Ship of Fools: Reservation and the CofE

Thread: Reservation and the CofE 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=027840

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

The thread about vestments and their growth across churchmanship traditions has prompted me to raise a question about reservation of Holy Communion.

I know that some Anglo-Catholic churches began reserving the sacrament - and indeed having Benediction and adoration - illegally in the late 19th Century. And at the other end that no evangelical would contemplate reservation.

But when did reservation spread or become acceptable in MOTR parishes? One thing that intrigued me is that a local church which was very much an 8am HC with 11am Matins until the 1980s was built with an aumbry and practiced reservation from the 1930s. Though I hadn't thought about it before, this seemed very early to me.

[ 08. January 2014, 10:37: Message edited by: Liturgylover ]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
But when did reservation spread or become acceptable in MOTR parishes? One thing that intrigued me is that a local church which was very much an 8am HC with 11am Matins until the 1980s was built with an aumbry and practiced reservation from the 1930s. Though I hadn't thought about it before, this seemed very early to me.

Not sure when, but I remember reading about "lynx-eyed bishops" somewhere who closely monitored the altars of their parishes to make sure the small box that held up the altar cross didn't gain a door or telltale set of hinges. [Big Grin]

Which of course led me immediately to google photos of lynxes.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

There certainly was a time when some bishops, at least, insisted that any Reservation be made in an aumbry (usually in the north wall of the chancel or a chapel), with no tabernacle allowed on the High Altar.

Ian J.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I can't speak for evangelicals but my understanding is that few these days get hot under the collar about the principle of reservation even though most wouldn't practice it. The con-evo parish where I have helped out a number of times sometimes keeps back some of the consecrated elements for lay ministers to take out to the housebound: while they wouldn't genuflect to them nor put them in a tabernacle or aumbry, that is reservation in effect.

Most MOTR churches even in this protestant heartland possess and use an aumbry, and have done for many years. Tabernacles on high altars, on the other hand, are somewhat passé since Vatican 2. One or two Anglican churches locally have them

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Fundamentalist Anglicans (if such still exist) may be still attached to the literal truth of the XXXIX Articles of Religion as contained in the BCP and one of these articles makes reference to the bread and wine were not ordained to be adored - or words to that effect (I quote from memory).

In other words, reservation and benediction were clearly ruled out and these practices which are taken to granted today have gradually developed since the time of the 1833 Oxford Movement.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

A church without reservation always seems empty to me. I seem to remember Dom Gregory Dix reporting that the 1926 Prayer Book was worded specifically to prevent reservation, among other things. One enclosed order of Anglican nuns (Society of the Precious Blood?) kept a vigil of prayer for the defeat of the book, as reservation was central to their prayer life.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
A church without reservation always seems empty to me. I seem to remember Dom Gregory Dix reporting that the 1926 Prayer Book was worded specifically to prevent reservation, among other things. One enclosed order of Anglican nuns (Society of the Precious Blood?) kept a vigil of prayer for the defeat of the book, as reservation was central to their prayer life.

1926 or 1928?

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Our Anglican-Methodist LEP reserves the consecrated wafers and wine (in an aumbry) for the communion of the housebound, not for adoration. Some of our Methodist members are enlisted to help administer. The aumbry dates, I believe, from 1890.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
A church without reservation always seems empty to me. I seem to remember Dom Gregory Dix reporting that the 1926 Prayer Book was worded specifically to prevent reservation, among other things. One enclosed order of Anglican nuns (Society of the Precious Blood?) kept a vigil of prayer for the defeat of the book, as reservation was central to their prayer life.

The rubrics of 1928 (sic) might well have been drafted to outlaw tabernacles and devotion to the MBS. But IIRC I think they make provision for reservation (in an aumbry) provided it's not associated with any of the aforementioned goings on.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I'm good at liturgy: not good at figures.

I'm looking at An Alternative Order for the Communion of the Sick in 1926 (thank you).

I haven't read all the lengthy rubric, which is partly how to cope in hospitals, but the relevant bit for extended communion of the sick allows communion of elements consecrated in the course of a Holy Communion service and concludes: "And, the open communion ended, he (ie the priest) shall on the same day and with as little delay as may be, go and minister the same".

I was sorry to see on my visit to Hereford Cathedral two years ago, that the very impressive sacrament house they had recently acquired, was so placed between two pillars behind the East End altar rails, that it was almost impossible to remain in silent prayer in its presence.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I sympathise. I'm dysnumerate too. But 1928 is one of those dates like 1066.

However there is confusion because the Proposed Book (which never became any more than that) went through several revisions until the final 1928 one. A couple of rubrics permitting reservation under strict controls were added. To avoid risk of copyright, I won't quote them but they can be found here (scroll down if necessary).

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry? Or is it a universal Anglican practice to consume only hosts consecrated at that Eucharist and, if you run out, to go consecrate more using a tiny prayer with the words of institution (which seems to me almost Lutheran to me every time I read in the BCP what a priest should do if s/he runs out of hosts at Communion).

Are there any prohibitions anywhere in the Anglican Communion on re-consecrating bread or wine? I know one Lutheran church where they recycle in this way, apparently believing that they return back to being bread and wine as they were before after the service.

Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry? Or is it a universal Anglican practice to consume only hosts consecrated at that Eucharist and, if you run out, to go consecrate more using a tiny prayer with the words of institution (which seems to me almost Lutheran to me every time I read in the BCP what a priest should do if s/he runs out of hosts at Communion).

