Thread: When is a eucharist not a eucharist? 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=025767
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on
:
Question in title.
There has been some discussion of "love-feasts" and flower communion on this chatroom, with the feeling that this may be a sort of communion, but not a Eucharist. Likewise I have heard of the ritual of "coffee communion," perhaps somewhere other than this chatroom.
I once went to a service of a protestant church in Berlin, and I think I may have already told this story in another "thread." It started off much like Morning-Prayer with Psalms and Canticles and Readings. But at the end some baskets with pieces of bread and grapes were distributed, evidently without any sort of consecration. I was not sure whether what happened was a eucharist or something else. The feeling to me was very much like the description of the flower-communion - it was a communion, but was it a Eucharist? But perhaps this was just me being dismissive of another country's liturgy?
When I was in Rome, I went to a Roman-Catholic service, and the churches there had no service-books. However I found I had an okayish understanding of the order of things going on because they happened in roughly the same order as in the Anglican service, other than the peace being in a different place. However my Dutch Protestant neighbour was completely lost. This might have just been the language barrier though.
An old organist of ours announced sotto voce that he had received communion in church services, outside of them and "by himself," that is, by eating bread and wine.
By contrast the Reformed church in this town - former Presbyterian, if it's relevant - has communion-services - albeit only monthly, but they always have a eucharistic prayer which wouldn't sound out of place in an Anglican church. Likewise I have seen the Methodist Worship-Book for the Eucharist and there are options in it that probably wouldn't sound odd in the Anglican church, although a lay-reader said that many Methodists just didn't use the book.
Perhaps for some people this is very simple; a eucharist is a eucharist when it's celebrated by a minister of their own denomination according to the liturgy of their own denomination.
I have noticed as a general rule that Roman Catholic people from France and Germany generally don't mind receiving communion in Anglican services, whereas most British Roman Catholic people only go up for a blessing or not at all in Anglian services.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
I have noticed as a general rule that Roman Catholic people from France and Germany generally don't mind receiving communion in Anglican services, whereas most British Roman Catholic people only go up for a blessing or not at all in Anglian services.
My experience is that French RCCs aren't really very aware of other denominations unless those denominations deliberately stand out as different. An Anglican church that has lots of Catholic influences might simply be seen as a slightly quaint Anglo-Saxon version of the RCC. But British Catholics, living in a largely non-RCC country, will be far more aware of Anglicanism as distinct from Catholicism, and this will probably put them off participating in this ritual in an Anglican church.
These are just my superficial impressions.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Hosting
The Dead Horse issue is closed communion. I don't think this is close enough to it, and it's not the question posed in the OP. I will check with the Eccles hosts whether they want this, but be prepared for thia thread to be moved.
cheers,
L
Dead Horses Host
PS. please remember to read the guidelines if you want to know whether something is a Dead Horse
Update - yes, it belongs in Eccles!
Hosting off
[ 11. March 2013, 23:56: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on
:
The traditional approach is that for a valid celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice there must be (1) matter (2) form and (3) intention
In my part of the Church the matter is unleavened bread and wine from grapes
The form is the correct liturgy authorised by my Church
The intention is the intention of the Proest Celebrant. If the Priest does not intend to consecrate the Most Holy Body and Blood, then it does not occur. For example, if he is holding a training mass to show Deacons what to do when they are ordained Priest, there may be no intention to consecrate.
Additionally, the Priest Celebrant must have been validly ordained. If he has not been so ordained then no matter what his desire, form or matter, no valid Eucharistic Sacrifice or Consecration is made.
Now that's probably raised more questions than it has answered!
However, with regard to the OP, if what was intended was to share food in fellowship, there was no correct form or liturgy, then no Eucharist, I would opine.
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on
:
I was recently at a Common Worship "eucharist" where the priest presiding made no manual gestures whatsoever during the entire Eucharistic Prayer. With his left hand he held the book close to his face, and didn't so much as glance at the elements, even during the Words of Institution. After the conclusion, he put down the book and did a half-hearted elevation, but that was it.
I was in two minds about whether he actually consecrated the elements--what do y'all think?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
The traditional approach is that for a valid celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice there must be (1) matter (2) form and (3) intention
I think you forgot "minister".
quote:
In my part of the Church the matter is unleavened bread and wine from grapes
The form is the correct liturgy authorised by my Church
The intention is the intention of the Proest Celebrant. If the Priest does not intend to consecrate the Most Holy Body and Blood, then it does not occur. For example, if he is holding a training mass to show Deacons what to do when they are ordained Priest, there may be no intention to consecrate.
