Thread: Regular Distribution From The Reserved Sacrament 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=030484
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
My current TEC parish has some practices that seem to bend the canons quite a bit. For one, at our daily, normally lay-led Morning Prayer we start with The Angelus, then go right into MP, straight out of the BCP, then we all say the Institution Narrative in unison, then the leader and a parishioner will distribute the wafers/wine as we stand in a circle, finally the post-communion prayer and dismissal. Does anyone find this unusual, I didn't think there was any real provision for the regular reception of the Reserved Sacrament? It's all done with great reverence, so I don't really have an issue, just find it unusual.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
There is a rubric on page 408 of the 1978 BCP that seems to indicate that, if a priest is not available, with the permission of the Bishop, a decon may distribute from the reserved sacrament. It sounds like what you do is a little more involved and different from what is described, but maybe it's the origin?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I'm sure it is all done with 'great reverence' and the best of intent, but I can't help feeling it's a little dodgy. The point of reserving the Sacrament is to allow those who aren't able to participate directly in the Sunday liturgy to do so indirectly. If the weekday MP congregation were unable to be present at the Sunday mass, fair enough, but it looks as if it is an additional opportunity for communion without the possibility of sharing in the eucharistic offering. Maybe it's OK.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
They certainly shouldn't be reciting the wods of institution together because that makes it look like a lay concelebration to consecrate.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm sure it is all done with 'great reverence' and the best of intent, but I can't help feeling it's a little dodgy. The point of reserving the Sacrament is to allow those who aren't able to participate directly in the Sunday liturgy to do so indirectly. If the weekday MP congregation were unable to be present at the Sunday mass, fair enough, but it looks as if it is an additional opportunity for communion without the possibility of sharing in the eucharistic offering. Maybe it's OK.
I'm not sure this is always the case in practice. I have experienced a large city centre parish which had many services use the reserved sacrament in one of the secondary services where the priest was not available to officiate.
I have no doubt that there would have been permission from the bishop to do this.
In other parish I was visiting (in Wales, so I don't know if this reflects a difference in the CiW), the midweek service was led by a NS deacon using the reserved sacrament. From what she told me, (I can't remember if this was exactly the terms she used) there was a shortage of traditionally ordained clergy in the diocese and she was undertaking a non-traditional training system with a view to being priested at some point in the future.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Just to underline that this is official policy, see this from the Diocese of Monmouth
One of the points under "The deanery set out a number of clear recommendations" is that
quote:
The Reserved Sacrament should be available in all churches where deacons and laity are required to lead worship.
[ 14. June 2016, 14:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
I went to MP this morning, same as I had previously described, although today it was led by one of our priests in clerical shirt and dog collar. The only part of the Institution Narrative we say in unison are the actual words of Institution, the rest is said by the officiant. It's already consecrated so it's not like it's being re-consecrated. I admit it may be a lot dodgy. Some of our practices come from other Provinces apparently, that is why I was asking if others had seen this, I know CofE has different rubrics. We actually had to get permission from the Bishop to reserve, this being Virginia. I think the Bishop gives us a lot of latitude as we have some 3,000 members are growing, and confirmed 90+ people at Pentecost. We do practice open communion, which does really bother me.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I think there is primitive precedent ( in Tertullian?) for lay communion in the weekk from the sacrament they have taken away.
I have a feeling it is a bit dodgy, but far better than having no weekdays services and no reserved sacrament.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I have refused to lead HC from the reserved sacrament in the absence of a priest on the basis that Sunday obligation is to hear mass, not to receive.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
This is sometimes called "communion by extension", isn't it? I suspect the degree to which it is frowned upon varies from place to place, but the only time I've heard it recommended is when there needs to be a eucharistic service and no priest is available. In which case you would be celebrating "alongside" the community where the species were consecrated.
I sort of see that, but I suspect it's best regarded as a form of second best, and you should try to do better if you can.
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
Ron, I think you are correct, that is the term I had heard before, I don't think TEC really has such a provision, but I may be wrong. I surmise we are doing it as a time saver, as MP is rather long, and we have no other daily Eucharist, although we do have daily evensong (sung). Our Sunday main service has only one lesson and no psalm, which are technically allowed although not common. That is also, I think, to save time as there is normally a large crowd to communicate, and the service is normally 75 minutes or longer even with cuts. The fact that there is often clergy present at MP makes the odd communion routine dodgier. I sometimes get worked up over these innovations, but the parish is such a wonderful place it's hard to stay upset over it.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
Ron, I think you are correct, that is the term I had heard before, I don't think TEC really has such a provision, but I may be wrong.
