|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Receiving or taking Communion
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Tangential discussion quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think you'd struggle to find support in the BCP for sacramental confession, which you seem to take for granted.
How else do you explain the recommendation in the Communion Service (long exhortation) for the sinner to declare his/her sins to the priest and receive absolution? Or the rite for the Visitation of the Sick? Admittedly you have to hunt for it a bit (and neither of those passages are regularly used today), but it is there. And clearly intended to be taken seriously. As is of course the unrepealed bit of Canon Law enjoining the seal of the confessional.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Hart
That may be the theory but it does not work empirically.
Evidence:
Read Martin Stringer's chapter of Roman Catholic Worship "On the perception of Worship". The individual character of the Roman Catholic worship is very clear.
The book where he visits one Catholic church? That hardly justifies a sweeping universalizing statement.
Of course, it is accurate that there is what you could call an "individual character to RC worship." (I'd prefer the term "personal," but I don't see a reason to reject your terminology). The problem is that you're leaping from "there's an individual character" to "there isn't a communal one." I have to admit that I always thought it was inaccurate when Catholics claimed that 'both-and' was a distinctive of the catholic imagination, but this conversation is showing me that there might actually be something to it.
If one anthropologist visiting one RC church can only see the individual aspect, that's an interesting datum. I certainly agree there are plenty of Catholics who are overly individualistic and need to be evangelized to a more balanced position. I'd even accept a claim that there are more of these than there are of Catholics who focus too much on corporate experience (though I'm not sure).
I think it's definitely true that we tolerate people dropping to a 'consumer' mentality rather than leaving. If you want to see the corporate side of Catholicism more clearly expressed, don't go to Sunday Mass (which is, in evangelical terms, the "seekers' service" not the "believers'") -- go to the movements. I don't just mean religious orders, I also mean the charismatic prayer groups, the bible studies, the St. Vincent de Paul meetings, the CRHP groups, the Cursillistas, the KofC pancake breakfasts, the National Shrine Vigil for Life, Arise! sessions, the Kairos retreats, Parish councils, ...
It's there that someone without eyes of faith* will see our corporate dimension.
--
*Which I recognize an anthopologist must turn off, even if she has them.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
When the priest presides at Communion,he is acting in the person of Jesus Christ in a very peculiar way, and a way in which Christ specifically designated to the Apostles (and their successors, the Bishops and Presbyters).
Heh, this point is at the heart of my confusion; I don't accept the idea of apostolic succession in any sense, never mind the specific way you're talking about regarding being able to preside over Communion.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am not an Anglo Catholic, I am merely asserting the orthodox catholic faith asserted by the Church from the very beginning, which forms the doctrine of the Church of England, properly understood.
How early do you mean by 'the very beginning'? If you're talking about the first couple of centuries then that would interest me, but if you're referring to the post-Constantine church then, frankly, I don't much care (for reasons that would throw this thread way off-topic).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, those are the normal ways of doing it. But we were talking about a third way (sorry!) as described by womanspeak and Penny S above, different from both of those.
Then I'm at fault as well for not recognising what we were talking about. I'm well aware of the form described by Penny and womanspeak at retreats etc. (which is why I deliberately mentioned the special occasions as something different). And, in my defence the discussion of time to serve Communion by passing a plate/cup started with my response to this post which was made before womanspeak and Penny recounted experiences at retreats. I thought we were talking about regular Communion services, as experienced every week/month/quarter (delete as appropriate for how often a church celebrates Communion).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Heh, this point is at the heart of my confusion; I don't accept the idea of apostolic succession in any sense, never mind the specific way you're talking about regarding being able to preside over Communion....How early do you mean by 'the very beginning'? If you're talking about the first couple of centuries then that would interest me, but if you're referring to the post-Constantine church then, frankly, I don't much care (for reasons that would throw this thread way off-topic).
