Ship of Fools: Communion on Good Friday?

Thread: Communion on Good Friday? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030352

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Ok, so at my local Anglican (it may be relevant to add I live in Sydney here) church this morning-it was a communion service of Good Friday. I was told they always have Communion on GF. Seems wrong to me-anybody else-of any tradition-have communion on Good Friday?

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

It is generally frowned upon, though I know of many Baptist and independent churches that do. My Shack did last year but it was from the reserved Sacrament, so no consecration on that day.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

I take it the OP is referring to an actual celebration (afresh) of the Eucharist on Good Friday?

It's not formally ruled out by either the BCP or our Canadian BAS, but I've never known it to happen, and the quasi-official McCausland's Ordo discourages it. I wouldn't imagine the Australian books disallow it either, and I expect many Anglican meeting houses in Sydney would not have any scruples about it.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We do (Vietnamese Lutheran). I think the Americans do too.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

At our (Episcopal) church we've generally had communion from the reserved sacrament on Good Friday. I think this is pretty typical of TEC churches in the area. Our rector nixed the idea for tomorrow, so it will be just a service of the Word.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Our's is not a Moore College parish, although in Sydney. We had a eucharist this morning with elements consecrated at last night's Maundy Thursday service and which had been on the altar of repose. An excellent service, on the long side, with a couple of added reflections stretching things out a bit. Thinking back on them they put a lot into the service and the time was worth every second.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Interesting,thanks for the responses. Yes it was a fresh celebration, i.e. not from reserved sacrament.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

The communion from the reserved sacrament has an oddly modern sounding name:

Mass or Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified.

The Orthodox shop down the street does it all during Lent on Wednesday evenings.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

While I'm a mass of the pre-sanctified person I believe there are powerful arguments for each of the three schools - no communion, consecrate communion, pre-consecrated communion. I would die of sorrow with the first, though it was the practice in my evo-ang church of origin 35 years ago; I can cope and have coped with either of the second and third ... I can see no reason why consecration should not take place on the day body and blood became body and blood for us

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

In the Roman Catholic Church, there is a service of prayers and the Word, adoration of the Cross. The service ends with Holy Communion, from the elements consecrated on Holy Thursday, in one specie only. In the Canadian Church, at least, this service, which is not a mass, is known as Friday of the Passion of the Lord.

It is the second stage of the Triduum. As on Holy Thursday, there is no Blessing or dismissal; people depart in silence.

The last stage of the Triduum is the Easter Vigil Mass. The three days of prayer are over and there is a Solemn Blessing and Dismissal.

There should be no Mass on Holy Saturday at all, not even a service of the Word, until the Vigil begins.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I have never heard of this in UK Anglicanism, not even in the Evangelical corner of this that I inhabit.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

At the Liberal Catholic Church I used to attend we used to have a celebration of the Eucharist on Good Friday. The priest from those days has since retired, so don't know if they still do it.

[ 03. April 2015, 08:39: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
In the Roman Catholic Church, there is a service of prayers and the Word, adoration of the Cross. The service ends with Holy Communion, from the elements consecrated on Holy Thursday, in one specie only.

It is the second stage of the Triduum. As on Holy Thursday, there is no Blessing or dismissal; people depart in silence.

Agreed, save that we communicate in both. There is no procession at the beginning or end of Friday's service by clergy or choir. The clergy simply walk in from the vestry door in silence and leave the same way. The choir has already climbed to the gallery and stays there at the end. The bell is not rung at the beginning. To this we add that the distribution is in silence also, with no words of administration or of receiving.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

Further to this, the priests and deacons process up the aisle, in silence (Roman Catholic practice), and then prostrate themselves in silence, adoring the Holy Cross. At the end, the vessels of Communion being put away, they leave in silence, as do the people. There is no closing hymn. I've been known to leave in tears. It is a very intense and emotional service.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Further to this, the priests and deacons process up the aisle, in silence (Roman Catholic practice), and then prostrate themselves in silence, adoring the Holy Cross. At the end, the vessels of Communion being put away, they leave in silence, as do the people. There is no closing hymn. I've been known to leave in tears. It is a very intense and emotional service.

Very intense and moving, especially kneeling when His death is reached in the Gospel reading. We observe a long silence then. The stripped altar, the absence of candles or any other ornamentation simply enhance this feeling of desolation. Madame and I have always felt this to be a very roller-coaster week emotionally, this year in particular. That said, I felt an extraordinary peace after communion this year, a reassurance despite the great tragedy of the day.