My somewhat quick search through a PDF of the BCP found two references to communion from reserved elements (other than on Good Friday).
The first is for Communion Under Special Cirumstances, where the rubrics (page 396) say:
quote:
This form is intended for use with those who for reasonable cause cannot be present at a public celebration of the Eucharist.
When persons are unable to be present for extended periods, it is desirable that the priest arrange to celebrate the Eucharist with them from time to time on a regular basis, using either the Proper of the Day or one of those appointed for Various Occasions. If it is necessary to shorten the service, the priest may begin the celebration at the Offertory, but it is desirable that a passage from the Gospel first be read.
At other times, or when desired, such persons may be communicated from the reserved Sacrament, using the following form.
The "such persons" in the last sentence appears to be "those who for reasonable cause cannot be present at a public celebration of the Eucharist" "for extended periods."
The second reference is in Additional Directions for the Holy Eucharist (pp. 408–09), which say:
quote:
When the services of a priest cannot be obtained, the bishop may, at discretion, authorize a deacon to distribute Holy Communion to the congregation from the reserved Sacrament in the following manner:
1. After the Liturgy of the Word (and the receiving of the people’s offering), the deacon reverently places the consecrated Sacrament on the Altar, during which time a communion hymn may be sung.
2. The Lord’s Prayer is then said, the deacon first saying, “Let us pray in the words our Savior Christ hath (has) taught us.”
3. And then, omitting the breaking of the Bread, the deacon proceeds with what follows in the liturgy as far as the end of the postcommunion prayer, and then dismisses the people.
If any of the consecrated Bread or Wine remain, apart from any which may be required for the Communion of the sick, or of others who for weighty cause could not be present at the celebration, or for the administration of Communion by a deacon to a congregation when no priest is available, the celebrant or deacon, and other communicants, reverently eat and drink it, either after the Communion of the people or after the Dismissal.
So, at least to this non-Eoiscopalian, it does seem a bit dodgy rubric-wise. Any idea if the bishop is aware and has approved?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I have been in four different hospitals in the last few years and each time have received communion in bed fro the reserved sacrament, not necessarily on Sunday if not practical.
One priest took the view there was no need for him to say anything.
Others had a little booklet with confession and gospel reading and intercessions - a sort of mass.
But certainly no Word of Institution or equivalent to the eucharistic prayer. After all, that had been done already. (These other priests were all women and MOTR by modern standards.)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It seems strange that TEC should restrict this ministry to a 'deacon', when presumably lay people are widely authorised to distribute communion on other occasions. There can't be a theological reason for this.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
If it's of any interest or relevance to an enquiry which relates to practice in a different province, this is the guidance on communion by extension in the CofE and this is the page it comes from with links to the forms of service etc.
The notes say one has to have explicit permission from the bishop. Whoever is leading must make it clear that this is not a separate Communion Service and that the elements have already been consecrated at a previous Communion Service. So there must not be a consecration prayer.
So what Ascension-ite describes, we would not be allowed to do.
It's my understanding - though Leo may correct me - that the basis on which Reservation is permitted in England is primarily to enable the communion of the sick and those in extremis. It would be a fairly bad breach of the spirit of the rules to practice Reservation solely so as to represent the presence of Christ, if this were not on the basis that the elements are actually be available to be received if necessary. A standard item of CofE equipment is a black box with a small flask, chalice and a paten for taking communion to the sick.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It seems strange that TEC should restrict this ministry to a 'deacon', when presumably lay people are widely authorised to distribute communion on other occasions. There can't be a theological reason for this.
At one of the hospitals I was in, I was brought communion on Sunday morning by a laywoman from mass (as I'd call it) in the chapel.
It is standard RC practice as far as I know for lay people to minister home communion and has been for many years.
Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on
:
Oh my! While a TEC parish I know well was short of priests, they celebrated MP every other Sunday, usually led by a deacon. That deacon took it upon himself to provide communion from the Reserved Sacrament, and at times, read the entire Eucharistic canon. The diocese is known to be quite liberal in many things, but on this point he was soundly reprimanded by the Bishop, who forbids regular distribution from the Reserved Sacrament except for the sick and shut in, and then only by clergy or those duly licensed.
