|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eucharistic Prayer for Family Communion
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
At a recent Family Communion with Baptism at our Parish Church (at which I was unexpectedly called on to assist) the Eucharistic Prayer consisted of the President singing the communion hymn/worship song 'Behold the Lamb who bears our sins away'.
I had and have considerable doubt whether this was a valid consecration of the elements. What do shipmates think?
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
The C of E has recently authorised two new Eucharistic Prayers especially suitable for Family Communion use. Here's one of them:
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/additional-eucharistic-prayers/prayer-one.aspx
We've used this (without the optional bracketed interpolations) at Our Place for a Harvest Festival service. Short and sweet, and does what it says on the tin!
I can't see that simply singing a worship song can be a valid Anglican consecration, but could you please link to the actual words of the song?
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
If it's not text authorised by the CofE, it's not valid. I don't know the song you're referring to. Is there a link to the words anywhere?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
The second link doesn't work, and I personally couldn't get past the first few lines of the 'achingly beautiful' song on the YouTube video... ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
...but what Spike said. Not a valid Anglican consecration, and so you are all (alas) Hell-bound Hereticks...
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
And apart from being authorised, does the song include an epiclesis and an anamnesis and words of institution and thanks and offering of some sort?
Or was the "Eucharistic prayer" just regarded as a magic formula to validate communion?
I bet they called the service "Communion" rather than "Eucharist". It is so much more than that. It is the summation of the Christian community's worship of God through Christ.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
As to these new Eucharistic Prayers,the first one is not bad, however I find the second one,very Evangelical and rather poor.
It has struck me several times,that the Eucharistic Prayers as found in the USA and Canada are richer and far more catholic than those found in the Church of England.
Therefore it is quite understandable that Catholic Anglicans in the C.of.E.sometimes opt for those prayers from the Roman missal,or from the US.BCP or the Canadian Book of Alternative servioes
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
You're quite right, VenBede, I can't get that second link to work either, though it does if you type 'Behold the Lamb', etc., into Google and click the link from there. I'm not every good at these technical things. No, the hymn/song certainly does not contain an epiklesis or the actual Words of Institution, etc. The odd thing is that the person concerned is quite high up the candle. The service was headed 'Family Communion with Baptism', but the verses 'Behold the Lamb' were entitled 'Eucharistic Prayer'. I have taken the issue up with the President before -the response was that the epiklesis etc. was 'understood'. I'm certainly not happy - I can only assume that it was a way of getting 'down with the kids'.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
I've just found the words to this song. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. It's bad enough that it contains words like "standin" (what's wrong with the g?) it's got some pretty dodgy theology there too. Is this an Anglican Church? If so, your priest needs some urgent retraining on the nature of Communion.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Delete the full-stop at the end of the link.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Following on from my previous post, I've discovered that there is more than one version of this song and I may have been looking at the wrong one.
I've subsequently come across this one which I assume isn't the one under discussion. It also has an explanation as to how and when it should be used. That said, my point still stands about retraining the priest as this is definitely not a valid Eucharistic prayer. I expect your archdeacon would be interested to know about this.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
No, that strikes me as not just irregular but more than irregular. It isn't just a question of authorised or not, although I think that is important. Unlike using another province or denomination's Eucharistic Prayer - which is not authorised and is therefore irregular - that isn't really a Eucharistic Prayer at all. It doesn't contain the things a Eucharistic Prayer usually contains. Even the Gettys themselves who I think come from a Brethren background, might be slightly horrified to hear that it was being used as one.
So, Eirenist and Bishop's Finger, whether one likes the song or not isn't the question. That's a matter of taste, and no more than a version of, 'I disapprove therefore I exist'. Whether you actually like it or not, and whether you'd prefer the 'Benedictus' from Faure's Requiem', that song would be suitable as a song to be sung while people were receiving, a practice that is attested at least back to the C18 if not further.
Spike, I'd have thought the line 'And we drink of His sacrifice' ought to appeal. It's the sort of line that some evos would disapprove of.
