|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Reservation and the CofE
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
The thread about vestments and their growth across churchmanship traditions has prompted me to raise a question about reservation of Holy Communion.
I know that some Anglo-Catholic churches began reserving the sacrament - and indeed having Benediction and adoration - illegally in the late 19th Century. And at the other end that no evangelical would contemplate reservation.
But when did reservation spread or become acceptable in MOTR parishes? One thing that intrigued me is that a local church which was very much an 8am HC with 11am Matins until the 1980s was built with an aumbry and practiced reservation from the 1930s. Though I hadn't thought about it before, this seemed very early to me.
[ 08. January 2014, 10:37: Message edited by: Liturgylover ]
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
But when did reservation spread or become acceptable in MOTR parishes? One thing that intrigued me is that a local church which was very much an 8am HC with 11am Matins until the 1980s was built with an aumbry and practiced reservation from the 1930s. Though I hadn't thought about it before, this seemed very early to me.
Not sure when, but I remember reading about "lynx-eyed bishops" somewhere who closely monitored the altars of their parishes to make sure the small box that held up the altar cross didn't gain a door or telltale set of hinges. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Which of course led me immediately to google photos of lynxes.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
There certainly was a time when some bishops, at least, insisted that any Reservation be made in an aumbry (usually in the north wall of the chancel or a chapel), with no tabernacle allowed on the High Altar.
Ian J.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I can't speak for evangelicals but my understanding is that few these days get hot under the collar about the principle of reservation even though most wouldn't practice it. The con-evo parish where I have helped out a number of times sometimes keeps back some of the consecrated elements for lay ministers to take out to the housebound: while they wouldn't genuflect to them nor put them in a tabernacle or aumbry, that is reservation in effect.
Most MOTR churches even in this protestant heartland possess and use an aumbry, and have done for many years. Tabernacles on high altars, on the other hand, are somewhat passé since Vatican 2. One or two Anglican churches locally have them
--------------------
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
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
Fundamentalist Anglicans (if such still exist) may be still attached to the literal truth of the XXXIX Articles of Religion as contained in the BCP and one of these articles makes reference to the bread and wine were not ordained to be adored - or words to that effect (I quote from memory).
In other words, reservation and benediction were clearly ruled out and these practices which are taken to granted today have gradually developed since the time of the 1833 Oxford Movement.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
A church without reservation always seems empty to me. I seem to remember Dom Gregory Dix reporting that the 1926 Prayer Book was worded specifically to prevent reservation, among other things. One enclosed order of Anglican nuns (Society of the Precious Blood?) kept a vigil of prayer for the defeat of the book, as reservation was central to their prayer life.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
A church without reservation always seems empty to me. I seem to remember Dom Gregory Dix reporting that the 1926 Prayer Book was worded specifically to prevent reservation, among other things. One enclosed order of Anglican nuns (Society of the Precious Blood?) kept a vigil of prayer for the defeat of the book, as reservation was central to their prayer life.
1926 or 1928?
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Our Anglican-Methodist LEP reserves the consecrated wafers and wine (in an aumbry) for the communion of the housebound, not for adoration. Some of our Methodist members are enlisted to help administer. The aumbry dates, I believe, from 1890.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
A church without reservation always seems empty to me. I seem to remember Dom Gregory Dix reporting that the 1926 Prayer Book was worded specifically to prevent reservation, among other things. One enclosed order of Anglican nuns (Society of the Precious Blood?) kept a vigil of prayer for the defeat of the book, as reservation was central to their prayer life.
The rubrics of 1928 (sic) might well have been drafted to outlaw tabernacles and devotion to the MBS. But IIRC I think they make provision for reservation (in an aumbry) provided it's not associated with any of the aforementioned goings on.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I'm good at liturgy: not good at figures.
I'm looking at An Alternative Order for the Communion of the Sick in 1926 (thank you).
I haven't read all the lengthy rubric, which is partly how to cope in hospitals, but the relevant bit for extended communion of the sick allows communion of elements consecrated in the course of a Holy Communion service and concludes: "And, the open communion ended, he (ie the priest) shall on the same day and with as little delay as may be, go and minister the same".
I was sorry to see on my visit to Hereford Cathedral two years ago, that the very impressive sacrament house they had recently acquired, was so placed between two pillars behind the East End altar rails, that it was almost impossible to remain in silent prayer in its presence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I sympathise. I'm dysnumerate too. But 1928 is one of those dates like 1066.