In the case raised, I suppose the best inquiry might be to the bishop. It may be approved of, or not. I find it curious though that if a priest was present he still distributed from the Reserved Sacrament. He might easily have used MP as the pro-anaphora, and celebrated Eucharist with his people, as should be, IMHO, his joy and duty. Very odd he did not.
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
I have had hospital/home visits from our priests where they have brought the preconsecrated sacrament in a small wooden box with chalice/paten, corporal, and received that way, we commission lay people to do that as well. The Morning Prayer/Communion is perhaps approved by the bishop, although I do not know. I do know that we had a similar set up on Sunday morning where the main service had alternated with MP for many decades. After MP anyone who wished to receive could repair to one of the chapels where a similar short service would take place and the reserved sacrament distributed. We recently transitioned to HE as the main service so this practice ended. That seemed rather odd as well, considering several priests were available and could have done an abbreviated Eucharist. This parish fits me rather well, but I am concerned about some of the liturgical innovations, and how far they will go.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
In the past Mass would be celebrated every day in Catholic churches. With a steep decline in the number of priests this is no longer possible in a number of parishes.
If there is no Mass on a particular day there will often be a 'Service of Word and Communion',
led by a number of lay persons (male and/or female)who have been commissioned as 'Ministers of the Eucharist' by the diocesan bishop.
If possible one person will lead the Service and distribute Communion from the tabernacle (Reserved Sacrament) while one or more other persons will do the Readings of the Day.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
But why all this obsession with receiving HC?
In many parts of the world, and increasingly so in the UK, there is a shortage of priests so we need to find another way of worship rather than masking the problem.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It seems strange that TEC should restrict this ministry to a 'deacon', when presumably lay people are widely authorised to distribute communion on other occasions. There can't be a theological reason for this.
It may be an attempt to restrict exactly this kind of abuse, I suppose.
I've been in a TEC service (not at my regular shack, but somewhere I find myself from time to time) which was intended to be a normal Sunday Eucharist, but turned into a lay-led Morning Prayer with Communion from the Reserved Sacrament because the stand-in priest was somehow prevented from attending at the last minute.
Shambles would be too kind a word.
You expect the choreography to be a bit off if someone is dumped into a service they weren't expecting at the last moment, but the layperson leading the service (who is apparently a licensed lay preacher and Eucharistic minister) didn't seem to understand the difference between this and a Eucharist.
There were, at least, no words of institution, but there were a couple of congregants bringing bread and wine as an apparent offering.
So I have no idea what actually went on there - was the Blessed Sacrament treated to a rather disrespectful stroll around the church? Was communion administered correctly from the Reserved Sacrament, and some bread and wine wandered through the middle of it like some kind of sacramental three-card Monte? Or was the Sacrament mixed with unconsecrated bread, and the resulting combination passed off as the real thing?
At best, it was very confusing.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But why all this obsession with receiving HC?
For me that's the main reason I go to church on Sunday. O and taking part in the eucharist.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It seems strange that TEC should restrict this ministry to a 'deacon', when presumably lay people are widely authorised to distribute communion on other occasions. There can't be a theological reason for this.
It may be an attempt to restrict exactly this kind of abuse, I suppose.
I've been in a TEC service (not at my regular shack, but somewhere I find myself from time to time) which was intended to be a normal Sunday Eucharist, but turned into a lay-led Morning Prayer with Communion from the Reserved Sacrament because the stand-in priest was somehow prevented from attending at the last minute.
Shambles would be too kind a word.
You expect the choreography to be a bit off if someone is dumped into a service they weren't expecting at the last moment, but the layperson leading the service (who is apparently a licensed lay preacher and Eucharistic minister) didn't seem to understand the difference between this and a Eucharist.
There were, at least, no words of institution, but there were a couple of congregants bringing bread and wine as an apparent offering.
So I have no idea what actually went on there - was the Blessed Sacrament treated to a rather disrespectful stroll around the church? Was communion administered correctly from the Reserved Sacrament, and some bread and wine wandered through the middle of it like some kind of sacramental three-card Monte? Or was the Sacrament mixed with unconsecrated bread, and the resulting combination passed off as the real thing?
At best, it was very confusing.