As for the suggestion that there's something wrong with describing a service as Communion, that really is taking improbo ergo sum into the stratosphere.
Utrecht Catholic, I agree with you. I think the second Additional Eucharistic is too thin, and should not have been authorised.
[ 06. November 2016, 16:51: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
If it's not text authorised by the CofE, it's not valid.
Really?
Irregular, illicit, illegal with various degrees of probability: for sure.
But surely the C of E hasn't yet given up on its catholic heritage that a validly ordained priest using valid matter and uttering the dominical words of institution with an intention (even a one full of misunderstandings) to do what the church does, succeeds in confecting the sacrament?
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Spike, it is the same song, Stuart Townend sings it with less breathiness than Kristyn Getty, but it's a song they originally collaborated on. Stuart Townend, Keith and Kristyn Getty used to be writing partners. That description doesn't suggest that Behold the Lamb is used instead of the Eucharistic Prayer, but is used as punctuation, or sung while people go up for communion.
Stuart Townend as in the songwriter described on the Non-PSA thread who at one time couldn't write a birthday song for his granny without fitting penal substitutionary atonement into it.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Wronger than a wrong thing that is wrong. It's an evangelical communion hymn. Nothing wrong with that. Might not be to everyone's taste, but if I turned up to a church and they sung that as the communion hymn, I would be fine with it. But it's no more a valid Eucharistic Prayer than "Sweet Sacrament Divine", "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence", "Alleluia Sing to Jesus" or any other much loved communion hymn.
Dom Gregory Dix. It's all in Dom Gregory Dix. Whatever do they teach them in these theological colleges nowadays?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Really?
Irregular, illicit, illegal with various degrees of probability: for sure.
But surely the C of E hasn't yet given up on its catholic heritage that a validly ordained priest using valid matter and uttering the dominical words of institution with an intention (even a one full of misunderstandings) to do what the church does, succeeds in confecting the sacrament?
There's an ambiguity as to at what point using an unauthorised Eucharistic Prayer becomes so irregular/illicit that the bread and wine fail to be consecrated. I'm not sure that has ever been properly answered by someone who has the theological competence to answer it.
One answer would be that unless one uses an authorised form to the letter, the prayer doesn't work at all. That is treating the Eucharistic Prayer like a magician's spell. I think most people would deprecate that view. If so, that means that there is a middle space where a liturgy can be irregular/illicit but, to use Leo's term, still valid.
It also means that the faithful are not at the mercy of incompetent or opinionated priests.
The absence of an epiklesis can't be fatal because for several centuries both Catholic and most Protestant liturgies in the west did not really have one. When the Bishop of London took issue a few years ago, entirely understandably, about some London CofE churches using the RC form of Mass, which was definitely not authorised in the CofE, that specific question seems to have been avoided.
I'd have thought, though that the question is whether intention and holy hands is enough, or whether the words of the song, here are too remote to count as dominical words of institution.
I'd have thought it's also a legitimate question whether using something that was never intended to be a Eucharistic Prayer can become one just by being used.
[ 06. November 2016, 21:09: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The lack of liturgical training and/or awareness among many clergy is appalling. It's like 'correct grammar': you might want to question the rules, you might have good reason for departing from them for effect, but if you don't know what they are in the first place you are liable to produce meaningless drivel.
It's not necessarily 'invalid' to depart from authorised texts. But it is important to know what those texts say, and especially to understand their structure, so that you can justify any departure from it. I would be very reluctant to use anything than an authorised eucharistic prayer in most circumstances (especially for a public service on Sunday), but I know priests who regularly use prayers from other sources. However most of them understand the 'grammar' of the liturgy which saves it from being totally self-indulgent wibble.
Somebody who thinks a hymn written for another context is an acceptable alternative to a eucharistic prayer needs compulsory retraining.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Somebody who thinks a hymn written for another context is an acceptable alternative to a eucharistic prayer needs compulsory retraining.