Will these do:
"When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
"Therefore, it is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the Truth to examine clearly the Tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the Apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times.... For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries...they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical Tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the Truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
"It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. For those presbyters, together with the succession of the bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But we should hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever. For they are either heretics or perverse minds, or else they are schismatics who are puffed up and self-pleasing.... Therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof from all such persons and to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, hold the doctrine of the Apostles." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
"It behoves us to learn the Truth from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech...." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Tangential discussion quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think you'd struggle to find support in the BCP for sacramental confession, which you seem to take for granted.
How else do you explain the recommendation in the Communion Service (long exhortation) for the sinner to declare his/her sins to the priest and receive absolution? Or the rite for the Visitation of the Sick? Admittedly you have to hunt for it a bit (and neither of those passages are regularly used today), but it is there. And clearly intended to be taken seriously. As is of course the unrepealed bit of Canon Law enjoining the seal of the confessional.
The CofE doesn't officially consider either to be sacraments (though I would agree that they are), because they "have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God". I suppose the idea here is that not every good and worthy practice of the church is a sacrament.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Trisagion, many thanks for the quotations. They're all from Irenaeus, though - do you know if his view was standard at the time, or did other theologians of the first couple of centuries have a softer view of apostolic succession? I'm wondering if Irenaeus expressed things in an unusually polemic, black / white manner because of his desire to rebut the Gnostics.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Trisagion, many thanks for the quotations. They're all from Irenaeus, though - do you know if his view was standard at the time, or did other theologians of the first couple of centuries have a softer view of apostolic succession? I'm wondering if Irenaeus expressed things in an unusually polemic, black / white manner because of his desire to rebut the Gnostics.
Pretty standard, I believe. Sources at the time are scarce but it would seem not out of line with others:
Clement of Rome
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110]).
Tertullian
Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise.
Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our Churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the Churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1 [A.D. 200]).
Clement of Alexandria
After the death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back again to Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he went even to the neighboring cities of the pagans, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there to ordain to the clerical estate such as were designated by the Spirit (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 42:2 [inter 190-210 A.D.]).
Firmilion of Caesarea
But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: "Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;" and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; "Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained." Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256]).
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am not an Anglo Catholic, I am merely asserting the orthodox catholic faith asserted by the Church from the very beginning, which forms the doctrine of the Church of England, properly understood.
What, in your view, differentiates you from Anglo-Catholics? Your interpretation of the doctrine of the Church of England is very Catholic. I think you'd struggle to find support in the BCP for sacramental confession, which you seem to take for granted. I mean, I broadly agree with you about these matters, but I do consider myself somewhat Anglo-Catholic.
Sacramental confession is most certainly in the BCP, in the liturgy for the Visitation of the Sick, and one of the Exhortations (rarely used these days) calls those with weighty consciences to seek Absolution and Ghostly Counssl from a learned Minister of the Gospel.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Apologies for ducking out of the thread for the last few days - I've not had much time for posting over the weekend. Since the discussion has moved on rather, I'm thinking of starting a new thread on the role of liturgical president, if I can put an OP together in my head sometime today.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
I should add that Confession is not counted among the sacraments considered generally necessary to salvation, of which there are but two, but discerning what is and is not a 'sacrament' is a rather legalistic, post Biblical phenomenon in itself. The words of Absolution used in the Visitation of the Sick are absolutely Crystal clear as to the Reformers' understanding of the practice, which was not in any way intended to be discontinued. In fact they actually wished to restore it to its proper place, where Rome had reduced it to a mere mechanism or function.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Apologies for ducking out of the thread for the last few days - I've not had much time for posting over the weekend. Since the discussion has moved on rather, I'm thinking of starting a new thread on the role of liturgical president, if I can put an OP together in my head sometime today.
Looking forward to it - and your response to my challenge to the "amateur/professional" dualism!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Apologies for ducking out of the thread for the last few days - I've not had much time for posting over the weekend. Since the discussion has moved on rather, I'm thinking of starting a new thread on the role of liturgical president, if I can put an OP together in my head sometime today.