We don't have any procession as it's the continuation of the Maundy Thursday service. Clergy and others in the sanctuary simply walk in a side door, almost casually, and take their places as if there had simply been a rearrangement of positions overnight. On Sunday, again no bells, although there will have been a lot of noise at the 5.30 First Light service.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Sorry if this sounds a tad drama-queeny, but I honestly don't think I could bring myself to celebrate the Eucharist on Good Friday. It's completely alien to my tradition and it would feel wrong.

The clue for me is in the word we use for the Eucharist: "celebrate". Who has a party at an execution? It would feel like bringing champagne and canapes to watch someone go to the electric chair.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The Baptist tradition is, of course, less sacramentally-based. If there is Communion during this time, it tends to be on Maundy Thursday evening (to me that is a "given") and possibly first thing on Sunday morning.

I've never come across it on Good Friday, and Easter Sunday seems to be focussed entirely on the Resurrection. But there are no "rules" on this.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The clue for me is in the word we use for the Eucharist: "celebrate". Who has a party at an execution? It would feel like bringing champagne and canapes to watch someone go to the electric chair.

It's always seemed a bit strange to me that the missal refers to the Good Friday liturgy as the "Celebration of the Lord's Passion".

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The clue for me is in the word we use for the Eucharist: "celebrate". Who has a party at an execution? It would feel like bringing champagne and canapes to watch someone go to the electric chair.
It's always seemed a bit strange to me that the missal refers to the Good Friday liturgy as the "Celebration of the Lord's Passion".

'Celebrate' means 'honour'. A celebrity is in theory a person who is honoured for something or other. A celebration is not necessarily a joyful occasion.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I have never heard of this in UK Anglicanism, not even in the Evangelical corner of this that I inhabit.

In which case, I am afraid to have to report that it does take place within evangelical Anglicandom ...

I attended the Good Friday 'meditation' at our parish church this morning - which is very much evangelical Anglican and felt very uncomfortable with the whole thing. So much so, that I didn't actually take communion - although, not being familiar enough with the rubrics I had gone prepared to do so where it on offer ...

What we had was a communion service broken up into chunks with readings and reflections - none from the lectionary - and the vicar's attempts at amateur dramatics ...

Well, actually, that last bit is an exaggeration. What he did was to say that the service would follow a particular theme and after the readings he read out some scenarios he'd written where people were exhibiting attitudes/behaviour that might not fit with what we might take to be 'the way of the Cross' ...

We were also supposed to write things down on bits of paper and either scrunch them up and place them at the foot of the cross at the end or take them home with us ...

In and amongst, what Good Friday themes there were - he had an animated video clip from a US evangelical website - became conflated with Maundy Thursday and he showed PowerPoint slides of various Old Masters and modern depictions of the Last Supper while communion was taking place - with a recording of The Lark Ascending in the background.

I left at that point. I'm not a liturgical fascist but the whole thing made no liturgical sense to me whatsoever. It jumped all over the place, the readings and reflections worked 'against' each other and the liturgical responses for communion were space out from one another by hymns, prayers and his awful, patronising 'reflections'.

It was a complete dog's breakfast.

Call me a loner, but I came home and went through the set prayers for Passiontide and Good Friday from Common Worship with the appropriate lectionary readings.

That made me feel a whole lot better.

I know it's not about 'me' ... but c'mon folks, what the heck is going on?

[Confused]

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

As I recall, for many centuries Lutherans celebrated the Lord's Supper on Good Friday. I don't know about current practice.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think the Lutherans I know--and am--always have. It's never been an issue with us. Just seemed natural, to share in Jesus' body and blood the day his body and blood were sacrificed for us. As for the concept of celebrations, there are noisy, festive ones, and quiet, deeply felt ones. I think the noisy festive kind would be out of place on Good Friday, but the other works fine for us.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That sounds fair enough, Lamb Chopped, but then, the way the RCs and Orthodox do it makes sense too.

What makes absolutely no sense, to me at least, is the way it was done at our parish church this morning.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Sure. I've never understood the RC etc. reasoning--must go look it up.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

My guess would be that the RCs are 'working through' the process/sequence liturgically.

Therefore, it makes sense to delay the 'celebration' of the eucharist until the day of Resurrection - as it were, when we drink the wine new in the Kingdom of God ...

I can see how it would be appropriate to share the body and blood on the day that commemorates the death of that body and the shedding of that most precious blood - but for whatever reason it doesn't 'sit well' with me.