However there is confusion because the Proposed Book (which never became any more than that) went through several revisions until the final 1928 one. A couple of rubrics permitting reservation under strict controls were added. To avoid risk of copyright, I won't quote them but they can be found here (scroll down if necessary).
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry? Or is it a universal Anglican practice to consume only hosts consecrated at that Eucharist and, if you run out, to go consecrate more using a tiny prayer with the words of institution (which seems to me almost Lutheran to me every time I read in the BCP what a priest should do if s/he runs out of hosts at Communion).
Are there any prohibitions anywhere in the Anglican Communion on re-consecrating bread or wine? I know one Lutheran church where they recycle in this way, apparently believing that they return back to being bread and wine as they were before after the service.
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry? Or is it a universal Anglican practice to consume only hosts consecrated at that Eucharist and, if you run out, to go consecrate more using a tiny prayer with the words of institution (which seems to me almost Lutheran to me every time I read in the BCP what a priest should do if s/he runs out of hosts at Communion).
We do. Every Sunday. It saves us having to play "guess who'll turn up" or having the reserved MBS go stale before it's consumed.
I don't know about other Anglicans, but we would never consecrate 'some more' without a proper EP.
quote:
Are there any prohibitions anywhere in the Anglican Communion on re-consecrating bread or wine? I know one Lutheran church where they recycle in this way, apparently believing that they return back to being bread and wine as they were before after the service.
This is not an Anglican belief, and more to the point (ahem) I've never met an Anlgican who believed it, so I'd imagine not.
quote:
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.
Well, leaving aside the fact that it's a sin in the RCC to allow the sanctissimum to attain that state of decrepitude, you're right in re the piscina, and many Anglicans would also follow the same procedure. One does hear horror stories, however, about irreverence in disposal of the sacrament from the 'lower' (liturgically/theologically, you understand) sections of the CofE. I'm not aware of any hard and fast rules, but I think the phrase "reverently disposed of" crops up somewhere in this regard.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry?
We do every week and did at my last church too. I think it's very common in Anglo Catholic parishes
quote:
Are there any prohibitions anywhere in the Anglican Communion on re-consecrating bread or wine? I know one Lutheran church where they recycle in this way, apparently believing that they return back to being bread and wine as they were before after the service.
I know of one Evangelical Anglican Church where they routinely put the left over wafers back into a drawer in the vestry and re-consecrate them next time. Mind you, this is the same church that move their altar/table into the entrance lobby for non-communion services to make more space for the worship band at the front of the church ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ 08. January 2014, 19:28: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
There certainly was a time when some bishops, at least, insisted that any Reservation be made in an aumbry (usually in the north wall of the chancel or a chapel), with no tabernacle allowed on the High Altar.
Ian J.
To quote the archdeacon (IIRC) in one of Fr. Forrest's poems, 'Be non-tabernacular; SAFELY aumbraic!'
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Fundamentalist Anglicans (if such still exist) may be still attached to the literal truth of the XXXIX Articles of Religion as contained in the BCP and one of these articles makes reference to the bread and wine were not ordained to be adored - or words to that effect (I quote from memory).
In other words, reservation and benediction were clearly ruled out and these practices which are taken to granted today have gradually developed since the time of the 1833 Oxford Movement.
Your quote is more or less correct, though shortened. HOWEVER, as my liturgics prof was fond of pointing out, 'were not ordained to be' does not equal 'you may not do it.' One needs a precise understanding of 16th cent grammar to parse all the subtlety of the Articles.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.
NO!!! The Precious Blood of Our Lord should NEVER, EVER be poured down the sacrarium! The RC rubrics direct that the Precious Blood must be consumed at the end of communion. The sacrarium is for disposing of the water that is use to cleanse sacred vessels, etc. Repeat: the Precious Blood should NEVER be poured down the sacrarium, and no RC would or should be doing this. The same goes for the Sacred Hosts. They must be consumed at Mass, NEVER buried! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I think adding more to the consecrated Hosts is pretty common, regardless of where the Sacrament is reserved (and by the by that the spiritual risks of 'reconsectration' are probably rather slight).
