of me" is found is Luke 22:19 and 1. Corinthians 11:24.25, and their reference is not the sharing, the consummation of communion, but the actions of Christ. To again reference Dom Gregory Dix, these actions, in their 'bulked up' four-part version, are (1) taking/offering bread and wine (the offertory); (2) blessing, giving thanks (the Eucharistic prayer); (3) breaking the bread (the fraction); and (4) distributing the elements (the communion).
Our consumption of the elements is an answer to the anamnesis, but the anamnesis is to do what Christ did.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Since the Eucharist is always celebrated in the context of the Church, it is never without the context necessary to make it a memorial. The congregation knows the story.
Yes, on that I'd agree. Which is where my question comes in, how much of that context can you remove? I just realised that part of the potential confusion is that I'm in part answering a question raised on a different thread; I'm getting mixed up with threads, so no surprises if things aren't clear.
On that thread, Kalr LB posted an account of an informal pub service
quote:
After an unstructured couple of hours of chat and questionable attempts to exercise prophecy (don't ask; you don't want to know) someone put some grape juice and rolls on the table, muttered something about having some bread and grape juice, and closed the meeting sort of offering them up is someone wanted some.
That reads like something where there has been little context. Is that still a Eucharist?
In my tradition, no, since the Eucharist is defined by form, matter, and intention, all of which are lacking in your scenario. The Eucharist is a memorial, but simply being a memorial is not enough to be a Eucharist. In my tradition, anyway.
If I recall correctly it is an Anglican setting with an ordained priest. Does that muddy the water?
On a tangent (adressed to all) what would the minimal Word content be? And what if the sermon was completely heretical (God may honour the needle of truth in the haystack of error) would the Word turn up in the sacrament but not the word?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Our consumption of the elements is an answer to the anamnesis, but the anamnesis is to do what Christ did.
And then the question, of course, is: When Christ uttered these words to the Apostles (“do this in remembrance of me”), was he adressing them as Apostles or as Christians?
The former is the interpretation commonly favored by Catholics (including, but not limited to, Roman Catholics and Orthodox), and it ties to the question of when a Eucharist is a Eucharist. Is it a Eucharist when it is ‘performed’ by someone who is not ordained?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Since the Eucharist is always celebrated in the context of the Church, it is never without the context necessary to make it a memorial. The congregation knows the story.
Yes, on that I'd agree. Which is where my question comes in, how much of that context can you remove? I just realised that part of the potential confusion is that I'm in part answering a question raised on a different thread; I'm getting mixed up with threads, so no surprises if things aren't clear.
On that thread, Kalr LB posted an account of an informal pub service
quote:
After an unstructured couple of hours of chat and questionable attempts to exercise prophecy (don't ask; you don't want to know) someone put some grape juice and rolls on the table, muttered something about having some bread and grape juice, and closed the meeting sort of offering them up is someone wanted some.
That reads like something where there has been little context. Is that still a Eucharist?
In my tradition, no, since the Eucharist is defined by form, matter, and intention, all of which are lacking in your scenario. The Eucharist is a memorial, but simply being a memorial is not enough to be a Eucharist. In my tradition, anyway.
If I recall correctly it is an Anglican setting with an ordained priest. Does that muddy the water?
You recall wrongly. You may be confusing that with the Order of the Black Sheep which I've posted about. The OBS is somewhat informal with regard to its Eucharistic practice but it's nothing like the travesty in the pub which was down to a meeting of these new "simple churches".
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
'salright; I just didn't want anyone to think that in addition to our other sins at the OBS we got up to that sort of cluelessness.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
If I may revive this thread, I know that my intention this morning was to attend a Eucharist service carried out in accordance with the canons of the Church of England, but I am less sure of the intention of the priest who presided at the service I attended.
There was no gospel reading!!
The only reading was from 1 Corinthians.
There was a very truncated version of the creed and of the Eucharistic Prayer - basically it was just the middle section.
Was that a CofE Eucharist?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
JoannaP
Even with our penchant for cynicism there are things that bug the pullers of stops and the sort of laissez-faire nonsense you describe is one of them.
Its known in the organ-world as Lets knit a liturgy ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
canalto2
Apprentice
# 17644
|
Posted
what happens if it is a priestess in the driving seat?
Posts: 4 | From: Doncaster | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Canalto2
I know who you are and you've already been banned once before. Do you really think we're so stupid as to let you sneak back in under another name?
Now go away and bother someone else.
Spike
SoF Admin
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
If I may revive this thread, I know that my intention this morning was to attend a Eucharist service carried out in accordance with the canons of the Church of England, but I am less sure of the intention of the priest who presided at the service I attended.
There was no gospel reading!!
The only reading was from 1 Corinthians.
