Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eucharistic Prayer for Family Communion
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Subject to the appropriate permissions being in place a minister from another denomination can preside at communion in a CofE church according to their own tradition, provided that it is made clear that it is a Methodist/Baptist/URC etc. communion, not an Anglican communion.
Church of England clergy declare on oath that they will use only forms of worship authorised or permitted by Canon, but AIUI can do that in non-Anglican places of worship.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
@BroJames - it looks like "other minister" can get permission to preside in an Anglican church from the bishop, but the question we're discussing is what happens when Anglicans join with other denominations, who then do it in a way which wouldn't be acceptable in an Anglican setting.
It looks like a bit of a fudge to me when that takes place outside of a formal LEP and isn't in the Methodist church.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by BroJames: ...Church of England clergy declare on oath that they will use only forms of worship authorised or permitted by Canon....
Tho' I suspect that in practice that's all too often
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Latchkey Kid: 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.
Or perhaps "we can share communion if we have compatible understandings of what communion is"? If "we" don't think what "you" do is a valid communion, we shouldn't be sharing it with you and pretending that it is. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: @BroJames - it looks like "other minister" can get permission to preside in an Anglican church from the bishop, but the question we're discussing is what happens when Anglicans join with other denominations, who then do it in a way which wouldn't be acceptable in an Anglican setting.
It looks like a bit of a fudge to me when that takes place outside of a formal LEP and isn't in the Methodist church.
I think a lot depends on the particular Anglican in question. Personally, I happily share communion with Baptists, Methodists, URC, and practically anyone. I don't think the official church of England position is that it's not communion - just that it's not Church of England communion. More Catholic Anglicans might feel differently about it.
For me there needs to be a connection with the Last Supper, whether via a Gospel account or 1 Corinthians 11
I am happy with a theological understanding based on the Thirty-Nine Articles. The Church of England has particular wordings for the Eucharist as a matter of order, crafted so as to allow a range of views about the eucharist. Part of our trying to remain in fellowship with one another is reflected in a commitment to using the permitted forms.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I used to communicate regularly in the Methodist Chruch at one time, and never thought that it was in some way not quite communion: but then I'm no theologian. Otherwise, I think I'd happily receive communion in non-Anglican churches in the spirit in which, as I understand it, it's being celebrated.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I've no direct experience of shared churches, but I would have thought there were at least two basic approaches (assuming that the usual act of worship was the eucharist).
One would be to say, alternate weeks (or whenever) the service would be clearly labelled as 'C of E', 'Methodist' or whatever, and presided over by the respective minister according to the rites of that church. Each would follow the rules and traditions of their own church, but extend the hospitality of communion to all. Effectively there would be two congregations happily (or otherwise!) co-existing in the same building.
The other, more ecumenical and sensible one, would be to merge the traditions. Ministers from whatever tradition would use a form of liturgy agreed between them and wear the same or similar vesture (clearly taking note of the rules and traditions of the wider bodies). As far as I know that is the approach taken by the Taizé community.
But I don't know what is possible under the Canon Law provisions of the C of E, nor of any other denomination. However, whatever individual clergy or members of any church might propose, I would think it highly unlikely that a joint agreement would envisage using the sort of substitute for a eucharistic prayer that we have been discussing.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I am not sure about her present parish, but from memory Rowen's previous one was a mixed Anglican/Uniting Church one. Not enough people to justify separate ones, in a difficult area.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: [QUOTE]Lex orandi, lex credendi.
I think translations are required here.
-------------------- '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
|
|
Nick Tamen
 Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Latchkey Kid: quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: [QUOTE]Lex orandi, lex credendi.
I think translations are required here.
The law of praying, the law of believing. [ 12. November 2016, 02:06: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
-------------------- The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
 Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic: Therefore it is quite understandable that Catholic Anglicans in the C.of.E.sometimes opt for those prayers from the Roman missal,
I've wondered about that... When I was in Manchester in 2015, I visited St. Chrysostom's Church, and loved the service, and, thankfully, knew it because I'd been attending Mass at the Jesuit School of Theology at my school.
Is it officially authorized by the C of E, or is it allowed with the Bishop's approval, or should a host be redacting the name of the parish from my post here? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
-------------------- I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
 Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: the words of the song, here
It took 3 people to write that?
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: 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.
That is in the Quotes file now. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
-------------------- I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by churchgeek: quote: Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic: Therefore it is quite understandable that Catholic Anglicans in the C.of.E.sometimes opt for those prayers from the Roman missal,
I've wondered about that... When I was in Manchester in 2015, I visited St. Chrysostom's Church, and loved the service, and, thankfully, knew it because I'd been attending Mass at the Jesuit School of Theology at my school.
Is it officially authorized by the C of E, or is it allowed with the Bishop's approval, or should a host be redacting the name of the parish from my post here?
AIUI, only one of the ten authorised Eucharistic Prayers may be used. It must be an authorised text, and may not be a corresponding text from another communion (e.g. Rome) or even Anglican province (and not a hymn or worship song which the president happens to think is appropriate). There is, however, AIUI, some flexibility about proper prefaces, where the words are not required to be authorised, but they must quote: be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JeffTL
Apprentice
# 16722
|
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.
Apostolicae Curae departs from the view of Bellarmine discussed here which is Rome's normal position on all of the sacraments: given a qualified celebrant and valid matter, the minima for form and intention are very minimal indeed.
In the situation here, a case can be made for a very minimal intention. The title and setting of the service indicate that reception of Holy Communion was the desired end result, which is the principal intention of the Eucharist. One could conclude that the celebrant therefore intended to do what the church does in celebrating the sacrament.
Form is the clearer concern. In different traditions, the essential form of the Eucharist has been associated with either the institution narrative or the epiklesis. From Rome's view, and they're the folks with the most developed theology on these matters, both the Liturgy of Addai and Mari (which implies the Institution and explicates the Epiklesis) and the traditional Roman Rite (which does the opposite) are valid forms. In the Anglican tradition, the Words of Institution have been normative and I've never seen a Eucharistic Prayer without them, and the Scottish and American prayer books include an explicit epiklesis as well. In the 1979 American prayer book, even the most basic form - the supplementary consecration when one of the elements runs out - includes both, as do the so-called "Rite III' options for informal services. I've never heard of anyone considering the "Ecce Agnus Dei" in any form to be a valid eucharistic prayer. I suppose the choir could sing it while the celebrant prays a silent canon, which most people would consider valid by analogy to the Tridentine rite, but I doubt that is something the C of E particularly approves of either.
My take: minister and matter seem okay, questionable intention, form unprecedented. Driving down the wrong road probably won't get you where you want to be, even with gas in the tank and your heart in the right place. I'd personally refrain from receiving and certainly wouldn't rely on such a service routinely.
Posts: 49 | From: Chicago | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|