Regarding the OP I think that a lot of it might have to do with the growth of north-wall aumbries to preserve the Sacrament for the sick and housebound, as others have intimated. In this case, there is no risk of any inadvertent adoration occurring!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
In my parish we have consecrated bread & wine held for home communions, sick call. we also have some held in an Aumbrey in the chapel along with oils for anointing.
In the Candian Book of Common Prayer unconsumed bread & wine can be consummed by the priest, unless there is a need to have some available for the above mentioned reasons .
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
Although Anglo-Catholics seem to follow more of the rules in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal than most RC parishes in my part of the world do, they are not legally bound to do so. Thus it is not unusual to distribute previously-consecrated hosts to some of the communicants. When the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in a tabernacle at the altar where Mass is being celebrated, this can be done conveniently and unobtrusively.
In the period of transition from non-communicating High Masses to present-day practice, it was common for Anglo-Catholic priests to consecrate sufficient hosts and wine at an early Mass for distribution at the later High Mass. I suspect that reason was primarily esthetic, to avoid the clutter of a ciborium and extra chalices on the altar.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.
NO!!! The Precious Blood of Our Lord should NEVER, EVER be poured down the sacrarium! The RC rubrics direct that the Precious Blood must be consumed at the end of communion. The sacrarium is for disposing of the water that is use to cleanse sacred vessels, etc. Repeat: the Precious Blood should NEVER be poured down the sacrarium, and no RC would or should be doing this. The same goes for the Sacred Hosts. They must be consumed at Mass, NEVER buried!
Well, I didn't in fact say this, but the OPer (who did) was, I think, envisaging a situation where, for whatever sinful reason, the MBS had been allowed to decay/deteriorate such that it was undrinkable (I recall Aquinas' views on what happens if someone has poisoned your communion wine and you realise only after consecration here): in such a circumstance, the sacrarium for wine and immolation for hosts is the only option. Having said this, I think priests would probably just man up and consume were the only defect to be excessive vinegar in the MPB or whatever.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I do wonder, sometimes, if Jesus ever cut himself when he was mucking about in his dad's carpentry shop, and how careful he was about where he bled.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Fundamentalist Anglicans (if such still exist) may be still attached to the literal truth of the XXXIX Articles of Religion as contained in the BCP and one of these articles makes reference to the bread and wine were not ordained to be adored - or words to that effect (I quote from memory).
In other words, reservation and benediction were clearly ruled out and these practices which are taken to granted today have gradually developed since the time of the 1833 Oxford Movement.
Your quote is more or less correct, though shortened. HOWEVER, as my liturgics prof was fond of pointing out, 'were not ordained to be' does not equal 'you may not do it.' One needs a precise understanding of 16th cent grammar to parse all the subtlety of the Articles.
As I indicated, I quoted from memory and did not have a copy of the words to hand; but I clearly remembered that this topic was included in one of the Articles. I can always remedy that later by bringing a copy of the words along with me.
Point taken about 16th century meaning of 'You may not do it', but I have visions that in the post-reformation 16th century, reservation did not happen.
It is my experience that extreme protestant conservative evangelicals will quote from the Articles not quite correctly to fit in with their own ideas and opinions.
I am conversant with this point of view, but I do not share it.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do wonder, sometimes, if Jesus ever cut himself when he was mucking about in his dad's carpentry shop, and how careful he was about where he bled.
Christ can do whatever He likes with His blood, (including shedding it for the salvation of the world). We, who are not worthy even to untie His sandals or to gather the crumbs under His table (not a very apposite metaphor here...) are most emphatically not.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not in any way, after the institution of Jesus Christ, reserved, carried from one place to another, elevated or adored." From Article XXVIII (part).
NB I have translated this from the French version I found on-line, more readily than in our language.
[ 09. January 2014, 11:24: Message edited by: Ecclesiastical Flip-flop ]
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not in any way, after the institution of Jesus Christ, reserved, carried from one place to another, elevated or adored." From Article XXVIII (part).
Of course, if you took this literally as a command against doing any of those things it would make it impossible to give communion to anyone since you would be carrying the elements from one place, the Lord's Table, to another, the communion rail.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not in any way, after the institution of Jesus Christ, reserved, carried from one place to another, elevated or adored." From Article XXVIII (part).
Of course, if you took this literally as a command against doing any of those things it would make it impossible to give communion to anyone since you would be carrying the elements from one place, the Lord's Table, to another, the communion rail.