Whilst I appreciate and approve, in the interests of good order, the restriction of consecration of the elements to the Priest within the Anglican Church, I also note that Jesus didn't append to "as often as you drink it" the words "as long as you've got a priest handy".
Therefore I'd suggest that even were it so that bread that had not been consecrated by a priest were mixed with that that had, the congregation would not be playing a weird sort of reverse religious Russian Roulette, and it would still be the "real thing", just irregularly so.
Moreover, respect is in the intention, so the walk around the church is disrespectful only if so intended. I doubt it was.
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In the past Mass would be celebrated every day in Catholic churches. With a steep decline in the number of priests this is no longer possible in a number of parishes.
If there is no Mass on a particular day there will often be a 'Service of Word and Communion',
led by a number of lay persons (male and/or female)who have been commissioned as 'Ministers of the Eucharist' by the diocesan bishop.
If possible one person will lead the Service and distribute Communion from the tabernacle (Reserved Sacrament) while one or more other persons will do the Readings of the Day.
Forthview, This is essentially what we are doing, except using MP as the Liturgy of the Word. The same few people usually act as officiant, and the reader usually functions as acolyte. There isn't always a priest present, they are all often busy with appointments, so perhaps the Bishop has approved it and the leaders are licensed, I have not specifically asked. Interesting that there appears to be a Catholic counterpart.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Therefore I'd suggest that even were it so that bread that had not been consecrated by a priest were mixed with that that had, the congregation would not be playing a weird sort of reverse religious Russian Roulette, and it would still be the "real thing", just irregularly so.
There was no attempted consecration at all. If we start with your assumption that non-priests are able (however irregularly) to confect the sacrament, I would assume that you would still require your lay president to actually intend to do so.
(Reservation itself only makes sense if you assume that there is some permanent change imbued by the act of consecration. If that is what you think, then it seems to me that you need consecration to happen (whether you require a priest or not). If that's not what you think, I don't see how reservation makes sense.)
ETA: Re respect is in the intention, I agree, to a point. If I treat you, in all innocence, in a way that is respectful in my culture, but disrespectful in yours, then I think we agree that there's no disrespect.
If, on the other hand, I treat you with the same respect that I would show a cow or a sheep, because I think that you are the equivalent of an animal, then I think I would be being disrespectful even though I would intend no disrespect.
[ 16. June 2016, 04:31: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Therefore I'd suggest that even were it so that bread that had not been consecrated by a priest were mixed with that that had, the congregation would not be playing a weird sort of reverse religious Russian Roulette, and it would still be the "real thing", just irregularly so.
There was no attempted consecration at all. If we start with your assumption that non-priests are able (however irregularly) to confect the sacrament, I would assume that you would still require your lay president to actually intend to do so.
(Reservation itself only makes sense if you assume that there is some permanent change imbued by the act of consecration. If that is what you think, then it seems to me that you need consecration to happen (whether you require a priest or not). If that's not what you think, I don't see how reservation makes sense.)
/quote]
"To the Holy all things are Holy" - Depends what you mean by "consecration". It seems to me that the elements are set aside by the priest acting for his congregation for use in the Eucharist; a specific act of consecration makes this explicit, but the really important consecration to my mind happens when the communicant receives with the intent to receive Christ. Perhaps my theology has fallen down the candle in recent years ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
ETA: Re respect is in the intention, I agree, to a point. If I treat you, in all innocence, in a way that is respectful in my culture, but disrespectful in yours, then I think we agree that there's no disrespect.
If, on the other hand, I treat you with the same respect that I would show a cow or a sheep, because I think that you are the equivalent of an animal, then I think I would be being disrespectful even though I would intend no disrespect.
Yes, but that doesn't appear to have happened here. I'm not sure what's more disrespectful about bring the elements up in the offertory compared with parading them around in a monstrance, for example
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But why all this obsession with receiving HC?
For me that's the main reason I go to church on Sunday. O and taking part in the eucharist.
But for centuries peoplke have taken part in thr eucharist without receiving every time.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But why all this obsession with receiving HC?
For me that's the main reason I go to church on Sunday. O and taking part in the eucharist.
But for centuries peoplke have taken part in thr eucharist without receiving every time.
Some Christians, yes. Some other Christians, no, at least not as a general rule.
Being somewhat familiar with Episcopal churches in the region it appears Ascension-ite is posting from, my impression is they almost all would fall into the latter group. As a general rule, participating in the Eucharist would mean receiving, I suspect.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But why all this obsession with receiving HC?