There was a very truncated version of the creed and of the Eucharistic Prayer - basically it was just the middle section.
Was that a CofE Eucharist?
This may depend on context. Was this a full service on its own, or Communion following on after another service?
I agree that that sounds poorly presided. However, as a lay person, one is stuck with whatever service the priest the church provides for you chooses to celebrate, whether inspirational, incompetent or irregular. I've made a similar point on another thread recently.
There will be some shipmates who will disagree with me on this. There may even be some who lurk in their pews, watching like hawks to see whether in their eyes, 'the Mass is valid', and if not, abstaining. But it seems to me that just as Article 26 says that a priest's wickedness does not invalidate the sacraments he or she celebrates, likewise, it is still just as effectively sacramental even if he or she is incompetent, is of a different churchmanship from oneself or does something that sets your teeth on edge.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
If I may revive this thread, I know that my intention this morning was to attend a Eucharist service carried out in accordance with the canons of the Church of England, but I am less sure of the intention of the priest who presided at the service I attended.
There was no gospel reading!!
The only reading was from 1 Corinthians.
There was a very truncated version of the creed and of the Eucharistic Prayer - basically it was just the middle section.
Was that a CofE Eucharist?
This may depend on context. Was this a full service on its own, or Communion following on after another service?
I agree that that sounds poorly presided. However, as a lay person, one is stuck with whatever service the priest the church provides for you chooses to celebrate, whether inspirational, incompetent or irregular. I've made a similar point on another thread recently.
There will be some shipmates who will disagree with me on this. There may even be some who lurk in their pews, watching like hawks to see whether in their eyes, 'the Mass is valid', and if not, abstaining. But it seems to me that just as Article 26 says that a priest's wickedness does not invalidate the sacraments he or she celebrates, likewise, it is still just as effectively sacramental even if he or she is incompetent, is of a different churchmanship from oneself or does something that sets your teeth on edge.
This is true, but only to a point. It would be absurd, for instance, to refrain from receiving Communion because the priest preached heresy in the sermon. Christianity is, however, a religion that believes in particularity and Incarnation, and specific actions at specific moments do matter. For instance, I don't think you could skip the Eucharistic Prayer and have a valid Eucharist, notwithstanding Article 26.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Abigail
Shipmate
# 1672
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
If I may revive this thread, I know that my intention this morning was to attend a Eucharist service carried out in accordance with the canons of the Church of England, but I am less sure of the intention of the priest who presided at the service I attended.
There was no gospel reading!! ...
At the Communion service I attended this morning there was no gospel reading, and this is quite often the case at my church. It was only recently that I found out that there should always be a gospel reading...
--------------------
The older I get the less I know.
Posts: 505 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
In our AC church in Britain, we used to use the Summary of the Law during Lent - it was omitted on other occasions. That seemed a good compromise, and entirely rubrical!
I have a dim recollection that the irreducable minimum in the C of E was:
Greeting
General Confession
Collect of the Day
Two or three readings of which the Gospel shall be one (and placed last)
Prayer for the Church
The Peace
Eucharistic Prayer
Lord's Prayer
Fraction
>Communion<
Post Communion Prayer
Dismissal
I do not recall the APB in Ireland as being much different. Of course, such minimalist celebrations were relatively rare as we would usually add at least the Collect for Purity and the Kyrie/Gloria even on wet Wednesday in January.
I also have a dim recollection that the rubrics in the ASB required the President to take the bread and the wine into his hands at the words of Institution/Consecration, and also required the elevation at the 'dog's holiday' at the end of the EP.
PD
[ 12. May 2013, 22:05: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have a dim recollection that the irreducable minimum in the C of E was:
Greeting
General Confession
Collect of the Day
Two or three readings of which the Gospel shall be one (and placed last)
Prayer for the Church
The Peace
Eucharistic Prayer
Lord's Prayer
Fraction
>Communion<
Post Communion Prayer
Dismissal
That's pretty much my understanding too, but is The Peace a requirement? It's certainly not in the 1662 BCP. In fact I don't think it appeared in CofE liturgy until Series 3 and, even then, I believe it was optional.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I thinking of the Alt. Liturgies rather than than the BCP as the 1662 pretty much works on the basis of 'you do the whole thing, all the time, Sunshine!' The caveat there is that there are some bits we have been leavng out or moving for about 100 years. However, that sort of funny business is now covered by CW Order 2, so it is OK - yes, really - honest! I suspect that the most abbreviating that is contemplated with Order 2 Trad. Lang. is the substitution of the Kyrie for the Decalogue, and the omission of the Creed.
I have been in the US 13 years so I am getting a bit fuzzy on the details with the latest CofE and CofI liturgies. However, for the most part, except for even more options ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) the basic structures seem to have remained the same apart from CW:Daily Prayer.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