The intent comes from the church, not the minister. Otherwise we wander into Donatism; if the priest is faithless and personally apostate, for example, the Eucharist that he confects will still be "real"--because it is the Church's Eucharist, not his personally.
Why wouldn't he celebrate a true Mass for the purpose of demonstration, anyway?
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on
:
A good question methinks!
A tangent first; if a priest was disabled and unable to perform the manual acts in crossing, extending the hands, blessing or elevating the elements, would we think that a valid consecration had not occurred? I think not.
What if the rite specifically required (not advised or said 'may') that certain physical movements were required?
In my view, what is needed above is manner, form and intention, to repeat myself. Is it the elevating that changes the character or is it the change in character that inspires the action? Mmmm!
It should be the latter I would opine. Sacramental certainty is a real need; we need to know, not guess or hope, what is going on.
I don't think that the gestures or manual acts are themselves essential in the light of the above but would be very interested to read what others think.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fabula rasa:
I was recently at a Common Worship "eucharist" where the priest presiding made no manual gestures whatsoever during the entire Eucharistic Prayer. With his left hand he held the book close to his face, and didn't so much as glance at the elements, even during the Words of Institution. After the conclusion, he put down the book and did a half-hearted elevation, but that was it.
I was in two minds about whether he actually consecrated the elements--what do y'all think?
There was a fashion, 20 years ago, NOT to do the manual acts.
The person who stared this fashion was Bishop Colin Buchanan. His reasoning was that it is the four actions, as identified by Dom Gregory Dix's 'The Shape of the liturgy' that consecrate, i.e.:
taking
breaking
blessing
sharing.
The manual acts repeat those actions - the taking happens at the offertory first.
The whole eucharistic prayer is blessing
the breaking occurs AFTER that prayer.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
You can't reduce the Holy MysterieS to matter, form and intent. That's not to say they're not important, they are, but ultimately it's the Holy Spirit whicj makes them "valid". There are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church even if there is matter, form and intent.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
Matter, form and intention pertain to conferring Holy Orders, not confecting the Eucharist.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Matter, form and intention pertain to conferring Holy Orders, not confecting the Eucharist.
They apply to the Eucharist as well, if the Council of Trent is any account.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Matter, form and intention pertain to conferring Holy Orders, not confecting the Eucharist.
Really? I had thought they pertained to all of the sacraments.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
What relationship to the Word does the Eucharist have?
Reformed tradition is clear, the Eucharist is the sign and seal of the Word. You can't sign and seal a none existent document.
Jengie
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
What relationship to the Word does the Eucharist have?
Reformed tradition is clear, the Eucharist is the sign and seal of the Word. You can't sign and seal a none existent document.
Jengie
Well, the Eucharist is the body of Jesus, and Jesus is the Word of God.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
I'm not sure I like the expression 'confecting the Eucharist'
I mean it sounds something like straight out of Thorntons Chocolates!!
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
What relationship to the Word does the Eucharist have?
Reformed tradition is clear, the Eucharist is the sign and seal of the Word. You can't sign and seal a none existent document.
Jengie
Well, the Eucharist is the body of Jesus, and Jesus is the Word of God.
But does that Word exist separate from the Word proclaimed?
Jengie
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Well, that Word existed before there were any created beings to hear it, so...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
But does that Word exist separate from the Word proclaimed?
I am not sure what you mean. The Word proclaimed is Jesus. The Eucharist makes present what is proclaimed in the sermon.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I think that's the point. A ritual meal of bread and wine, served with all the correct words and actions, is still not Communion if it isn't coupled to the Word - reading and exposition of Scripture, the Gospel in particular. Now, granted, the liturgies of many churches contain large chunks of Scripture and an exposition of those Scriptures such that Christ is remembered in words even without an explicit reading of Scripture and sermon (or other form of reflection on the Scriptures read).
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think that's the point. A ritual meal of bread and wine, served with all the correct words and actions, is still not Communion if it isn't coupled to the Word - reading and exposition of Scripture, the Gospel in particular. Now, granted, the liturgies of many churches contain large chunks of Scripture and an exposition of those Scriptures such that Christ is remembered in words even without an explicit reading of Scripture and sermon (or other form of reflection on the Scriptures read).
The Words of Institution themselves are the words of the Word of God. So I can't imagine finding the Eucharist without the Word being proclaimed, except in some bizarre place where they just leave some bread and wine out in silence!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fabula rasa:
I was recently at a Common Worship "eucharist" where the priest presiding made no manual gestures whatsoever during the entire Eucharistic Prayer. With his left hand he held the book close to his face, and didn't so much as glance at the elements, even during the Words of Institution. After the conclusion, he put down the book and did a half-hearted elevation, but that was it.