I'm imagining such training involving running laps around the churchyard for an hour before breakfast, carrying a thurible above your head.
[ 07. November 2016, 01:26: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I worked with an ordinand from St Mellitus for a bit (as little as possible, if I'm honest about it). Liturgy wasn't much on the syllabus, if at all. It was expected to be taught in the parish.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Now there's a recipe for the transmission of liturgical illiteracy, if ever there was one.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's an ambiguity as to at what point using an unauthorised Eucharistic Prayer becomes so irregular/illicit that the bread and wine fail to be consecrated. I'm not sure that has ever been properly answered by someone who has the theological competence to answer it.
Well the Romans seem to have answered it pretty unambiguously at the Council of Trent, as did St Robert Bellarmine. Given wheaten bread and fermented grape wine, and an intention as weak as "what christians do" then all that is necessary under this head is that the priest uses the dominical words of institution.
I don't think the C of E has expressed a more restrictive view.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
I don't find the dominical words in 'Behold the Lamb'.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
I don't see how it is possible simultaneously to believe that validity of the sacrament is important and to believe that this song is a valid formula.
That is to say, you may think the idea of a valid/invalid sacrament is ipso facto absurd -- e.g. if you believe there is nothing more than a memorial in the Eucharist and no formula can be any more or less effective than any other. If so, I can see this potentially being acceptable. But otherwise I can't see how anyone can think this is OK. Certainly if I encountered it in the Church of England I would be writing to the archdeacon.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Well the Romans seem to have answered it pretty unambiguously at the Council of Trent, as did St Robert Bellarmine. Given wheaten bread and fermented grape wine, and an intention as weak as "what christians do" then all that is necessary under this head is that the priest uses the dominical words of institution.
I don't think the C of E has expressed a more restrictive view.
Obviously, the Council of Trent has no authority in the CofE, but have you got a reference to the relevant bit of Bellarmine. He'd be no more than persuasive, and, as a J, traditionally assumed to be a suspect source but it would be interesting to know what he said and what his reasoning is.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Just for a bit of light relief, Father Fuckwit at Our Place earlier this year revised our service booklets. About the only authorised C of E bit left is the Eucharistic Prayer (usually B). Everything else is the clunky RC material (sorry, RC shipmates).
Father F retires soon (Deo Gratias), so hopefully we will be able to rid ourselves of this ridiculous abortion of a liturgy. Talk about self-indulgent wibble (thanks, Angloid)...
The archdeacon and bishop were informed of what Father F had done, but I suspect they are waiting for him to go in order to then close the church.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Well the Romans seem to have answered it pretty unambiguously at the Council of Trent, as did St Robert Bellarmine. Given wheaten bread and fermented grape wine, and an intention as weak as "what christians do" then all that is necessary under this head is that the priest uses the dominical words of institution.
I don't think the C of E has expressed a more restrictive view.
Obviously, the Council of Trent has no authority in the CofE, but have you got a reference to the relevant bit of Bellarmine. He'd be no more than persuasive, and, as a J, traditionally assumed to be a suspect source but it would be interesting to know what he said and what his reasoning is.
Of course the Council of Trent has no authority, but insofar as it articulated what was common teaching until the reformation it can be illuminating on matters where the C of E hasn't changed its mind.
I lift this from Fr Hunwicke's blog, writing on the validity question:
"the locus classicus here is S Robert Bellarmine, de Sacramentis in genere chapter 27 paragraph 8."
Fr Hunwicke tranlates this para as:
"There is no need to intend what the Roman Church does; but what the true Church does, whatever that True Church is. Or what Christ instituted. Or what Christians do. Because these all amount to the same thing. You ask: What if someone intends to do what some particular and false church does, which he himself believes to be the true one - for example, the church of Geneva; and intends not to do what the Roman Church does? I answer, even that suffices. Because the man who intends to do what the church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal Church does. For he intends to do what such-and-such a church does, because he believes it to be a member of the true Universal Church, granted that he is mistaken in recognising the True Church. For the error of the minister about the Church does not take away the efficacy of the Sacrament. Only defect of intention does that."