We do. Every Sunday. It saves us having to play "guess who'll turn up" or having the reserved MBS go stale before it's consumed.

I don't know about other Anglicans, but we would never consecrate 'some more' without a proper EP.

quote:
Are there any prohibitions anywhere in the Anglican Communion on re-consecrating bread or wine? I know one Lutheran church where they recycle in this way, apparently believing that they return back to being bread and wine as they were before after the service.

This is not an Anglican belief, and more to the point (ahem) I've never met an Anlgican who believed it, so I'd imagine not.

quote:
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.

Well, leaving aside the fact that it's a sin in the RCC to allow the sanctissimum to attain that state of decrepitude, you're right in re the piscina, and many Anglicans would also follow the same procedure. One does hear horror stories, however, about irreverence in disposal of the sacrament from the 'lower' (liturgically/theologically, you understand) sections of the CofE. I'm not aware of any hard and fast rules, but I think the phrase "reverently disposed of" crops up somewhere in this regard.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry?

We do every week and did at my last church too. I think it's very common in Anglo Catholic parishes

quote:
Are there any prohibitions anywhere in the Anglican Communion on re-consecrating bread or wine? I know one Lutheran church where they recycle in this way, apparently believing that they return back to being bread and wine as they were before after the service.

I know of one Evangelical Anglican Church where they routinely put the left over wafers back into a drawer in the vestry and re-consecrate them next time. Mind you, this is the same church that move their altar/table into the entrance lobby for non-communion services to make more space for the worship band at the front of the church [Disappointed]

[ 08. January 2014, 19:28: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
There certainly was a time when some bishops, at least, insisted that any Reservation be made in an aumbry (usually in the north wall of the chancel or a chapel), with no tabernacle allowed on the High Altar.

Ian J.

To quote the archdeacon (IIRC) in one of Fr. Forrest's poems, 'Be non-tabernacular; SAFELY aumbraic!'

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Fundamentalist Anglicans (if such still exist) may be still attached to the literal truth of the XXXIX Articles of Religion as contained in the BCP and one of these articles makes reference to the bread and wine were not ordained to be adored - or words to that effect (I quote from memory).

In other words, reservation and benediction were clearly ruled out and these practices which are taken to granted today have gradually developed since the time of the 1833 Oxford Movement.

Your quote is more or less correct, though shortened. HOWEVER, as my liturgics prof was fond of pointing out, 'were not ordained to be' does not equal 'you may not do it.' One needs a precise understanding of 16th cent grammar to parse all the subtlety of the Articles.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.

NO!!! The Precious Blood of Our Lord should NEVER, EVER be poured down the sacrarium! The RC rubrics direct that the Precious Blood must be consumed at the end of communion. The sacrarium is for disposing of the water that is use to cleanse sacred vessels, etc. Repeat: the Precious Blood should NEVER be poured down the sacrarium, and no RC would or should be doing this. The same goes for the Sacred Hosts. They must be consumed at Mass, NEVER buried! [Mad]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I think adding more to the consecrated Hosts is pretty common, regardless of where the Sacrament is reserved (and by the by that the spiritual risks of 'reconsectration' are probably rather slight).

Regarding the OP I think that a lot of it might have to do with the growth of north-wall aumbries to preserve the Sacrament for the sick and housebound, as others have intimated. In this case, there is no risk of any inadvertent adoration occurring!

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

In my parish we have consecrated bread & wine held for home communions, sick call. we also have some held in an Aumbrey in the chapel along with oils for anointing.
In the Candian Book of Common Prayer unconsumed bread & wine can be consummed by the priest, unless there is a need to have some available for the above mentioned reasons .

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

Although Anglo-Catholics seem to follow more of the rules in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal than most RC parishes in my part of the world do, they are not legally bound to do so. Thus it is not unusual to distribute previously-consecrated hosts to some of the communicants. When the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in a tabernacle at the altar where Mass is being celebrated, this can be done conveniently and unobtrusively.

In the period of transition from non-communicating High Masses to present-day practice, it was common for Anglo-Catholic priests to consecrate sufficient hosts and wine at an early Mass for distribution at the later High Mass. I suspect that reason was primarily esthetic, to avoid the clutter of a ciborium and extra chalices on the altar.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.
NO!!! The Precious Blood of Our Lord should NEVER, EVER be poured down the sacrarium! The RC rubrics direct that the Precious Blood must be consumed at the end of communion. The sacrarium is for disposing of the water that is use to cleanse sacred vessels, etc. Repeat: the Precious Blood should NEVER be poured down the sacrarium, and no RC would or should be doing this. The same goes for the Sacred Hosts. They must be consumed at Mass, NEVER buried!

Well, I didn't in fact say this, but the OPer (who did) was, I think, envisaging a situation where, for whatever sinful reason, the MBS had been allowed to decay/deteriorate such that it was undrinkable (I recall Aquinas' views on what happens if someone has poisoned your communion wine and you realise only after consecration here): in such a circumstance, the sacrarium for wine and immolation for hosts is the only option. Having said this, I think priests would probably just man up and consume were the only defect to be excessive vinegar in the MPB or whatever.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I do wonder, sometimes, if Jesus ever cut himself when he was mucking about in his dad's carpentry shop, and how careful he was about where he bled.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Fundamentalist Anglicans (if such still exist) may be still attached to the literal truth of the XXXIX Articles of Religion as contained in the BCP and one of these articles makes reference to the bread and wine were not ordained to be adored - or words to that effect (I quote from memory).