Looking forward to it - and your response to my challenge to the "amateur/professional" dualism!
That was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. More so since I'm usually one of the first to point out that an amateur is someone who does what they do out of love for it. I really meant to draw the distinction between trained/untrained, or experienced/inexperienced. Definitely not between paid/unpaid, least of all between mercenary/volunteer!
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
That was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. More so since I'm usually one of the first to point out that an amateur is someone who does what they do out of love for it. I really meant to draw the distinction between trained/untrained, or experienced/inexperienced. Definitely not between paid/unpaid, least of all between mercenary/volunteer!
Thanks - though I suspect we'd still disagree on the concept of "priest" as function and status. My understanding of Jesus' "Do this ..." is of an injunction and invitation to all believers not just to a clreical elite claiming apostolic succession.
It does determine how one "does" communion/eucharist/love feast/mass
[Edit: UBB]
[ 25. February 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
My understanding of Jesus' "Do this ..." is of an injunction and invitation to all believers not just to a clreical elite claiming apostolic succession.
I doubt these of us who see significance in the symbolism of apostolic succession and of standing in that see ourselves as elite. I personally do see rich symbolism in the re-enactment of the Salvation, as the 'bread of heaven' (and its concomitant blood) journey from 'heaven' or eternity (symbolised by the architectural sanctuary) through the human hands of the one standing in persona Christi (reminding us of the vulnerable humanness of Christ)into the cradled hands of the expectant believer. Every act of communion thereby becomes not only a reenactment of The Passover and its Easter Hope but of Christmas and its manger.
When I take part in that rite, either as presbyter or recipient, there is no elite. The incarnate one is not elite either - he leaves the 'elite' sanctuary of heaven and becomes vulnerable. As we be vulnerable. Not not not eilte.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Trisagion, many thanks for the quotations. They're all from Irenaeus, though - do you know if his view was standard at the time, or did other theologians of the first couple of centuries have a softer view of apostolic succession?
Pretty standard, I believe. Sources at the time are scarce but it would seem not out of line with others...
Trisagion, my thanks again for such a detailed response. I note that the earlier Fathers seemed milder in their language, so I guess the institutional nature of the early church developed over the course of the first couple of centuries - it wasn't there in full form from the start (this might be stating the bleedin' obvious, hmm). But there clearly was a strong sense of institution and apostolic succession significantly before Constantine gave his blessing to Christianity.
Final question - I am woefully ignorant of the theology of the Church Fathers. I have a collection of their sayings but do you (or anyone else) know of a good book that gives an overview of the Church Fathers' theology and how it developed? Something that puts their writings into a bigger picture, drawing out both the commonalities and the points of dispute.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
SC Kevin, a few thoughts (actually, just transcribing the relevant section of my bookshelf). A little more time and I'd be able to give a shorter list! But, maybe you can have a look at these on Amazon, etc., and work out what you might be interested in.
Pope Benedict, "The Fathers"
Henry Chadwick, "The Early Church"
Robert Louis Wilken, "The Spirit of Early Christian Thought"
Leo Donald Davis, "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils"
James Kugel, "Early Biblical Interpretation"
J.N.D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines"
If you really want to go to town, you could look for Jaroslav Pelikan's first volume of his Church History.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
SCK, of Hart's list, I would recommend Kelly as absolutely tip top if you have the stamina for very serious reading. An easier read, and despite the tone of consciously Catholic apologetics, is Mike Aquilina's, The Fathers of the Church - it has a good introduction to the whole subject and the first 100 pages have good patristics material in the ante-nicene period. The rest is too late by reference to your Constantinian cut-off, although it is likely to suggest to you that the theology of the early Church developed fairly constantly (no pun intended) and that toleration and recognition, whilst they certainly changed the circumstances of the Christian Community, most of the organisational stuff was pretty worked out already and that it had much less influence on the content of the theological debates about the big issues - Trinity and who Christ was - than you might have come to believe.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I find it peculiar how much higher church people do not trusr the average Joe in thhe congregation.