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
If it's not text authorised by the CofE, it's not valid. I don't know the song you're referring to. Is there a link to the words anywhere?
Well, it may be valid. The validity of a sacrament doesn't depend on C of E canons.
Certainly not licit, though.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Is it possible that the sacrament had been reserved?
Some while ago we attended a large city centre Anglican church which had several communion services on some Sundays, and the "family" communion was often low key and was presided by a lay minister using reserved sacrament. I can't remember what liturgy was used during distribution, but I'm pretty sure it was minimal.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thank you american piskie. That's interesting, though I suspect the RCC may not now accept it. Unless his words only apply to some sacraments and not all of them, I would have though that is not consistent with Apostolicae Curae of 1896.
Mr Cheesy, that's an interesting suggestion. I'm fairly sure that if people are communicating from a reserved sacrament, there is a requirement that nothing is used that sounds like it could be interpreted as a prayer of consecration. The person leading also has to make it clear and explicit that these are elements that a. have been consecrated at an earlier Eucharist, and b. this service is not a Eucharist. If your suggestion were to turn out to be correct, I would have thought if this wasn't clear to Eirenist at the time, that wasn't being done right either.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mr Cheesy, that's an interesting suggestion. I'm fairly sure that if people are communicating from a reserved sacrament, there is a requirement that nothing is used that sounds like it could be interpreted as a prayer of consecration. The person leading also has to make it clear and explicit that these are elements that a. have been consecrated at an earlier Eucharist, and b. this service is not a Eucharist. If your suggestion were to turn out to be correct, I would have thought if this wasn't clear to Eirenist at the time, that wasn't being done right either.
Reading some of the English Diocese policies on this, "reserved" might be the wrong term - as that seems to be uniquely used for the ministry to the sick - and it doesn't look like you can be a priest distributing the sacrament in the way I've described above.
But I do agree that if this was what was happening, it wasn't properly flagged to Eirenist and presumably the congregation.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Could one of you tell an outsider what is the consequence of having an invalid consecration of the elements?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Could one of you tell an outsider what is the consequence of having an invalid consecration of the elements?
If the bread and wine are not truly consecrated, they remain simply bread and wine, the Eucharist has not been celebrated, and the Body and Blood of Christ has not been received by his people.
At best, it is a pious act by well-intentioned people.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you american piskie. That's interesting, though I suspect the RCC may not now accept it. Unless his words only apply to some sacraments and not all of them, I would have though that is not consistent with Apostolicae Curae of 1896.
I don't think that anything I have said suggests that one doesn't need a priest for validity --- Ap Cur is surely concerned with that issue not the form and matter.
I looked up on the Vatican website what the modern Catechism of the RCC says about it all. Paras 1411 and 1412 of this in particular, although 1408 warms my reformed heart
Eucharist
.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
If the bread and wine are not truly consecrated, they remain simply bread and wine, the Eucharist has not been celebrated, and the Body and Blood of Christ has not been received by his people.
At best, it is a pious act by well-intentioned people.
I think that rather depends on your theological position on the Eucharist, of which there are many within the Episcopalian/Anglican communion.
Unlike the RCC, I'm not sure that the Anglican church really has an accepted concept of fake or faulty Eucharist to the extent of saying with one voice that a lack of liturgy means that "and the Body and Blood of Christ has not been received by his people".
Whilst some bishops might indeed take this position, I think the general understanding within England would be more that this was problematic because the set rules hadn't been followed. A significant amount of liturgical rule-bending has been going on in many English diocese, often with the tacit support of bishops - but I think it'd probably be a step too far for them to knowingly allow reduced or non-liturgical Eucharist.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I think that is the point. The C of E is notably relaxed about people's theology of the sacraments, but the rules it insists on ensure that the sacraments are truly sacraments whatever the personal views of those involved.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
And, of course, most Nonconformists would insist that the bread and wine SHOULD remain bread and wine, and that the Eucharist "happens" when people are met by the Holy Spirit as they reflect on the significance of the occasion and eat and drink.