In other words, reservation and benediction were clearly ruled out and these practices which are taken to granted today have gradually developed since the time of the 1833 Oxford Movement.
Your quote is more or less correct, though shortened. HOWEVER, as my liturgics prof was fond of pointing out, 'were not ordained to be' does not equal 'you may not do it.' One needs a precise understanding of 16th cent grammar to parse all the subtlety of the Articles.

As I indicated, I quoted from memory and did not have a copy of the words to hand; but I clearly remembered that this topic was included in one of the Articles. I can always remedy that later by bringing a copy of the words along with me.

Point taken about 16th century meaning of 'You may not do it', but I have visions that in the post-reformation 16th century, reservation did not happen.

It is my experience that extreme protestant conservative evangelicals will quote from the Articles not quite correctly to fit in with their own ideas and opinions.

I am conversant with this point of view, but I do not share it.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do wonder, sometimes, if Jesus ever cut himself when he was mucking about in his dad's carpentry shop, and how careful he was about where he bled.

Christ can do whatever He likes with His blood, (including shedding it for the salvation of the world). We, who are not worthy even to untie His sandals or to gather the crumbs under His table (not a very apposite metaphor here...) are most emphatically not.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not in any way, after the institution of Jesus Christ, reserved, carried from one place to another, elevated or adored." From Article XXVIII (part).

NB I have translated this from the French version I found on-line, more readily than in our language.

[ 09. January 2014, 11:24: Message edited by: Ecclesiastical Flip-flop ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not in any way, after the institution of Jesus Christ, reserved, carried from one place to another, elevated or adored." From Article XXVIII (part).

Of course, if you took this literally as a command against doing any of those things it would make it impossible to give communion to anyone since you would be carrying the elements from one place, the Lord's Table, to another, the communion rail.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not in any way, after the institution of Jesus Christ, reserved, carried from one place to another, elevated or adored." From Article XXVIII (part).
Of course, if you took this literally as a command against doing any of those things it would make it impossible to give communion to anyone since you would be carrying the elements from one place, the Lord's Table, to another, the communion rail.

I don't imagine that the authors were envisaging a continued future for communion rails, somehow...

Posted by ardmacha (# 16499) on :

The Reserved Sacrament in Roman Catholic churches is to be renewed (in other words used for Holy Communion)regularly [ I think about every two weeks]. The Benediction Host is usually broken and given at a parish Mass in Holy Communion. I have never come across a church that reserved under the species of wine and so the question of care of this element of the Sacrament wouldn't arise.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not in any way, after the institution of Jesus Christ, reserved, carried from one place to another, elevated or adored." From Article XXVIII (part).
Of course, if you took this literally as a command against doing any of those things it would make it impossible to give communion to anyone since you would be carrying the elements from one place, the Lord's Table, to another, the communion rail.
I don't imagine that the authors were envisaging a continued future for communion rails, somehow...

There you go!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do wonder, sometimes, if Jesus ever cut himself when he was mucking about in his dad's carpentry shop, and how careful he was about where he bled.
Christ can do whatever He likes with His blood, (including shedding it for the salvation of the world). We, who are not worthy even to untie His sandals or to gather the crumbs under His table (not a very apposite metaphor here...) are most emphatically not.

Your point taken, but mine, possibly, slightly missed. My point was rather that I'm not entirely sure that it matters that a few drops or crumbs don't quite find their way where intended. Or exactly what we do, within reason, with some if we realise we've got some Holy Vinegar and Divine Mould on our hands.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry?

Yes - we do it every week.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry? Or is it a universal Anglican practice to consume only hosts consecrated at that Eucharist and, if you run out, to go consecrate more using a tiny prayer with the words of institution (which seems to me almost Lutheran to me every time I read in the BCP what a priest should do if s/he runs out of hosts at Communion).

In the CofE the rules say consecrate more then and there. There may be some parishes that break the rules but its not us evangelicals.
[Razz]

quote:

Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed?

Ought never to happen in the Church of England. Consecrated elements are supposed to be consumed at the Eucharist for which they were consecrated. If they are kept to take to the sick they should be used then and there - and if not the minister who distributes them should use them.

On the one occasion that I remember when I took Communion to a sick person who wasn't at home when I got there, I ate and drank it with someone else.

The theory is sort of that the home Communion is really just the same as distributing Communion to e congregation in church. If there is someone who can't walk up the chancel steps, you take it to them in their pew. If they can't even leave their house, you just walk a little further to bring them Communion. Ideally (and I know its not always practical) you would use the bread and wine consecrated at public worship in church, and you would take it to them immediately after the service ends. (Cue mildly Anglo-Catholic romantic fantasies of hordes of lay ministers dashing out of church at the end of the service carrying the most precious body and blood of our Lord all over the parish before Sunday lunch)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In the CofE the rules say consecrate more then and there. There may be some parishes that break the rules but its not us evangelicals.
[QUOTE]

We had to do this a couple of weeks ago.