Like all higher church people are the same, even if one takes this "trust" assertion of yours. I've been given the chalice by many high-church priests. I'm high-church and have given the chalice when I've been assisting.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Secondly take the evidence of these boards. Who are the ones who want to go to church talk to nobody but the pries, go through the ceremony and then leave. It is not the Protestants.
You know the old practice of women saying the rosary during mass and just stopping for the elevation and to receive. Well I know it is frowned upon, but in actual fact apart from not saying the rosary, that is what you average Mass attender is doing. They are getting on with private devotions in a public space. They are not sharing in a communal act of worship.
This is a prejudice. How do you know what all RCs do? I've been to Masses in RC churches in Chester, Liverpool, Holyhead, Dachau, Munich, Berlin (where I sung in a cathedral choir), somewhere in Malta, Paris, Taize, Hamburg, Katowice, here in Wrocław as well as Oświęcim, among others. I've seen a great diversity of attitudes.
In any case, with regards to analysing attitudes, how do you or I know why people are there, or what they are doing?
For me, I look at how the peace is being passed. In each of these places apart from a few in Poland I've seen people use hands and do more or less all people close to them, or leave pews and go to others at Masses where less people attend. I attended a Mass in Katowice with my wife and mother-in-law, both from Oświęcim, and when everyone started shaking hands they looked perplexed, as they were used to people glancing at each other and bowing a bit. Oświęcim is about an hour's bus ride away from Katowice. Here in Wrocław in the church I occasionally go to, I see people doing both. I once offered my hand to a woman who wouldn't look at me and looked annoyed as she took my hand.
You don't know what the "average Mass attender" is doing.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Rosa Gallica officinalis, Hart and Trisagion - thanks very much for your book suggestions. I've made a note and will look at buying one or two of them soon. According to Amazon, the Aquilina book has a third edition coming out at the end of March.
I've actually got the Chadwick book 'The Early Church' already so I'll start off with that one!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
SCK, of Hart's list, I would recommend Kelly as absolutely tip top if you have the stamina for very serious reading. An easier read, and despite the tone of consciously Catholic apologetics, is Mike Aquilina's, The Fathers of the Church...
A good companion to Aquilina's The Fathers of the Church is another book of his: The Mass of the Early Christians which is particularly relevant here in Ecclesiantics:
quote:
In The Mass of the Early Christians, author Mike Aquilina reveals the Church's most ancient Eucharistic beliefs and practices. Using the words of the early Christians themselves -- from many documents and inscriptions -- Aquilina traces the Mass s history from Jesus' lifetime through the fourth century. The Mass stood at the center of the Church's life, evident in the Scriptures as well as the earliest Christian sermons, letters, artwork, tombstones, and architecture. Even the pagans bore witness to the Mass in the records of their persecutions.
In these legacies from the early Church, you ll hear and taste and see the same worship Catholics know today: the altar, the priests, the chalice of wine, the bread, the Sign of the Cross...the Lord, have mercy ...the Holy, holy, holy ...and the Communion.
It doesn't get updated often anymore but the author also has a good and interesting blog: The Way of the Fathers: Mike Aquilina's Blog.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181
|
Posted
At the risk of pointing out something that another may well have covered but I have missed it the Canons of thw Church of England (specifically B12) provide specifically as follows, covering two points for those in the CofE neatly:
1. No person shall consecrate and administer the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper unless he shall have been ordained priest by episcopal ordination in accordance with the provisions of Canon C 1.
2. Every minister, as often as he shall celebrate the Holy Communion, shall receive that sacrament himself.
3. No person shall distribute the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper to the people unless he shall have been ordained in accordance with the provisions of Canon C 1, or is otherwise authorized by Canon or unless he has been specially authorized to do so by the bishop acting under such regulations as the General Synod may make from time to time.