Hence any suitable liturgy, or even informal prayers (depending on the church circles you move in) will be appropriate.
[ 08. November 2016, 08:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And, of course, most Nonconformists would insist that the bread and wine SHOULD remain bread and wine, and that the Eucharist "happens" when people are met by the Holy Spirit as they reflect on the significance of the occasion and eat and drink.
Hence any suitable liturgy, or even informal prayers (depending on the church circles you move in) will be appropriate.
That's kind of irrelevant given we're talking about Anglican Eucharist, and "Anglican non-conformist" is a bit of an oxymoron. And there certainly are non-conformists who take exception to the Anglican Eucharistic form anyway.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Then can someone tell me what happens in interdenominational worship? Is communion not possible there.
I know the Uniting Church I have just joined sometimes has a combined communion at the Anglican church. Would this preclude a return communion at the Uniting Church if the Uniting Church had a form that was inconsistent with the rules of the Anglican church?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Then can someone tell me what happens in interdenominational worship? Is communion not possible there.
I know the Uniting Church I have just joined sometimes has a combined communion at the Anglican church. Would this preclude a return communion at the Uniting Church if the Uniting Church had a form that was inconsistent with the rules of the Anglican church?
I suspect a form of words is usually used to make it acceptable to Anglicans. Those who object to the Anglican forms are unlikely to be attending combined communion services.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
It wasn't communion from a reserved sacrament. I suspect the President misinterpreted permission from the Bishop to use 'any appropriate form of words.'
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Quite a major misinterpretation, then, coupled with a lack of proper training, and a penchant for self-indulgent wibble...
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
"Anglican non-conformist" is a bit of an oxymoron.
Plenty of them round our neck of the woods.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Spell Failure Table (Consecrate Elements)
Roll d10
1-5: Bread and wine remain bread and wine. Power points lost
6-8: Elements transmuted, but turn immediately back again as effect fails to achieve permanence.
9: Bread toasted; wine mulled
10: Spell over-reaches; accidents also transformed, making a right mess on the altar.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
It wasn't communion from a reserved sacrament. I suspect the President misinterpreted permission from the Bishop to use 'any appropriate form of words.'
Well that was bloody daft of the Bishop to give that very vague permission, wasn't it? It's not as if there isn't a choice of authorised Eucharist prayers.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
It wasn't communion from a reserved sacrament. I suspect the President misinterpreted permission from the Bishop to use 'any appropriate form of words.'
A. Has your Bishop given any such permission? and
B. Does anyone know whether a CofE Bishop actually has the power to give any such permission?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
According to the President at the service, yes. But a colleague is trying to check up on this.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Then can someone tell me what happens in interdenominational worship? Is communion not possible there.
I know the Uniting Church I have just joined sometimes has a combined communion at the Anglican church. Would this preclude a return communion at the Uniting Church if the Uniting Church had a form that was inconsistent with the rules of the Anglican church?
I suspect a form of words is usually used to make it acceptable to Anglicans. Those who object to the Anglican forms are unlikely to be attending combined communion services.
So it's a "We will come and commune with you on the condition that you abandon your form and only use what we approve." It seems to be following the letter of the law in place of the spirit, or perhaps the Spirit.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas Aus
Shipmate
# 15869
|
Posted
LKK, at least two of our clergy friends hold joint Anglican/UCA appointments in regional NSW dioceses. I suspect that the Australian experience is somewhat less rigid than that of the CofE.
Posts: 375 | From: Hunter Valley NSW | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas Aus:
LKK, at least two of our clergy friends hold joint Anglican/UCA appointments in regional NSW dioceses. I suspect that the Australian experience is somewhat less rigid than that of the CofE.
It is entirely possible that normal UCA practice meets the Anglican requirements.
I'd imagine it is more of an issue when Anglicans have communion at joint events with Baptists and various kinds of Evangelical.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