However, the RCC forbids further consecration, though i have never understood why.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

The theory is sort of that the home Communion is really just the same as distributing Communion to e congregation in church. If there is someone who can't walk up the chancel steps, you take it to them in their pew. If they can't even leave their house, you just walk a little further to bring them Communion. Ideally (and I know its not always practical) you would use the bread and wine consecrated at public worship in church, and you would take it to them immediately after the service ends. (Cue mildly Anglo-Catholic romantic fantasies of hordes of lay ministers dashing out of church at the end of the service carrying the most precious body and blood of our Lord all over the parish before Sunday lunch)

It's because 'it's not always practical', especially in case of emergency (eg someone in danger of death between one eucharist and the next), that the C of E allows reservation. As is the practice in almost all cathedrals (incidentally does anyone know of one where reservation is not practised? I'm guessing Bradford but can't think of any other likely candidates).

I like to think of it with the analogy of wedding cake which is often (or often used to be: I've not come across it recently) sent out in little packets to those invited guests that couldn't be present.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry? Or is it a universal Anglican practice to consume only hosts consecrated at that Eucharist and, if you run out, to go consecrate more using a tiny prayer with the words of institution (which seems to me almost Lutheran to me every time I read in the BCP what a priest should do if s/he runs out of hosts at Communion).

In the CofE the rules say consecrate more then and there. There may be some parishes that break the rules but its not us evangelicals.

Which rules?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, the RCC forbids further consecration, though i have never understood why.

It is because consecration of bread and wine occurs as part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is not something technical or mechanical that can take place on its own; it exists only within the context of the Holy Sacrifice. [Angel]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That is what I thought to be the case - which is why I am very unhappy with Anglican practice - except in so far as the WHOLE of the liturgy is the holy sacrifice, not just up to the bit where the celebrant communicates.

I'd like to hear a RC take on this.

[ 09. January 2014, 17:44: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

I read somewhere - but can't find the reference -that the ecclesiatical courts had ruled in the late 1960s that Series 2 had legalised reservation in the CofE, albeit inadvertently. And that this principle was upheld in Series 3. A liturgy for Communion of the sick from the reserved sacrament was authorised in 1983.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
incidentally does anyone know of one where reservation is not practised? I'm guessing Bradford but can't think of any other likely candidates).

When we visited Wellington Cathedral last year, I looked for the Reserved Sacrament but couldn't find it or mention of it.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That is what I thought to be the case - which is why I am very unhappy with Anglican practice - except in so far as the WHOLE of the liturgy is the holy sacrifice, not just up to the bit where the celebrant communicates.

I'd like to hear a RC take on this.

The nature of religious sacrificial offerings is such that the sacrifice is completed when it is consumed by the one who offers it. This is how it was in the temple, and continues to be the case within the context of what is necessary for the validity of the Catholic Mass.

This is not to say that the liturgical form that the Church presents for the celebration of the Eucharist should not include the people. The people have the option to receive communion, and are encouraged to do so as frequently as possible. For this purpose, a postcommunion prayer of thanksgiving is included in the Order of Mass, as well as a blessing and dismissal. But from the technical perspective (admittedly a narrow one, but theologically speaking, an accurate one) of what is minimally required for a sacrifice, it is only that the priest himself consume it.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Further consecration with the dominical words.

From the point of view of the Paul Bradshawites and eg, the sisters at West Malling, the whole prayer is consecratory, not just the dominical words, so the whole prayer (including the responses of the people, the High Priestly people of God) is necessary for consecration.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, the RCC forbids further consecration, though i have never understood why.
It is because consecration of bread and wine occurs as part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is not something technical or mechanical that can take place on its own; it exists only within the context of the Holy Sacrifice.

Which is surely exactly why, when the elements run out, Anglicans consecrate more. It is all part of the one celebration. And is why the whole amount copnsecrated is meant to be consumed (with a little leeway for taking it to the sick) - although I think this rule is broken in as many places as it is kept.

And it is a reason why you don't keep stuff over from a previous celebretion, just in case, as is if the body and blood of our Lord was something like a bag of sugar in the kitchen cupboard, to be brought out whenever the sugar bowl needed topping up.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
... And it is a reason why you don't keep stuff over from a previous celebretion, just in case, as is if the body and blood of our Lord was something like a bag of sugar in the kitchen cupboard, to be brought out whenever the sugar bowl needed topping up.

That gets a [Overused]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
The nature of religious sacrificial offerings is such that the sacrifice is completed when it is consumed by the one who offers it. This is how it was in the temple, and continues to be the case within the context of what is necessary for the validity of the Catholic Mass. ...

I can't comment on Catholic theology on the Mass, but that parallel does not work for the 'real' sacrifices of animals in the temple. Yes, parts of some were eaten, but others were not. The essence of sacrifice is that the animal is killed.

However we describe the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whatever we mean by it, and a lot of ink has been spent on this over the last 500 years, the sacrifice in that sense was completed when Jesus died.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I read somewhere - but can't find the reference -that the ecclesiatical courts had ruled in the late 1960s that Series 2 had legalised reservation in the CofE, albeit inadvertently. And that this principle was upheld in Series 3. A liturgy for Communion of the sick from the reserved sacrament was authorised in 1983.

Not to mention communion of the people on Good Friday from the elements consecrated the previous day: I think authorised in 'Lent Holy Week and Easter' (1984?) and more strongly commended in Times and Seasons.
Anyway, reservation was practised widely long before the 1960s. And dioceses insisted that a faculty should be obtained before installing an aumbry: they weren't likely to issue one of those if aumbries were illegal.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
incidentally does anyone know of one where reservation is not practised? I'm guessing Bradford but can't think of any other likely candidates).
When we visited Wellington Cathedral last year, I looked for the Reserved Sacrament but couldn't find it or mention of it.