I don't imagine that the authors were envisaging a continued future for communion rails, somehow...
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ardmacha
Shipmate
# 16499
|
Posted
The Reserved Sacrament in Roman Catholic churches is to be renewed (in other words used for Holy Communion)regularly [ I think about every two weeks]. The Benediction Host is usually broken and given at a parish Mass in Holy Communion. I have never come across a church that reserved under the species of wine and so the question of care of this element of the Sacrament wouldn't arise.
Posts: 56 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not in any way, after the institution of Jesus Christ, reserved, carried from one place to another, elevated or adored." From Article XXVIII (part).
Of course, if you took this literally as a command against doing any of those things it would make it impossible to give communion to anyone since you would be carrying the elements from one place, the Lord's Table, to another, the communion rail.
I don't imagine that the authors were envisaging a continued future for communion rails, somehow...
There you go!
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do wonder, sometimes, if Jesus ever cut himself when he was mucking about in his dad's carpentry shop, and how careful he was about where he bled.
Christ can do whatever He likes with His blood, (including shedding it for the salvation of the world). We, who are not worthy even to untie His sandals or to gather the crumbs under His table (not a very apposite metaphor here...) are most emphatically not.
Your point taken, but mine, possibly, slightly missed. My point was rather that I'm not entirely sure that it matters that a few drops or crumbs don't quite find their way where intended. Or exactly what we do, within reason, with some if we realise we've got some Holy Vinegar and Divine Mould on our hands.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry? Or is it a universal Anglican practice to consume only hosts consecrated at that Eucharist and, if you run out, to go consecrate more using a tiny prayer with the words of institution (which seems to me almost Lutheran to me every time I read in the BCP what a priest should do if s/he runs out of hosts at Communion).
In the CofE the rules say consecrate more then and there. There may be some parishes that break the rules but its not us evangelicals.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif) quote:
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed?
Ought never to happen in the Church of England. Consecrated elements are supposed to be consumed at the Eucharist for which they were consecrated. If they are kept to take to the sick they should be used then and there - and if not the minister who distributes them should use them.
On the one occasion that I remember when I took Communion to a sick person who wasn't at home when I got there, I ate and drank it with someone else.
The theory is sort of that the home Communion is really just the same as distributing Communion to e congregation in church. If there is someone who can't walk up the chancel steps, you take it to them in their pew. If they can't even leave their house, you just walk a little further to bring them Communion. Ideally (and I know its not always practical) you would use the bread and wine consecrated at public worship in church, and you would take it to them immediately after the service ends. (Cue mildly Anglo-Catholic romantic fantasies of hordes of lay ministers dashing out of church at the end of the service carrying the most precious body and blood of our Lord all over the parish before Sunday lunch)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The theory is sort of that the home Communion is really just the same as distributing Communion to e congregation in church. If there is someone who can't walk up the chancel steps, you take it to them in their pew. If they can't even leave their house, you just walk a little further to bring them Communion. Ideally (and I know its not always practical) you would use the bread and wine consecrated at public worship in church, and you would take it to them immediately after the service ends. (Cue mildly Anglo-Catholic romantic fantasies of hordes of lay ministers dashing out of church at the end of the service carrying the most precious body and blood of our Lord all over the parish before Sunday lunch)
It's because 'it's not always practical', especially in case of emergency (eg someone in danger of death between one eucharist and the next), that the C of E allows reservation. As is the practice in almost all cathedrals (incidentally does anyone know of one where reservation is not practised? I'm guessing Bradford but can't think of any other likely candidates).
I like to think of it with the analogy of wedding cake which is often (or often used to be: I've not come across it recently) sent out in little packets to those invited guests that couldn't be present.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are there any Anglican parishes anywhere where the norm is to supplement the hosts consecrated at a given Eucharist with more consecrated hosts taken from the aumbry? Or is it a universal Anglican practice to consume only hosts consecrated at that Eucharist and, if you run out, to go consecrate more using a tiny prayer with the words of institution (which seems to me almost Lutheran to me every time I read in the BCP what a priest should do if s/he runs out of hosts at Communion).
In the CofE the rules say consecrate more then and there. There may be some parishes that break the rules but its not us evangelicals.
Which rules?
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, the RCC forbids further consecration, though i have never understood why.