I was in two minds about whether he actually consecrated the elements--what do y'all think?
Unless God took a holiday, I presume he could be bothered to do his bit at the communion service, even if, in your opinion, the priest didn't! After all, if we confuse visual performance with what's really going on in the human heart, we're likely to be fooling ourselves a lot of the time into imagining what God is or isn't doing.
Some Anglican traditions, of course, don't do 'manual actions' particularly or in any fixed way. But it does sound strange for someone to hold a book up to their face during the thanksgiving prayer. Forgotten his glasses? Particularly poor eyesight? No large-copy verion of the prayer-book? Poor technique? Hard to know what was going on, really, by the sound of it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think that's the point. A ritual meal of bread and wine, served with all the correct words and actions, is still not Communion if it isn't coupled to the Word - reading and exposition of Scripture, the Gospel in particular. Now, granted, the liturgies of many churches contain large chunks of Scripture and an exposition of those Scriptures such that Christ is remembered in words even without an explicit reading of Scripture and sermon (or other form of reflection on the Scriptures read).
The Words of Institution themselves are the words of the Word of God. So I can't imagine finding the Eucharist without the Word being proclaimed, except in some bizarre place where they just leave some bread and wine out in silence!
I was thinking more that we celebrate Communion to remember Christ. The words of institution only remember that one time in the upper room; they may not even recall all of the events of that afternoon (the washing of feet is often in the liturgy of Communion, but what about Judas leaving?). Communion should be a time of remembering all that Christ did. That's not practical in a short service, but it's only right that every time we gather for Communion we actively recall something of the life, teaching and ministry of Christ such that over a large number of Communions a large portion of that is remembered. The reading of Scripture, and reflection on that, is an obvious way to do that.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I'm just wondering if you know that the Roman rite of Mass contains three or four readings taken from the Old Testament as well as the New Testament,along with the reading of one of the Psalms.Over the period of three years a lot of scripture is covered.
In addition there is the narrative of the Institution of the Lord's Supper before the distribution of Communion to the faithful.
At least once a year there is usually a dramatic re-acting of the Washing of feet.
Can I take it then that the Roman rite of Mass is an acceptable celebration of the eucharist ?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Of course, in most cases the sharing of bread and wine takes place within the context of a larger service. In my church, that would include the reading of three lessons (OT, Epistle and Gospel) as laid out in the RCL, often with the lectionary Psalm used in some way within the service (eg: I often use it in prayers, or maybe take a setting of the Psalm as one of the hymns). And, some form of reflection on those readings - either guided by a preacher in sermon or homily, or group discussion, or just quiet personal reflection (or, some other means).
For me, the question is how much of the rest of the service can you do without before the Communion fails to be all that it could be? And, part of that may depend on the circumstances of the people participating. A group who meet daily to read and reflect on Scripture may be able to remember Christ at a stand-alone Communion at the end of the day, whereas a group of people who have very limited knowledge of Scripture may need a more explicit time to remember Christ at the time when they break bread in memory of him.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
What is the ultimate point of the proclamation of the Word, though? I'd say it's the union of the hearer with God, and in the Eucharist that union is actually effected.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, in most cases the sharing of bread and wine takes place within the context of a larger service. In my church, that would include the reading of three lessons (OT, Epistle and Gospel) as laid out in the RCL, often with the lectionary Psalm used in some way within the service (eg: I often use it in prayers, or maybe take a setting of the Psalm as one of the hymns). And, some form of reflection on those readings - either guided by a preacher in sermon or homily, or group discussion, or just quiet personal reflection (or, some other means).
For me, the question is how much of the rest of the service can you do without before the Communion fails to be all that it could be? And, part of that may depend on the circumstances of the people participating. A group who meet daily to read and reflect on Scripture may be able to remember Christ at a stand-alone Communion at the end of the day, whereas a group of people who have very limited knowledge of Scripture may need a more explicit time to remember Christ at the time when they break bread in memory of him.
The Word, the Logos, is Christ, not the bible. we are not biblians, we are Christians. Therefore, the Word is proclaimed wherever and whenever the Eucharist is celebrated, by that act itself. Whether or not the words of the bible come into it, other than the words of institution themselves, matters not.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
The Word, the Logos, is Christ, not the bible. we are not biblians, we are Christians.