The OP is about the C of E so I was asking about cathedrals in England. Though I wonder if any parts of the Anglican world frown upon reservation except perhaps Ireland and the diocese of Sydney.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, the RCC forbids further consecration, though i have never understood why.
It is because consecration of bread and wine occurs as part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is not something technical or mechanical that can take place on its own; it exists only within the context of the Holy Sacrifice.
Which is surely exactly why, when the elements run out, Anglicans consecrate more. It is all part of the one celebration. And is why the whole amount copnsecrated is meant to be consumed (with a little leeway for taking it to the sick) - although I think this rule is broken in as many places as it is kept.

And it is a reason why you don't keep stuff over from a previous celebretion, just in case, as is if the body and blood of our Lord was something like a bag of sugar in the kitchen cupboard, to be brought out whenever the sugar bowl needed topping up.

I think the point of not saying the words of institution more than once in a celebration of the Eucharist is that the whole celebration, beginning (in the case of an RC Mass) with the sign of the cross and ending with the dismissal and "Thanks be to God" is one long prayer of praise, thanksgiving, offering, and sacrifice made by Christ through His Church to the father. Just because the RC believes that the consecration has occurred by the time that the words of institution have been said does not mean that the whole celebration including parts that occur after the words of institution are not part of the consecration, the offering, the sacrifice, etc.

The Orthodox go farther than this by refusing to identify a moment during the Eucharistic Prayer at which the consecration can said to have happened. The Eucharist occurs outside of time.

I just don't think you can divide the consecration of one set of elements from the consecration of another in one Eucharisitc celebration. It is one whole. It is like Jesus reanimating right after dying on the cross because he forgot to save a few more people or going back into the tomb after coming out for the same reason. It is one offering for the salvation of all. Liturgies can argue about how it's oneness should be reflected in the liturgy, but I think the a single consecration if a single set if elements is an indispensable element of this.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, the RCC forbids further consecration, though i have never understood why.
It is because consecration of bread and wine occurs as part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is not something technical or mechanical that can take place on its own; it exists only within the context of the Holy Sacrifice.
Which is surely exactly why, when the elements run out, Anglicans consecrate more. It is all part of the one celebration. And is why the whole amount copnsecrated is meant to be consumed (with a little leeway for taking it to the sick) - although I think this rule is broken in as many places as it is kept.

And it is a reason why you don't keep stuff over from a previous celebretion, just in case, as is if the body and blood of our Lord was something like a bag of sugar in the kitchen cupboard, to be brought out whenever the sugar bowl needed topping up.

This is a mistake: the rite of Communion is an interpolation or addition, and not a necessary part of the Sacrifice, which is completed when the priest receives the Body and Blood. There are different graces to be received from hearing Mass and from Communicating, though we felicitously combine them these days. It can even exist independent of the offering of the Sacrifice, as at Orthodox liturgies of the presanctified, or the giving of the viaticum, or the Good Friday liturgy (where the people receive as well): I agree that the ideal would be to receive from the Hosts consecrated at the same Mass, but this is usually impractical. The Sanctissimum is the Sanctissimum is the Sanctissimum, as far as catholic theology is concerned, so reception of it confers the same graces regardless of when it was consecrated.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Put me down as believing that if there are laypeople present who are disposed to receive, the laypeople should receive and the priest should make provision so that they can receive. Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is not only for emergency communion of the sick but for situations like this. It should not be the norm, though, for reserved consecrated elements to be used at every Mass where laypeople are present.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Put me down as believing that if there are laypeople present who are disposed to receive, the laypeople should receive and the priest should make provision so that they can receive. Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is not only for emergency communion of the sick but for situations like this. It should not be the norm, though, for reserved consecrated elements to be used at every Mass where laypeople are present.

One problem with this is that there is precious little catechesis (IME) as to what "properly disposed" actually means, and thus people are misled into receiving communion out of habit. I think a pronounced return to non-communicating masses, at least for portions of the congregation, would be salutary.

Don't forget that reservation is also practised for adoration and contemplation: the tabernacle is not merely a larder but an holy temple.

In practice, Low Masses seldom if ever use reserved sacrament for any number of practical reasons: the server can easily count the number of communicants, the Mass isn't being celebrated at the same altar which houses the tabernacle/sanctuary containing the aumbry &c. So it isn't really the 'usual practice', just the practice that most of the congregation see, and not one which particularly bothers me, I must say. Except when we celebrate at the Nave Altar (:wailing and gnashing of teeth:), which necessitates a miniature procession of the MBS from the tabernacle on the High Altar. [Disappointed]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is a mistake: the rite of Communion is an interpolation or addition, and not a necessary part of the Sacrifice, which is completed when the priest receives the Body and Blood.

I doubt that this view is the norm among mainstream Roman Catholics. It is certainly not the Anglican view which is the only one relevant to this thread.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is a mistake: the rite of Communion is an interpolation or addition, and not a necessary part of the Sacrifice, which is completed when the priest receives the Body and Blood.
I doubt that this view is the norm among mainstream Roman Catholics. It is certainly not the Anglican view which is the only one relevant to this thread.

As far as I am concerned, it is a statement of fact (historical and theological), which was offered to explain why communicating from the reserved sacrament need not be anathema.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Is a non-communicating Mass canonically or rubrically allowed in either the C of E, other Anglican Provinces, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? (I think it is still allowed in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.) What about in Orthodoxy?