I don't know why that is - it just 'feels' odd.

I'm not saying that there's anything 'wrong' with the Lutheran position, simply that it feels strange.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

As it happens, a friend of mine just published a reflection on the Catholic practice of not celebrating the Eucharist on Good Friday (culture war combatants should feel free to ignore the venue in which it appears and judge it on its own merits).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Just ... no.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

BCP 1662 gives readings for Communion on Good Friday, doesn't it- so presumably it must envisage (have envisaged) a celebration that day?

(As for Adeodatus's point about champagne and canapes at the electric chair- bet they do it- or beer and ribs- in Alabama...probably stick the ribs on the chair to keep them warm)

[ 03. April 2015, 14:57: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I wouldn't have minded so much if it had been BCP, Albertus.

What we had was a dog's breakfast.

The vicar started with the opening words of the Common Worship eucharist - on a projector screen - then led us in a time of confession (which was loosely based on the usual Anglican form).

We then had a series of five readings interspersed with his own 'reflections' based on five imaginary characters and their views on 'success' - and even with some 'props' like a wine glass, coffee mug and other items I've tried to erase from my memory banks ...

These were interspersed with two or three hymns that were - to be fair - largely traditional Good Friday ones - and then we started the eucharist again - only for it to be interrupted/interspersed with readings and some silly video footage ...

Sorry to bang on ...

But [Mad]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fortunately, my wife practices with the choir of a medieval parish church some six or seven miles north of here - in exchange for singing at some weddings and on high days and holidays.

She's singing at their Good Friday service this evening. This will be more like it - the proper readings and properly chosen and appropriate hymns and anthems.

Needless to say, I'm going along as well. I would have done so anyway but I particularly need to after this morning's circus act ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Your friend makes a good case, it seems to me, FCB.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Our neighbouring (and rather high-church) Lutheran parish is having Communion at the German service but not the English. At the former, it appears that this is a fresh consecration from what I can make out of the leaflet, as the Verba are repeated.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see how it would be appropriate to share the body and blood on the day that commemorates the death of that body and the shedding of that most precious blood - but for whatever reason it doesn't 'sit well' with me.

I don't know why that is - it just 'feels' odd.

I went to the meditation at our local Anglican church this afternoon and felt exactly the same. The bread and wine were on a table at the front, but to the side, which I thought was fitting in a way - as though Jesus and the disciples had had their meal and then left. Then I looked ahead in the order of service and realised that communion was going to be part of it. I was very uncomfortable with it, although it's hard to explain why.

No idea what will be happening this evening at our Baptist church as we won't be going.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I don't know what proportion of C of E churches celebrate the full Liturgy of Good Friday as laid out in CW: Times and Seasons. It is essentially the same as the RC version. The church I attended this afternoon did it, and although only about half of the congregation came forward to venerate the cross (which is not to say they didn't venerate it in their own way), nearly everybody received communion. So there appears to be little resistance to the idea there at any rate.

Since the custom has been officially endorsed by CW, I think reservation of the Sacrament on Maundy Thursday, to be given on Good Friday, is much more common than it used to be. Personally I find it very moving. I've never attended an actual eucharistic celebration on this day but as others have said, the 1662 rite seems tailor-made for it; it would seem in keeping with the mood if not the theology.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Fcr Catholics the three days of the Paschal or Easter Triduum are three parts of the one act of commemoration,starting on the Thursday with the Lord's Supper,the new covenant and the new commandment of love and service,on the Friday with the passion and death of Christ and on the Sat/Sunday with the Resurrection.

Between the Mass on Thursday and that on Sat/Sunday there is no celebration of the eucharist.

The reading of the Passion,the solemn prayers for all mankind and the adoration of the Cross are followed by a simple distribution of the Blessed Sacrament.

For me personally the unveiling and adoration of the Cross is one of the most moving parts of the whole liturgical year.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The service Angloid describes sounds very much like ours this morning. AFAIK, at least 2 of our neighbouring MOTR parishes do something very similar, too - so yes, it's quite common C of E practice.

Re the 1662 BCP provision of Epistle and Gospel for GF - this doesn't mean that the whole of the Lord's Supper need be celebrated today, but just (!) Matins, Litany, and Ante-Communion......

Ian J.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The clue for me is in the word we use for the Eucharist: "celebrate". Who has a party at an execution? It would feel like bringing champagne and canapes to watch someone go to the electric chair.
It's always seemed a bit strange to me that the missal refers to the Good Friday liturgy as the "Celebration of the Lord's Passion".