So:
1. Only an episcopally ordained priest may preside and
2. Only an ordained minister may distribute unless special authorisation has been given.
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Some times it is nice to have clear rules. Even if you don't agree with them, at least you know what you must do or not do.
On the specific point previously raised with regard to individual confession in the CofE, Canon B29 provides the answer (after section (1) which deals with general confession by a congregation):
2. If there be any who by these means cannot quiet his own conscience, but requires further comfort or counsel, let him come to some discreet and learned minister of God's Word; that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.
Hope that helps!
Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Permitted or not, its very commonly done.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181
|
Posted
@Ken
Thanks for the response- I fear you may be right.
I know others have different views but I take the vows I made at my ordination very seriously and could not in conscience collude with a congregation in breaking the clear rules of my Church. If I can't be trusted to keep my promises to God, in what can I be trusted?
I would argue that if one wants to be part of a Church (and let's be honest there are no shortage of choices out there for those who don't like the local offering!) then it's not really right to ignore that Church's canons.
That might of course just be me; I'm probably of an old fogey.
It is perhaps different for a member of the congregation rather than a member of the clergy; not because we are special, but rather because we have made some very particular promises to God, to each other and to our Bishops and Church as to what we would or would not do.
With the same thought in mind, I have a simialr difficulty in understanding how those of my ecclesiastical 'style' (at the smells and bells end and then some) can comfortably use the rites and ceremonies of another Church if their own Church or Bishop has not given consent.
Tangent/rant over. I feel better now!
Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
ghostly counsel and advice
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181
|
Posted
Now you can't blame me for that!
I didn't write the Canon.
Although it does make confession sound rather more exciting than it actually is...!
Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Permitted or not, its very commonly done.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Permitted or not, its very commonly done.
Does this reflect a pond difference? I think that such practices would be extremely rare in TEC, even among innovative dioceses and would doubtless be cause for considerable alarm even in my local quite trendy Diocese of Los Angeles.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
I'm a Reader (lay minister) in the Church of England. A few Sundays ago, our vicar consecrated the bread and wine in advance of our informal monthly Communion service, because he wasn't able to be at the service. 'Communion by extension', I believe it's called.
I was leading the service, so didn't pray the official words of consecration over the elements: I'd have no right to, since I'm not ordained. We then handed round the consecrated bread and wine to each other, quietly and reverently.
I'm a nonconformist underneath my Anglican coating, and believe strongly in the priesthood of all believers. If the Anglican Church changed its mind on lay presidency tomorrow (unlikely), it would not trouble me. (There is more to the ordained ministry than being able to consecrate the elements, IMO.)
Nonetheless, all things done decently and in order and all that. I have elected to serve an Anglican church, so I am content to play by the rules. (Mostly. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
I certainly believe that Holy Communion should be conducted with reverence as well as intimacy. The Eucharist is rooted in the Jewish Passover, which is an intimate, and happy, family meal. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) So, yes, intimacy, joy and reverence, all together.
What I do appreciate about the Anglican way of doing things is the sense of holy drama. (The Passover is a holy drama, too.) And, yes, holy mystery, even though I'm evangelical, not Catholic, in my approach to these things.
And only real wine will do. It doesn't feel like 'proper' Communion otherwise ...!
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
This means that, in the CofE anyway, handing the paten around the congregation, taking for onself, or communicating each other is not permitted. Full stop.
Permitted or not, its very commonly done.
Does this reflect a pond difference? I think that such practices would be extremely rare in TEC, even among innovative dioceses and would doubtless be cause for considerable alarm even in my local quite trendy Diocese of Los Angeles.