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is a non-communicating Mass canonically or rubrically allowed in either the C of E, other Anglican Provinces, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? (I think it is still allowed in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.) What about in Orthodoxy?

I am not sure about canonically, but I think that even when non-communicating High Mass existed in the CofE, there would always have been a few infirm people who would have received - those who were not able to get to the 8am service. Apart from them - everyone stayed in their seat.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is a non-communicating Mass canonically or rubrically allowed in either the C of E, other Anglican Provinces, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? (I think it is still allowed in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.) What about in Orthodoxy?

Nothing I can find in Common Worship forbids it, nor (oddly) in the Canons, though the BCP does (IIRC).

The GIRM has an explicit section for masses sine populo, so it's definitely allowed: it does presume that where there is a congregation, there will be some who receive, but this isn't, I think, proscriptive.

It is more than "allowed" in the EF: this was the normal shape of the Mass for over a thousand years...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is a mistake: the rite of Communion is an interpolation or addition, and not a necessary part of the Sacrifice, which is completed when the priest receives the Body and Blood. There are different graces to be received from hearing Mass and from Communicating, though we felicitously combine them these days. It can even exist independent of the offering of the Sacrifice, as at Orthodox liturgies of the presanctified, or the giving of the viaticum, or the Good Friday liturgy (where the people receive as well): I agree that the ideal would be to receive from the Hosts consecrated at the same Mass, but this is usually impractical. The Sanctissimum is the Sanctissimum is the Sanctissimum, as far as catholic theology is concerned, so reception of it confers the same graces regardless of when it was consecrated.

I'm not quite sure which of the subsequent posts also to quote, but I am fairly convinced that the above is not correct.

There is a long standing tension over the centuries between those who emphasise the sacrificial element of the Eucharist, that which it derives from Christ's fulfilment of the OT sacrifices, and those who emphasise the supper elements, that which it derives from the Last Supper and Passover. Much of the Catholic criticism of the Protestant understanding is that it ignores the former and only seems to recognise the latter. However, I do not think that however Catholic a person may be, they can actually throw off completely any element of the Last Supper/Passover understanding of the Eucharist.

Nor and this is very fundamental theology, are there different sorts of graces, either as a general principle or as imparted by different parts of the sacrament. That really is a very erroneous idea.

Obviously, I cannot speak for my own, yet alone other ecclesial communities. However I would be surprised to discover that there is any ecclesial community that takes a different view on either of the last two paragraphs.

Furthermore, if one accepts the concepts of benediction and adoration of the sacrament, which is not universal in Christendom, this is because the elements are the body and blood of Christ in the Mass. Adoration and benediction derive from that fact. They are secondary consequences of it, not something that exists independently of it.

I have not got time or access to the right resources at the moment, but I'm under the fairly certain impression that so far as the Church of England is concerned, services of holy communion where either no one or only the priest communicates are not permitted. That is not to say they may have never happened. Clearly in some circles they have. However, they are not supposed to have done. They are also definitely alien to the 'normal' C of E way of doing things. My recollection is that it is the combined effect of the various rubrics in the BCP that if there is nobody else to receive, the service has to stop at the end of ante-communion.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

I have not got time or access to the right resources at the moment, but I'm under the fairly certain impression that so far as the Church of England is concerned, services of holy communion where either no one or only the priest communicates are not permitted.

They are certainly not encouraged. You are right that the BCP rubrics forbid the practice. I imagine that the reason that the rubrics of the new rites don't mention it is that non-communicating celebrations were virtually non-existent by the time they were drawn up. I don't know what canon law says on the matter.

However, there is a distinction between actually prohibiting the laity from receiving (which I guess rarely happened, even if they were discouraged, in the bad old days) and prohibiting the celebration of the eucharist in the absence of communicants. If there is a congregation, and the priest gets as far as the communion, it's a fait accompli anyway even if nobody comes up to receive.

I attended a most bizarre eucharist recently (not in an extreme anglo-catholic church) where the priest explained, in deference to the large number of Muslims present, that only he would receive communion. [Confused]

That begs so many questions.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete (which is why a bell is sometimes rung at that moment). Doing so he represents, as in so much else, the whole plebs sancta Dei. How else are private Masses allowed? You may say that they aren't, or shouldn't be, but they are the constant practice of the Western Church for centuries.

In re the CofE: the rubrics of the BCP do not bind universally, unless using that book, I think. And as I say, I can't find a prohibition in the canons (which surprised me as well): perhaps I'm not looking hard enough.

I was perhaps too hasty when I spoke of different graces: what I meant was that one can receive grace by hearing the Mass. Since we know that the reception of the sacrament also effects grace (ex opere operato if you like), then we have discerned two modes of God's operation in respect to the Holy Sacrifice. Inextricably bound up, yes, but distinct.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is a non-communicating Mass canonically or rubrically allowed in either the C of E, other Anglican Provinces, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? (I think it is still allowed in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.) What about in Orthodoxy?
Nothing I can find in Common Worship forbids it, nor (oddly) in the Canons, though the BCP does (IIRC).

The GIRM has an explicit section for masses sine populo, so it's definitely allowed: it does presume that where there is a congregation, there will be some who receive, but this isn't, I think, proscriptive.

It is more than "allowed" in the EF: this was the normal shape of the Mass for over a thousand years...