Absolutely. I wasn't aware that there was any disagreement there.
quote:
Therefore, the Word is proclaimed wherever and whenever the Eucharist is celebrated, by that act itself. Whether or not the words of the bible come into it, other than the words of institution themselves, matters not.
In what sense is the Word proclaimed at the Eucharist? If someone without any knowledge of the Christian faith entered a church and witnessed the Eucharist they would realise that we were performing a ritual in memory of Christ. Would they know anything about Christ, other than he instituted a ritual meal to remember him? If they entered a service where there was a Gospel reading with some reflection on that, they would know something about Christ. And, come Communion would be able to say "I can remember something about Christ" (because they've just heard something about Christ) and meaningfully partake in the ritual meal if they so desired.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
In what sense is the Word proclaimed at the Eucharist? If someone without any knowledge of the Christian faith entered a church and witnessed the Eucharist they would realise that we were performing a ritual in memory of Christ. Would they know anything about Christ, other than he instituted a ritual meal to remember him? If they entered a service where there was a Gospel reading with some reflection on that, they would know something about Christ. And, come Communion would be able to say "I can remember something about Christ" (because they've just heard something about Christ) and meaningfully partake in the ritual meal if they so desired.
In the Eucharist the Word of God becomes present to us in a special way. But if you are going to presuppose a memorialist account of the Eucharist, obviously it would be meaningless to the uninitiated.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
The Eucharistic Prayer itself is the proclamation of the Word, and in particular the Verba, the dominical words themselves.
The Word of Christ lives in the Eucharist and practically effects the Eucharist.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But if you are going to presuppose a memorialist account of the Eucharist, obviously it would be meaningless to the uninitiated.
How can the Eucharist not be a memorial? Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me". It can, of course, be more than a memorial but not less.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But if you are going to presuppose a memorialist account of the Eucharist, obviously it would be meaningless to the uninitiated.
How can the Eucharist not be a memorial? Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me". It can, of course, be more than a memorial but not less.
"Memorialist", of course, means "only a memorial". I don't think anyone would claim that it isn't a memorial.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In what sense is the Word proclaimed at the Eucharist?
That rather depends on the words used during the Ministry of the Sacrament, and how much of the service a passer-by heard. In most of the more 'liturgical' churches (for want of a better word) the words of institution and associated prayers would also include an explicit reference to Christ making the one, perfect sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross, the fact that he taught the Lord's prayer and that he gave us peace. Although not by any means the entirety of the Christian message, such a passer by would not be left entirely ignorant of what Jesus means to his followers, one hopes!
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was thinking more that we celebrate Communion to remember Christ. The words of institution only remember that one time in the upper room; they may not even recall... Communion should be a time of remembering all that Christ did ... every time we gather for Communion we actively recall something of the life, teaching and ministry of Christ such that over a large number of Communions a large portion of that is remembered. The reading of Scripture, and reflection on that, is an obvious way to do that.
(italics added)
In my preaching and teaching (he says modestly ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) I always emphasize the happy etymological providence of the English word Re-Member, and its wonderful stature as an adequate vehicle for all the weight of anamnesis. We "member together again" God's soteriological acts - or "pre-member" in the case of the parousia, another act, of course "membered" into the element and actions of the Upper Room and every subsequent sharing of Christ's dominical words of institution. For me that is vastly different to the other verb used above, that of 'recalling' which is no more (for me, I say again) of revisiting something past and gone. I recall what I had for breakfast yesterday,* but that recall does not have the full sense of anamnesis. The alternative verb "re-collecting' is probably closer to anamnesis than "recall" - YMMV, I guess.
What it means for me is that the traditional quote:
(1) matter (2) form and (3) intention
is critically important as is Dom Gregory Dix's ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
taking
breaking
blessing
sharing.
(so wonderfully captured in one of the Collects).
Therefore airily waving hands at distant objects (wrapped in sandwich papers) a la diocese of Sydney, or saying nothing of the sacred words - sacred not magical - instituted with the actions by Jesus - all that turns the Feast of Jesus into a farce of the church. Arrogant pomposity can stretch things a bit, too, but fortunately the Christ is in the ancient rite, not the current idiocy of one or two self-important presidors that I have witnessed.
It is the full weight of anamnesis that led me further and further up the candle - even if I am really a transignificationist not anything else.
*Actually with a memory like mine I only do so because I have the same thing for breakfast every single day!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In what sense is the Word proclaimed at the Eucharist?
In the fairly literal sense that the Word, Christ, proclaimed himself in the words 'this is my body, this is my blood' when he celebrated the Passover/Last Supper meal.