I suspect a pond difference is right. I've seen even fairly 'high up' clergy engage in 'Communion in the round' from time to time when they consider it appropriate, e.g. amongst a small group or in less formal settings like university chaplaincies. It is, to put it mildly, not exactly my cup of tea (wine?) but it hadn't occurred to me that we were breaking any official rule on such occasions!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
There is a big difference in principle between allowing lay presidency and allowing lay distribution of the consecrated elements. To insist that the eucharistic president should have been ordained priest is to say something important about the universality of the eucharist and that it is not just a celebration of a particular community but that of the whole church. To insist that those administering the sacrament should be authorised is to emphasise the need for reverent treatment of the elements but is not saying anything one way or another about 'unauthorised' ministers.
The language of 'validity' is not necessarily helpful, but in those terms, it is possible to say that a 'eucharist' presided by a lay person is 'invalid'; whereas one with a priestly president at which the elements are shared communally is 'valid' but possibly irregular. In one case, canon law is simply backing up the church's sacramental theology; in the other, it is an administrative device that simply seeks to ensure 'decency and order.' There are many contexts, as Ken implies, where it is quite possible to ensure decency and order, without needing to be legalistic about who is or is not 'authorised'. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, and never have.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'm fairly sure you're right, Angloid. The ban on lay presidency I've never seen broken within the CofE; the rules about distribution not infrequently observed in the breach, as it were. I was very uncomfortable about it at one time as my internal pendulum swung from Evangelical to Catholic, but as it's currently wandering around the middle somewhere in a kind of ecclesialogical Brownian motion it bothers me far less.
It raises some interesting questions though:
1. What of Eucharists celebrated at non Anglican churches which one might visit, where lay presidency is the norm? Or indeed where the lack of liturgy is such that it's not clear that there is a president, lay or otherwise?
2. What of informal non-denominational Eucharists that may take place in, for example, someone's home, where no clergy of any kind are present?
3. What of situation 2, where it so happens that all the people there are Anglicans?
All situations (except possibly no. 3) I've experienced and never been quite sure what I think.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
1. What of Eucharists celebrated at non Anglican churches which one might visit, where lay presidency is the norm? Or indeed where the lack of liturgy is such that it's not clear that there is a president, lay or otherwise?
Depending on how you view Apostolic succession, this could (and I suspect probably would) also include a Eucharist celebrated by a Baptist or Congregational minister, say.
quote:
2. What of informal non-denominational Eucharists that may take place in, for example, someone's home, where no clergy of any kind are present?
Why is this any different from 1.? Lay presidency is lay presidency, surely? How can the location make a difference?
quote:
3. What of situation 2, where it so happens that all the people there are Anglicans?
All situations (except possibly no. 3) I've experienced and never been quite sure what I think.
Well, if you think that apostolic succession in the sense of an unbroken chain of laying on hands back to the apostles is important, then only people in that succession are priests, and only they are able to effect the transformation of bread and wine into Body and Blood.
This is, I think, pretty much the Catholic view - that the C of E doesn't have actual priests, so the thing that we do with the bread and wine is just play-acting.
The Anglo-Catholic position would be pretty similar, except with the assumption that the C of E did not lose apostolic succession during the reign of Elizabeth I, so C of E priests really are priests.
This last is somewhere close to my view. I would not be comfortable receiving communion consecrated by someone who I didn't think was a validly-ordained priest.
Distribution from person to person is another matter - that's just a question of good order and practice. It's not a practice I favour, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was local custom in the congregation I was visiting.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Does this reflect a pond difference? I think that such practices would be extremely rare in TEC, even among innovative dioceses and would doubtless be cause for considerable alarm even in my local quite trendy Diocese of Los Angeles.
Nothing trendy about our parish, and we did Communion this way on Sunday evening.
Only thing that held it up was that the bread was, as far as I could tell, a very nice wholemeal sourdough and a bit chewy... but as there were only about 18 or 20 of it didn't matter.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Does this reflect a pond difference? I think that such practices would be extremely rare in TEC, even among innovative dioceses and would doubtless be cause for considerable alarm even in my local quite trendy Diocese of Los Angeles.