I think the GIRM for the Ordinary Form does not allow it. A Mass Sine Populo is exactly what it sounds like - there is no congregation so there is no question about offering communion to them.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

For Roman Catholics, it's not a matter of rubric, but of canon law: you can only prevent someone from receiving communion at Mass if they are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. Unless everyone in the congregation is in this condition, you can't plan to have a Mass in which you don't offer communion. Now, if the people spontaneously all chose to refrain from receiving, that's another story.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
For Roman Catholics, it's not a matter of rubric, but of canon law: you can only prevent someone from receiving communion at Mass if they are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. Unless everyone in the congregation is in this condition, you can't plan to have a Mass in which you don't offer communion. Now, if the people spontaneously all chose to refrain from receiving, that's another story.

Does this currently apply to the Extraordinary Form as well?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete

I have been present when a priest consecrated bread and wine for lay servers to take to sick parishioners, and no-one ate or drank at that time. As the priest was not one of those intending to take the sacrament to the sick that day, I am pretty sure they did not communicate themselves. I think I've seen that more than once.

As I said before I'd prefer that we used bread and wine from the normal Sunday celebration for this rather than have a little private ceremony in the vestry or the vicarage, but I know that isn't always practical. (It probably would have been practical in this case but some of the priests at the church I am thinking of seem to have very little sense of the sacramental. Some people just don't "get" music or poetry or painting opr sport or some other art form - these clergy don't seem to "get" ritual or drama or sacrament. Just not part of their personal makeup)

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Yes, it's in the Code (915), so binding on all Latin Rite Roman Catholics regardless of which form of that rite they're celebrating. It may well be different in other rites, I don't know.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete
I have been present when a priest consecrated bread and wine for lay servers to take to sick parishioners, and no-one ate or drank at that time. As the priest was not one of those intending to take the sacrament to the sick that day, I am pretty sure they did not communicate themselves. I think I've seen that more than once.

That is definitely irregular in the C of E. Both the BCP and Common Worship say that the priest must receive the sacrament on every occasion.

quote:

As I said before I'd prefer that we used bread and wine from the normal Sunday celebration for this rather than have a little private ceremony in the vestry or the vicarage, but I know that isn't always practical. (It probably would have been practical in this case but some of the priests at the church I am thinking of seem to have very little sense of the sacramental. Some people just don't "get" music or poetry or painting opr sport or some other art form - these clergy don't seem to "get" ritual or drama or sacrament. Just not part of their personal makeup)

I think this is what some of us are getting at when we suggest that many modern evangelicals in the C of E are just not in the Anglican tradition. Anglicanism has always 'got' liturgy and sacraments even when these were celebrated in a very simple and minimalist way.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Yes, it's in the Code (915), so binding on all Latin Rite Roman Catholics regardless of which form of that rite they're celebrating. It may well be different in other rites, I don't know.

I have a copy of the 2nd edition of Fortescue's book and he says "any Catholic has normally a right to present himself for Communion at any Mass, on condition that he is in a state of grace and fasting from midnight" so I would surmise that while non-communicating masses were customary they were not law.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete
I have been present when a priest consecrated bread and wine for lay servers to take to sick parishioners, and no-one ate or drank at that time. As the priest was not one of those intending to take the sacrament to the sick that day, I am pretty sure they did not communicate themselves. I think I've seen that more than once.

As I said before I'd prefer that we used bread and wine from the normal Sunday celebration for this rather than have a little private ceremony in the vestry or the vicarage, but I know that isn't always practical. (It probably would have been practical in this case but some of the priests at the church I am thinking of seem to have very little sense of the sacramental. Some people just don't "get" music or poetry or painting opr sport or some other art form - these clergy don't seem to "get" ritual or drama or sacrament. Just not part of their personal makeup)

When I have consecrated for home communions, I've always done so as part of a public celebration of the Eucharist (usually but not always in church on Sunday). I would never want to do such a consecration separately from a full celebration of the Eucharist, which necessarily includes the communion of at least the presiding minister.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
[QB] But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete [QB]

That assumes you believe that it is a sacrifice. Many Anglicans don't.

In any event the sacrifice was complete on the cross.

[ 10. January 2014, 22:36: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
[QB] But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete [QB]
That assumes you believe that it is a sacrifice. Many Anglicans don't.

In any event the sacrifice was complete on the cross.

The joke's on them, then, since the word "sacrifice" appears at least twice in the BCP communion service.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

The Roman Catholic canon which requires that any Catholic present and properly prepared to receive the Sacrament has the right to do so is not new. It is mentioned in Fortescue's Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Explained, first published in 1917. (My copy is a later edition, so I cannot be entirely certain as to the date of the canon.)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

A St Paul deals with Christians at Corinth who do not want to eat meat offered to idols. Which means that the meat of animals offered in sacrifice was not eaten as part of the religious rite, but put on sale at the market for consumption at home. The eating of the meat was not part of the religious sacrifice at least in Corinth.