It is because consecration of bread and wine occurs as part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is not something technical or mechanical that can take place on its own; it exists only within the context of the Holy Sacrifice. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
I read somewhere - but can't find the reference -that the ecclesiatical courts had ruled in the late 1960s that Series 2 had legalised reservation in the CofE, albeit inadvertently. And that this principle was upheld in Series 3. A liturgy for Communion of the sick from the reserved sacrament was authorised in 1983.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
incidentally does anyone know of one where reservation is not practised? I'm guessing Bradford but can't think of any other likely candidates).
When we visited Wellington Cathedral last year, I looked for the Reserved Sacrament but couldn't find it or mention of it.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That is what I thought to be the case - which is why I am very unhappy with Anglican practice - except in so far as the WHOLE of the liturgy is the holy sacrifice, not just up to the bit where the celebrant communicates.
I'd like to hear a RC take on this.
The nature of religious sacrificial offerings is such that the sacrifice is completed when it is consumed by the one who offers it. This is how it was in the temple, and continues to be the case within the context of what is necessary for the validity of the Catholic Mass.
This is not to say that the liturgical form that the Church presents for the celebration of the Eucharist should not include the people. The people have the option to receive communion, and are encouraged to do so as frequently as possible. For this purpose, a postcommunion prayer of thanksgiving is included in the Order of Mass, as well as a blessing and dismissal. But from the technical perspective (admittedly a narrow one, but theologically speaking, an accurate one) of what is minimally required for a sacrifice, it is only that the priest himself consume it.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Further consecration with the dominical words.
From the point of view of the Paul Bradshawites and eg, the sisters at West Malling, the whole prayer is consecratory, not just the dominical words, so the whole prayer (including the responses of the people, the High Priestly people of God) is necessary for consecration.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, the RCC forbids further consecration, though i have never understood why.
It is because consecration of bread and wine occurs as part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is not something technical or mechanical that can take place on its own; it exists only within the context of the Holy Sacrifice.
Which is surely exactly why, when the elements run out, Anglicans consecrate more. It is all part of the one celebration. And is why the whole amount copnsecrated is meant to be consumed (with a little leeway for taking it to the sick) - although I think this rule is broken in as many places as it is kept.
And it is a reason why you don't keep stuff over from a previous celebretion, just in case, as is if the body and blood of our Lord was something like a bag of sugar in the kitchen cupboard, to be brought out whenever the sugar bowl needed topping up.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
... And it is a reason why you don't keep stuff over from a previous celebretion, just in case, as is if the body and blood of our Lord was something like a bag of sugar in the kitchen cupboard, to be brought out whenever the sugar bowl needed topping up.
That gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
The nature of religious sacrificial offerings is such that the sacrifice is completed when it is consumed by the one who offers it. This is how it was in the temple, and continues to be the case within the context of what is necessary for the validity of the Catholic Mass. ...
I can't comment on Catholic theology on the Mass, but that parallel does not work for the 'real' sacrifices of animals in the temple. Yes, parts of some were eaten, but others were not. The essence of sacrifice is that the animal is killed.
However we describe the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whatever we mean by it, and a lot of ink has been spent on this over the last 500 years, the sacrifice in that sense was completed when Jesus died.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I read somewhere - but can't find the reference -that the ecclesiatical courts had ruled in the late 1960s that Series 2 had legalised reservation in the CofE, albeit inadvertently. And that this principle was upheld in Series 3. A liturgy for Communion of the sick from the reserved sacrament was authorised in 1983.
Not to mention communion of the people on Good Friday from the elements consecrated the previous day: I think authorised in 'Lent Holy Week and Easter' (1984?) and more strongly commended in Times and Seasons.
Anyway, reservation was practised widely long before the 1960s. And dioceses insisted that a faculty should be obtained before installing an aumbry: they weren't likely to issue one of those if aumbries were illegal.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
incidentally does anyone know of one where reservation is not practised? I'm guessing Bradford but can't think of any other likely candidates).
When we visited Wellington Cathedral last year, I looked for the Reserved Sacrament but couldn't find it or mention of it.
The OP is about the C of E so I was asking about cathedrals in England. Though I wonder if any parts of the Anglican world frown upon reservation except perhaps Ireland and the diocese of Sydney.
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, the RCC forbids further consecration, though i have never understood why.