Nothing trendy about our parish, and we did Communion this way on Sunday evening.
Only thing that held it up was that the bread was, as far as I could tell, a very nice wholemeal sourdough and a bit chewy... but as there were only about 18 or 20 of it didn't matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There is a big difference in principle between allowing lay presidency and allowing lay distribution of the consecrated elements.
Yes. We've never gone near lay presidency. No-one ever mentions such a thing. No "communion by extension" either. Its the distribution that is sometiems shared.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
'Comfortable' doesn't matter.
I am uncomfortable that Methodist orders are considered invalid because of an ungenerous accident of history.
I gladly receive from anybody ordained in any church.
And I am an anglo-catholic.
I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit hovers over church roofs deciding whether or not to enter the elements according to who ordained whom.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I gladly receive from anybody ordained in any church.
Would that include receiving from me? I'm an elder, but not an ordained minister. I am duly authorised by the Church Meeting, approved by the Synod pastoral committee, to preside at Communion in our church (but, only in our church - if I was to preside at another church I would need authorisation by that Church Meeting and approval from Synod all over again).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Comfortable' doesn't matter.
I am uncomfortable that Methodist orders are considered invalid because of an ungenerous accident of history.
I gladly receive from anybody ordained in any church.
And I am an anglo-catholic.
I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit hovers over church roofs deciding whether or not to enter the elements according to who ordained whom.
I am KLB and I approve this message.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit hovers over church roofs deciding whether or not to enter the elements according to who ordained whom.
I don't believe that either!
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would that include receiving from me? I'm an elder, but not an ordained minister. I am duly authorised by the Church Meeting, approved by the Synod pastoral committee, to preside at Communion in our church (but, only in our church - if I was to preside at another church I would need authorisation by that Church Meeting and approval from Synod all over again).
If this mildly charismatic Anglican were a visitor in your church, she would very happily receive Communion from you. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
We're all one. Our various churches have different ways of doing things, but we're all one. Holy Communion is obviously a vital part of worship for most Christians. My preference for Communion is the Anglican way - as I said, the sense of holy drama is dear to me and, IMO, biblical - but I don't look down on other Christians for a different approach.
If your church has authorised you, then you're 'kosher'.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Ref, Alan's post. I, too, have attended services where particular elders of that church were permitted to officiate at communion. And I would have no difficulty in receiving this as my holy communion with God; nor any difficulty in recognizing the Body of Christ in doing so. I'd appreciate that there may be a different theology, and a different ecclesial organization, going on behind the words and actions. But absolutely the same Spirit.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I gladly receive from anybody ordained in any church.
Would that include receiving from me? I'm an elder, but not an ordained minister. I am duly authorised by the Church Meeting, approved by the Synod pastoral committee, to preside at Communion in our church (but, only in our church - if I was to preside at another church I would need authorisation by that Church Meeting and approval from Synod all over again).
Yes it would. If you're authorised by the equivalent of a bishop, i.e. the meeting which exercises episopacy/oversight. I know that the URC has a very thorough and well thought-out position on ministerial function.
I have occasionally received at lay celebrations before. Took me a while to get used to it in my 'heart' but my 'head' talked me into viewing it as kosher. However, long-term, I would want it regularized - if we ever get some sort of church unity, I think we need bishops, though not the C of E sort.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think the worst attempt at some kind of Eucharist I've seen was a meeting of these "simple churches" (i.e. the new wave of house churches) in a pub about a year ago.
After an unstructured couple of hours of chat and questionable attempts to exercise prophecy (don't ask; you don't want to know) someone put some grape juice and rolls on the table, muttered something about having some bread and grape juice, and closed the meeting sort of offering them up is someone wanted some.
Somehow, I didn't.
There were no words of institution. No identification of the elements as the body and blood of Christ, that I can recall. No consecration, in even the broadest sense. Not even an attempt to remind those present why the Eucharist exists. My cynical mind wondered if this was because the person leading the meeting didn't really know himself.