It's the celebration of the victory of the cross. The liturgy for today is very 'Christus Victor' and refers to the resurrection.
It's solemn but it's not sad.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know what proportion of C of E churches celebrate the full Liturgy of Good Friday as laid out in CW: Times and Seasons. It is essentially the same as the RC version. The church I attended this afternoon did it, and although only about half of the congregation came forward to venerate the cross (which is not to say they didn't venerate it in their own way), nearly everybody received communion. So there appears to be little resistance to the idea there at any rate.

Since the custom has been officially endorsed by CW, I think reservation of the Sacrament on Maundy Thursday, to be given on Good Friday, is much more common than it used to be. Personally I find it very moving. I've never attended an actual eucharistic celebration on this day but as others have said, the 1662 rite seems tailor-made for it; it would seem in keeping with the mood if not the theology.

For the first time, this year everyone venerated and everyone took communion - in previous yeasrs some eld back.

In the 3 years before I moved 'up the candle' my evangelical C of E church did a BCP Communion service - I rather liked it and would love to experience it again some time but it isn't as common now as it was then.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What we had was a dog's breakfast.

Several things strike me about this.

1. Was this the only service today? Or were there other, more traditional, ones at other times?
2. Did the Vicar spring this format on you as a surprise, or were you forewarned? How was it announced?
3. Was this truly "Anglican"? Perhaps he is a closet nonconformist and doesn't want to be trammelled by set forms of worship.
4. Some people are good at putting together "alternative" services, some aren't. You need to have a "feel" for the flow of things - and edit out the bits that don't fit, however good you think they are. (Sadly you only know afterwards what you should have left out!)
5. It sounds as if he was trying to please everyone - and ended up not really pleasing anyone! Or did others think it was great?
6. He clearly felt he had to "put over the story" and "make people think". But perhaps the Liturgy should have been allowed to do that for itself - as it did in the excellent CofE service I attended last night.

(Etc., etc. ...).

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

It sounds not unlike an evangelical slant on the old-fashioned "Three Hours' Devotion" still found in some Anglican churches, which similarly used the set liturgical forms of the day as a frame on which to hang, rather loosely, a great deal of preaching and ex tempore prayer or meditation.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Actually the 'three hours' traditional in Anglican churches, especially of the MOTR to low sort, was (maybe surprisingly) a Jesuit invention. It had no liturgy as such, apart from the readings on the Passion (usually the 'seven last words'), addresses based on them, and hymns.

The more liturgical pattern, whether based on BCP morning prayer - ante communion - evening prayer, or the Catholic passion-veneration-communion, is a comparatively recent phenomenon (post-liturgical movement anyway).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - good questions Baptist Trainfan. You will appreciate that I'm coming at this from my own subjective stand-point and that others may have found this morning's offering helpful.

I didn't hang around to find out ...

But to answer your questions ...

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What we had was a dog's breakfast.
Several things strike me about this.

1. Was this the only service today? Or were there other, more traditional, ones at other times?
2. Did the Vicar spring this format on you as a surprise, or were you forewarned? How was it announced?
3. Was this truly "Anglican"? Perhaps he is a closet nonconformist and doesn't want to be trammelled by set forms of worship.
4. Some people are good at putting together "alternative" services, some aren't. You need to have a "feel" for the flow of things - and edit out the bits that don't fit, however good you think they are. (Sadly you only know afterwards what you should have left out!)
5. It sounds as if he was trying to please everyone - and ended up not really pleasing anyone! Or did others think it was great?
6. He clearly felt he had to "put over the story" and "make people think". But perhaps the Liturgy should have been allowed to do that for itself - as it did in the excellent CofE service I attended last night.

(Etc., etc. ...).

1. It was the only service today in that particular parish church.

2. It was announced in advance as a Good Friday meditation. No other details. I've been to one there before about 3 years ago and I don't think that was eucharistic - more a set of readings and reflections - although with the obligatory PowerPoint slides and video clip ...

3. The vicar is a closet non-conformist. Before he was ordained he spent some time in a Baptist church because he couldn't find an Anglican one that was conducive near where he was living at that time. I was more 'Anglican' than he is when I was a Baptist ...

Seriously, he ought to be a Vineyard pastor or similar ...

4. Yes. Some people are good at putting together alternative worship services. This guy isn't. At least, not in my view.

5. No idea. I'll tell you what I thought was pants about it - among other things. He followed each scripture reading with a 'reflection' he'd written himself. Each of these consisted of a dramatic narrative describing an individual who was pleased with themselves for one reason or other ... and who defined 'success' in terms of money, power, popular acclaim, being 'understood' by others etc.