B Whether or not the Eucharistic action is a sacrifice, communion is an essential part of the action. The presiding priest will at least communicate, but in theory all the faithful present may well do so, and now often do. To ascribe outstanding significance to the communion of the priest above that of anybody else is a very misleading bit of clericalism.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

There is truth in both assertions about the 'rights' of Catholics to present themselves for Communion at any Mass.
Old Missals often omit the texts used at the Communion of the Faithful.Indeed this Communion could be seen as an interpolation as,after the priest's communion,if people presented themselves, the altar server would begin the prayer Confiteor... and the priest would give Absolution followed by Domine,non sum dignus.This was exactly the rite used for the distribution of Holy Communion outside of Mass. In the really olden days Holy Communion,strange as it may now seem,was often administered outside of Mass,usually due to fasting regulations.I can remember this practice until the beginning of the 1960s.With one of the changes to the Missal, perhaps in 1962, the rite of Communion was made an integral part of the rite of Mass.The priest would say 3 times Domine,non sum dignus.. and then communicate himself and any of the faithful who presented themselves without the separate rite.
A Missal printed in 1910 has the following about Communion:
Here Holy Communion is administered,if any of the Faithful are desirous of receiving it,and should the Mass be one where Holy Communion can be conveniently given.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
[QB] But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete [QB]
That assumes you believe that it is a sacrifice. Many Anglicans don't.

In any event the sacrifice was complete on the cross.
The joke's on them, then, since the word "sacrifice" appears at least twice in the BCP communion service.

That assumes that the BCP has got it right, of course. OMMV.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

[Snore]

I thought that controversy was knocked on its head years ago. Of course there is only one sacrifice: the point of the mass/eucharist/Lord's Supper is that it allows us to participate in it.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

Another associated issue is that of the Sanctuaty Lamp to indicate the presence of the Sacrament. Has the use of these increased over time in non Anglo-Catholic parishes, or have they tended to be introduced at the same time as reservation?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I thought that controversy was knocked on its head years ago. Of course there is only one sacrifice: the point of the mass/eucharist/Lord's Supper is that it allows us to participate in it.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Stonespring:

quote:
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.

Hosts last a surprisingly long time in a dry, airtight environment. One year we reserved the 'secret' on Good Friday and then forgot all about it. We were reminded when we opened the aumbry in the Lady Chapel the year after to find the missing ciborium and its contents! After a momentary hesitation I reverently consumed them. They were in a perfectly acceptable condition.

The other bit of advice I remember reading on these boards some years ago is that if a host is not fit for human consumption it can be left in water. When it disintegrates it ceases to be the Body of Christ and the resulting slurry can be poured into the consecrated earth. I don't think that I imagined it but I would be intrigued to know what others think of this practice.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

That is what I have seen done when someone coughed up the Host.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Hosts last a surprisingly long time in a dry, airtight environment.

Yes we do - I'll assume this a compliment on my skin-tone...

Ahem.

Just to remind all and sundry that the discussion about the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass vs. memorialism is a tangent to this thread and would probably require a thread of its own to do it justice. Perhaps for current purposes we can assume that Anglicans are permitted to reserve the Sacrament under at least some circumstances without being considered to be idolatrous and take it from there...

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Ah, but can you fit an Ecclesiantics Host into a monstrance? [Big Grin]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

That presumably depends on how monstrous the monstrance is, though not (I hope) on how monstrous the Host is.

Perhaps you'd like to de-monstrate.

John

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Killing me]

Ahem.

Getting back to the subject, our place has a nice aumbry in the north wall of the chancel, wot is seemly, edifying, and pleasing to Bishops, as enny fule kno.

However.....a previous Vicar (back in the 1920s) with baroque tastes moved the High Altar forward to make space at the far west end of the church for a small chapel facing the said aumbry, which chapel he adorned with an altar, some wooden candlesticks (alas, now attacked by woodworm), a corona, and some angels - all of gold-painted wood, and believed to be of Central European origin.........

......whether or not he ever obtained a faculty for this extravaganza, I know not!

It is, however, a useful space for quiet prayer and meditation (and for Sunday Matins), and this, ISTM, is where having a separate space for Reservation can be helpful.

Ian J.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Clearly not good Church of England woodworm

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Sounds lovely, bf.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

On the contrary. They are clearly a crack squad of Protestant woodworm (subspecies Jensenensis), specially bred in the precincts of St Andrew's cathedral and despatched by post worldwide to bring down all trappings of popish idolatry.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I'm not so sure. I suspect that (given the Central European provenance of the said candlesticks) the woodworm are of the egregious Romanian or Bulgarian variety, deliberately allowed into this country under those awful EU regulations to take away the jobs and livelihood of honest English woodworm!

Ian J.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That assumes that the BCP has got it right, of course. OMMV.

Sure--but then the question arises, if they don't think the BCP has it right then why are they Anglican?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That assumes that the BCP has got it right, of course. OMMV.
Sure--but then the question arises, if they don't think the BCP has it right then why are they Anglican?

I think if everyone who differed on some point or other with the BCP left the church'd be even emptier than it is now. Considerably so.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Sure--but then the question arises, if they don't think the BCP has it right then why are they Anglican?

As others as well as me have said before, you don't choose the CofE because you agree with the entire package, like you might if you become a Mormon. Most of us have grown up CofE. Even it we haven't, the CofE is the default Christianity for those who are just Christian. There is nothing like the same obligation to be committed to the BCP, Common Worship or whatever, as there is to the basic truths of the Christian Faith and the historic creeds.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Most of us have grown up CofE. Even it we haven't, the CofE is the default Christianity for those who are just Christian.

Exactly. This is why the 'Anglican Communion' has always been more or less dysfunctional: in most places outside England people actually choose 'Anglicanism' as a denomination. It leads to many crossed wires and misunderstandings not least here on the Ship.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0