[ 08. March 2013, 09:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the worst attempt at some kind of Eucharist I've seen was a meeting of these "simple churches" (i.e. the new wave of house churches) in a pub about a year ago.
After an unstructured couple of hours of chat and questionable attempts to exercise prophecy (don't ask; you don't want to know) someone put some grape juice and rolls on the table, muttered something about having some bread and grape juice, and closed the meeting sort of offering them up is someone wanted some.
... There were no words of institution. No identification of the elements as the body and blood of Christ, that I can recall. No consecration, in even the broadest sense. Not even an attempt to remind those present why the Eucharist exists. My cynical mind wondered if this was because the person leading the meeting didn't really know himself.
Gosh. That sounds awful. If you're gonna celebrate a Eucharist, do it properly. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
If you're going for an agape meal (such as we had once in my home group), then make it warm and intimate and profound. Because it is. And make it all about Jesus. Which it is.
One of the oddest Communions I ever attended was at a Pentecostal church when I was a teenager. With grape juice and crackers. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
I'm not a sacramental Christian, but it seemed downright sacrilegious to me. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Oy vey. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
One of the oddest Communions I ever attended was at a Pentecostal church when I was a teenager. With grape juice and crackers.
I'm not a sacramental Christian, but it seemed downright sacrilegious to me. Oy vey.
This was how my father's church did communion when I was a very young child, and it has made it hard for me to enjoy saltines ever since.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
When you say 'crackers' do you mean Cream Crackers or are they actually using Matzos?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There were no words of institution. No identification of the elements as the body and blood of Christ, that I can recall.
I think pretty much every ssuch service I've been to has involved someone reading the words of the institution from the Gospels or, very often, from Paul.
Sometimes after a sermon that deliberately made it Very Clear that this is a ritual memorial meal and not whatever benighted nonsense that them there Catholics go on about.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
Edgeman - I'm not surprised.
Enoch - it was a long time ago but I am 100% sure they weren't using Matzos (which would have been even weirder with grape juice and not kosher wine, ). No, it was cream crackers - which I found bizarre, and still do.
I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren and at least at the Lord's Supper they used a delicious crusty white loaf and an equally delicious port wine. I still remember that wonderful scent. . The Brethren were a million miles from being sacramental, but at least they had proper bread and nice wine - the symbolism of that just seems more reverent.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There were no words of institution. No identification of the elements as the body and blood of Christ, that I can recall.
I think pretty much every ssuch service I've been to has involved someone reading the words of the institution from the Gospels or, very often, from Paul.
Sometimes after a sermon that deliberately made it Very Clear that this is a ritual memorial meal and not whatever benighted nonsense that them there Catholics go on about.
You couldn't have described this as a "service" without making the OED cry.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
As I mentioned, I required approval from the Synod pastoral committee to be permited to preside at Communion. A requirement they set is that all lay people so authorised have attended a short course on Communion within the previous two years. Within the material for that course (prepared by the college that trains our ministers in Scotland) are a set of essential requirements for the liturgy used - although there is no set liturgy, and we're free to do things as we/our congregation want within those limits.
Those essential requirements are:
1) an invitation to the Table, from Christ to all who wish to receive
2) a description of what we do (eg: Pauls text "what I received I passed onto you, on the night he was betrayed ..."
3) a recap of the gospel message with thanksgiving, we're doing this in rembrance of Christ so we remember him and what he has done
4) an elevation of the bread and cup, with words along the lines of "Christ Jesus took bread, broke it, gave it saying 'this is my body, do this in remembrance of me'", similarly with the cup.
We talked about what we would use - in most cases bread and juice. And, whether it would be appropriate on occasions to change that. Basically, there are grounds for variation - providing the symbolism and memorial of Christ is retained. Although, in practice, there would need to be very good grounds to significantly change the practice of the church (local congregation).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