It is because consecration of bread and wine occurs as part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is not something technical or mechanical that can take place on its own; it exists only within the context of the Holy Sacrifice.
Which is surely exactly why, when the elements run out, Anglicans consecrate more. It is all part of the one celebration. And is why the whole amount copnsecrated is meant to be consumed (with a little leeway for taking it to the sick) - although I think this rule is broken in as many places as it is kept.
And it is a reason why you don't keep stuff over from a previous celebretion, just in case, as is if the body and blood of our Lord was something like a bag of sugar in the kitchen cupboard, to be brought out whenever the sugar bowl needed topping up.
I think the point of not saying the words of institution more than once in a celebration of the Eucharist is that the whole celebration, beginning (in the case of an RC Mass) with the sign of the cross and ending with the dismissal and "Thanks be to God" is one long prayer of praise, thanksgiving, offering, and sacrifice made by Christ through His Church to the father. Just because the RC believes that the consecration has occurred by the time that the words of institution have been said does not mean that the whole celebration including parts that occur after the words of institution are not part of the consecration, the offering, the sacrifice, etc.
The Orthodox go farther than this by refusing to identify a moment during the Eucharistic Prayer at which the consecration can said to have happened. The Eucharist occurs outside of time.
I just don't think you can divide the consecration of one set of elements from the consecration of another in one Eucharisitc celebration. It is one whole. It is like Jesus reanimating right after dying on the cross because he forgot to save a few more people or going back into the tomb after coming out for the same reason. It is one offering for the salvation of all. Liturgies can argue about how it's oneness should be reflected in the liturgy, but I think the a single consecration if a single set if elements is an indispensable element of this.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, the RCC forbids further consecration, though i have never understood why.
It is because consecration of bread and wine occurs as part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is not something technical or mechanical that can take place on its own; it exists only within the context of the Holy Sacrifice.
Which is surely exactly why, when the elements run out, Anglicans consecrate more. It is all part of the one celebration. And is why the whole amount copnsecrated is meant to be consumed (with a little leeway for taking it to the sick) - although I think this rule is broken in as many places as it is kept.
And it is a reason why you don't keep stuff over from a previous celebretion, just in case, as is if the body and blood of our Lord was something like a bag of sugar in the kitchen cupboard, to be brought out whenever the sugar bowl needed topping up.
This is a mistake: the rite of Communion is an interpolation or addition, and not a necessary part of the Sacrifice, which is completed when the priest receives the Body and Blood. There are different graces to be received from hearing Mass and from Communicating, though we felicitously combine them these days. It can even exist independent of the offering of the Sacrifice, as at Orthodox liturgies of the presanctified, or the giving of the viaticum, or the Good Friday liturgy (where the people receive as well): I agree that the ideal would be to receive from the Hosts consecrated at the same Mass, but this is usually impractical. The Sanctissimum is the Sanctissimum is the Sanctissimum, as far as catholic theology is concerned, so reception of it confers the same graces regardless of when it was consecrated.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Put me down as believing that if there are laypeople present who are disposed to receive, the laypeople should receive and the priest should make provision so that they can receive. Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is not only for emergency communion of the sick but for situations like this. It should not be the norm, though, for reserved consecrated elements to be used at every Mass where laypeople are present.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Put me down as believing that if there are laypeople present who are disposed to receive, the laypeople should receive and the priest should make provision so that they can receive. Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is not only for emergency communion of the sick but for situations like this. It should not be the norm, though, for reserved consecrated elements to be used at every Mass where laypeople are present.
One problem with this is that there is precious little catechesis (IME) as to what "properly disposed" actually means, and thus people are misled into receiving communion out of habit. I think a pronounced return to non-communicating masses, at least for portions of the congregation, would be salutary.
Don't forget that reservation is also practised for adoration and contemplation: the tabernacle is not merely a larder but an holy temple.
In practice, Low Masses seldom if ever use reserved sacrament for any number of practical reasons: the server can easily count the number of communicants, the Mass isn't being celebrated at the same altar which houses the tabernacle/sanctuary containing the aumbry &c. So it isn't really the 'usual practice', just the practice that most of the congregation see, and not one which particularly bothers me, I must say. Except when we celebrate at the Nave Altar (:wailing and gnashing of teeth:), which necessitates a miniature procession of the MBS from the tabernacle on the High Altar.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