It's unfortunate if some people go away confused or unknowing. Though most communion services surely have some explanation inherent. Speaking only for the Anglican eucharistic prayers, the whole story is pretty much included every time; albeit truncated in some of the prayers, and in the usual liturgy.
But if people not knowledgeable about the Christian faith attend any Christian service, it's likely that anything going on can be a bit of a mystery. Including the address.
And it's fairly likely when Jesus proclaimed himself in that way to his own disciples at the Last Supper, they pretty much didn't get it either - at the time. But the proclamation of Christ as the Word, in the communion service is unavoidable, whether we get it or not. If Jesus had been recorded as just having a meal involving handing out bread and wine and said nothing at all - proclamation would be difficult to establish! But he said it himself quite literally. Not a phrase I might use too often with reference to scripture, perhaps.....!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Earlier I'd said quote:
the liturgies of many churches contain large chunks of Scripture and an exposition of those Scriptures such that Christ is remembered in words even without an explicit reading of Scripture and sermon
So, I accept all the points above about the prayers and associated liturgies proclaiming Christ.
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? Can you drop most of the liturgy of, say, an Anglican service if you have had a reading of the Gospel and an extended period of reflection on that? Or, do you still need the gospel summary and all the words of institution?
If after preaching a good sermon (well, I wouldn't preach a bad one) remembering (not just recalling) Christ then went straight to the Table, picked up the bread and said "Christ Jesus took bread, broke it saying 'this is my body, eat this in memory of me'" before passing the plate around, then repeating with the cup, have I done enough for that Communion to be what it could be? I wouldn't actually do that, because the congregation expect more and by doing so I would be serving Communion to people who are thinking "what's he doing, why's he skipped so much?", thinking about me rather than Christ.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But if you are going to presuppose a memorialist account of the Eucharist, obviously it would be meaningless to the uninitiated.
How can the Eucharist not be a memorial? Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me". It can, of course, be more than a memorial but not less.
... the memorialist account being that the Eucharist is merely a memorial. If, however, the Eucharist is more than a mere memorial, and Jesus really does become bodily present to us, then your question becomes perplexing. The Eucharist is related to the Word by becoming the Word of God.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I'm not the one who said Communion is just a memorial (much less a 'mere memorial'), you used the word 'memorialist' not me.
I'm perplexed that you're perplexed. In Communion we share bread and wine because Jesus said "do this, in memory of me". I think it entirely obvious that, at the very least, when we share Communion we remember Christ (and, not just recall as Zappa helpfully reminded us). 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?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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. Not sure if it's helpful for every individual worshipper to emerge from the service analysing whether their experience was 'all that it could be'.
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?
In Anglican terms the compulsory elements of a communion are basically: summary of the law, confession/absolution, collect, gospel, (sometimes creed), intercession, eucharistic prayer which has to be according to canon and will always include words of institution, and blessing. There are plenty of other bits and pieces normally included according to whatever the local custom is - but I reckon this is the de minimus!
Half hour communions (eg, mid-weeks) rarely, ime, include sermons, though maybe at times a few sentences on the readings.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not the one who said Communion is just a memorial (much less a 'mere memorial'), you used the word 'memorialist' not me.
I'm perplexed that you're perplexed. In Communion we share bread and wine because Jesus said "do this, in memory of me". I think it entirely obvious that, at the very least, when we share Communion we remember Christ (and, not just recall as Zappa helpfully reminded us). 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 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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
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!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Grape juice? In a pub? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
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).
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
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
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
John Holding, I apologise. I should've made it plain I was talking from my own experience of CofE and CofI worship.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
Interesting responses to the comments I threw out there. I guess I was thinking not so much in terms of the minimum for validity as much as what I would be comfortable participating in when I wrote the bit about the presider being "authorized" to celebrate. I'm Episcopalian but am not dogmatic about my tradition's focus on apostolic succession. If I was at a service in another tradition that met the criteria I listed, I'd probably be OK with receiving.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Maybe Anselmina is referring to a rubric in the C of I?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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!
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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!
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
The Summary of the Law...
Why am I thinking of Rudyard Kipling's Jungle books?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Apologies - I have read what you wrote but tend to read threads backwards so may miss some things or have not read all before responding.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
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?
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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".
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
apologies
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
'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.
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
Fair play
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
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?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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)
Posted by canalto2 (# 17644) on
:
what happens if it is a priestess in the driving seat?
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
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
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
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.
Posted by Abigail (# 1672) on
:
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...
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
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.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0