For me that's the main reason I go to church on Sunday. O and taking part in the eucharist.
But for centuries peoplke have taken part in thr eucharist without receiving every time.
Some Christians, yes. Some other Christians, no, at least not as a general rule.
But those other Christians didn't even celebrate the eucharist regularly - often only about 4 times a year.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But those other Christians didn't even celebrate the eucharist regularly - often only about 4 times a year.
Simply not accurate. Many of those Christians, at least in my part of the world, are Episcopalians and Lutherans, who celebrate the Eucharist weekly (at least). Perhaps you're applying an Anglo-Catholic understanding to Christians, including some other Anglicans, who wouldn't share that understanding?
ETA: My bad. After posting, I caught you said "didn't" instead of "don't," which is what I though I read. It doesn't change things though. The fact that these other Christians have moved to more frequent communion doesn't mean they have also moved to an understanding that one (as a general rule) participates in the Eucharist without receiving communion.
[ 16. June 2016, 13:37: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
C of E folk didn't get a weekly eucharist until the 20th century. Before that, they followed the rubric about 3 times per year of which Easter had to be one.
Methodists and Moravbians still only get monthly.
Baptists and URCs fortnightly.
[ 16. June 2016, 15:07: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
It's not the distribution of the reserved Sacrament that's the problem, as I see it--the problem is twofold
1) The use of the words of institution is at best superfluous and at worst heretical.
2) Doing this in the context of Morning Prayer makes absolutely no sense at all.
I'm sure the clergy of this parish have some sort of justification for doing this, but from my POV it seems like it's another milestone in the time-honored Anglican tradition of Making Shit Up.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
C of E folk didn't get a weekly eucharist until the 20th century. Before that, they followed the rubric about 3 times per year of which Easter had to be one.
Methodists and Moravbians still only get monthly.
Baptists and URCs fortnightly.
They may not have had a weekly Sung Eucharist but they certainty had an 8am which was well attended, especially on the first Sunday of the month.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
C of E folk didn't get a weekly eucharist until the 20th century. Before that, they followed the rubric about 3 times per year of which Easter had to be one.
Methodists and Moravbians still only get monthly.
Baptists and URCs fortnightly.
leo, I apologize if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it does seem to be that apples and oranges are being mixed with kumquats.
You seem to be saying that in the Christian traditions where people have for centuries participated in the Eucharist without partaking every time, the reason for that is because communion is celebrated infrequently. As discussed in another thread recently, though, it's really the opposite case, at least for those from the Genevan strain and others influenced by them—communion was infrequent because there was an expectation that most if not all of the congregation would commune at every service. Those in charge didn't think people were ready to go from non-communing participation except for a few times a year to communing participation every week.
But when you talk about how Christians have for centuries participated in the Eucharist without receiving communion (or as in you put it in another post in this thread, "the Sunday obligation is to hear mass, not to receive"), I think the relevant consideration is not so much frequency, but understanding of what the Eucharist is, particularly in terms of sacrifice.
My point is simply that many Episcopalians in the area from which I presume Ascension-ite is posting may not share an Anglo-Catholic understanding of the Eucharist or of Eucharistic sacrifice. It is a historically very low church region. So when you suggest participating in the Eucharist without receiving, or an obligation to hear mass rather than to receive, I think you may be coming from a set of assumptions and understanding that aren't necessarily shared and may even seem foreign.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
but the really important consecration to my mind happens when the communicant receives with the intent to receive Christ. Perhaps my theology has fallen down the candle in recent years
Perhaps
I can't make Reservation make sense with that viewpoint, though.
quote:
I'm not sure what's more disrespectful about bring the elements up in the offertory compared with parading them around in a monstrance, for example
For me, it's a straightforward case of treating the Most Precious Body and Blood as though it was simply bread and wine.
If some change happens to the bread and wine when it's consecrated, then Reservation makes sense, but you shouldn't then treat the consecrated elements as though they are mere bread and wine.
If you think the consecrated elements are mere bread and wine, I don't think Reservation makes sense.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Apologies. The first sentence of the second paragraph should have been: You seem to be saying that in the Christian traditions where the assumption is receiving communion at every, or almost every, celebration, the reason is because communion is celebrated infrequently.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
but the really important consecration to my mind happens when the communicant receives with the intent to receive Christ. Perhaps my theology has fallen down the candle in recent years
Perhaps
I can't make Reservation make sense with that viewpoint, though.
I can. Since the regular way in which bread and wine are set aside for the Eucharist is consecration by a Priest, it enables regularly set aside elements to be used in the absence of one.
quote:
quote:
I'm not sure what's more disrespectful about bring the elements up in the offertory compared with parading them around in a monstrance, for example
For me, it's a straightforward case of treating the Most Precious Body and Blood as though it was simply bread and wine.
Except you're not. You're bringing them to the altar for their intended purpose.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
C of E folk didn't get a weekly eucharist until the 20th century. Before that, they followed the rubric about 3 times per year of which Easter had to be one.
Methodists and Moravbians still only get monthly.
Baptists and URCs fortnightly.
They may not have had a weekly Sung Eucharist but they certainty had an 8am which was well attended, especially on the first Sunday of the month.
No - ther 8 o'clock seems to have been a creation of the evangelical revival. before that, Methodists who wanted to receive frequently found that very few C of E churches offered it as suggested here.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
C of E folk didn't get a weekly eucharist until the 20th century. Before that, they followed the rubric about 3 times per year of which Easter had to be one.
Methodists and Moravbians still only get monthly.
Baptists and URCs fortnightly.
They may not have had a weekly Sung Eucharist but they certainty had an 8am which was well attended, especially on the first Sunday of the month.
No - ther 8 o'clock seems to have been a creation of the evangelical revival. before that, Methodists who wanted to receive frequently found that very few C of E churches offered it as suggested here.
The link doesn't work but, no, I saw - at London Metropolitan archive - a record of service patterns from the 1880s and practically every church had a weekly 8am on Sunday. The number of communicants were large. St Mary Islington's 8am started at the beginning of the 19th century.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
The link doesn't work but, no, I saw - at London Metropolitan archive - a record of service patterns from the 1880s and practically every church had a weekly 8am on Sunday. The number of communicants were large. St Mary Islington's 8am started at the beginning of the 19th century.
2nd link attempt.
I was referring to the time BEFORE the evangelical revival
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
When Wesley and the early Methodists attended communion weekly it was thought highly suspicious and 'popish'. Meanwhile the Bishop of Oxford was writing to his clergy to tell them to administer the Lord's Supper more than just three times a year. It's all too easy to look back at the history of the Church of England through the lens of the Parish Communion Movement and the Oxford Movement and assume it was always centred on the Eucharist, but it isn't so.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Since the regular way in which bread and wine are set aside for the Eucharist is consecration by a Priest, it enables regularly set aside elements to be used in the absence of one.
Why, then, do we keep the Sacrament in an aumbry or pyx rather than in a cupboard with the plate and the altar cloths? Why do we burn a presence light? As I understand it, you're saying that the consecration of the elements that the priest performs in a Mass is the same, in essence, as the consecration of the plate, the altar cloths, and indeed the church building itself. This is not reflected in the way that we habitually treat the Sacrament.
quote:
Except you're not. You're bringing them to the altar for their intended purpose.
In this church (as in many other TEC churches), the Sacrament is reserved in an aumbry behind the altar.
If the bread and wine that was presented at the "offertory" was the Sacrament, then it left the aumbry, went out into the Narthex, probably hung around on a table in the Narthex for a while, and then came back in again. And in all these journeys, there was no procession, and no kind of outward indication that it was anything other than bread and wine.
Personally, I think that's unlikely. Far more likely, in my mind, is that the people who prepared for the service did their normal thing, which includes placing bread and wine on a table in the Narthex, and that the bread and wine were brought up to the altar as normal, and then, well, confusion happened.
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
Sorry for being absent from this thread as we had a terrible storm and I've had no power since Thurs., all now restored. I was at church this morning, and we sent out three individuals with the Eucharist in nice wooden boxes, to the sick and those in prison. We reserve the sacrament in two chapels, one in the main church and the other in the original church building on campus. Obviously we are purposely reserving for use at MP, I'm not entirely sure anything we do has the permission of the bishop, who is not one of the more loony TEC bishops. He may have approved this based on the uncertainly of having clergy present for MP, as it is not always certain that we have a priest present. I may ask one of the assistant clergy, but he keeps telling me that he doesn't make decisions, he "just works there"...lol
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0