This was obviously meant to contrast with Christ's way of the Cross.

Fair enough, I could see where that was going but these distracted from the scriptural readings in my view and besides, in some of the scenarios the people he described could justifiably feel pleased with themselves and no-one but some kind of curmugeonly kill-joy could have blamed them for it ...

So it didn't 'work', because it came across as judgemental and pernickety.

6. Yes, but he didn't 'put over' the story, he distracted attention from it. They should have had the scripture readings and let them speak for themselves - or at least have a few 'glosses' to explain a few things if necessary. It's not as if anyone there wasn't a regular or somehow 'unchurched'. It didn't make me 'think' it nearly made me barf or make a bolt for the door ...

Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :

We had a christianised passover meal on Thursday night - I know there has been debate on this on another thread, but I found it a good opportunity to relate Hebrew scripure to the Last Supper - followed by a church service, which should have been communion, but our vicar has the lurgie and so Darllenwr and two others stripped the sanctuary whilst the congregation read Psalm 22. The main lights were switched off, and we left the church and the church grounds in silence. We had some of the congregation from a local house church with us, and they were moved by it all.
Today, there was no communion in any of our three churches - an all age in the parish church, and devotional services in the two daughter churches. The next communion will be on Easter morning. (Hoping we don't catch the lurgie too!)

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not saying that there's anything 'wrong' with the Lutheran position, simply that it feels strange.

* coughs politely *

What Lamb Chopped describes is not THE Lutheran position, Gamaliel. It's A Lutheran position. To take one person's experience and posit it as "THE" expression of the denomination is likely as misleading as describing "THE" Anglican liturgical practice on anything...
[Biased]

I am at least as Lutheran as Lamb Chopped, and I think I've had a pretty wide variety of experience across the country and with various forms of 'churchmanship'. I can state that never have I ever, in all me born days, seen Good Friday communion in a Lutheran church.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Gwladys:
...lurgie...

Can you provide a translation?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair enough, Leaf, apologies for making that assumption ...

[Hot and Hormonal]

We don't have that many Lutherans here in the UK so of all the older/historic churches it's the one that is least familiar to us.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Barefoot Friar - 'lurgy' - pronounced with a hard 'g' as in 'go' - 'lurg-ee' is a colloquial/comic British expression for any unknown or unspecified ailment.

It is often combined with 'dreaded' - 'He's gone down with the dreaded lurgy ...'

It derives from the popular 1950s radio show, The Goon Show, featuring Peter Sellars, Harry Seacombe and the mad, comic genius Spike Milligan.

Apparently, it was spelt 'lurgi' in the original script.

You can find out about the origins here:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dre1.htm

It's a good example of a phrase or term invented for a radio or TV show that has gone on to enter common parlance.

Apparently, the US has been innoculated against the Dreaded Lurgi in the same way as we have been innoculated against 'cooties' and have no idea what Americans are on about when they use that particular term.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Meanwhile, from what I experienced yesterday, whether it is canonically licit within the CofE or not, I can honestly say that I never, ever want to attend a Good Friday meditation at our local parish church ever, ever, ever again.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Actually the 'three hours' traditional in Anglican churches, especially of the MOTR to low sort, was (maybe surprisingly) a Jesuit invention. It had no liturgy as such, apart from the readings on the Passion (usually the 'seven last words'), addresses based on them, and hymns.

The more liturgical pattern, whether based on BCP morning prayer - ante communion - evening prayer, or the Catholic passion-veneration-communion, is a comparatively recent phenomenon (post-liturgical movement anyway).

That does surprise me! I certainly never encountered it before swimming the Thames, and the (Anglican) parishes that do it are often the last ones you'd expect to have any kind of Ignatian influence.

I've never been, but St James' Cathedral in Toronto does it with Mattins as the first "hour", then Passion reading and Ante-Communion, and finally Evensong (at two o'clock!) with sermons at all three, as given in this pdf.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair enough, Leaf, apologies for making that assumption ...

We don't have that many Lutherans here in the UK so of all the older/historic churches it's the one that is least familiar to us.

I am sorry but we do have Lutheran churches in the UK. They tend to be in large cities for starters here is one near you. They are a relatively small representation (even compared with the URC) and often conduct worship in German (but not always). I have been aware of them since childhood as I had a friends mother who was Lutheran (and used to travel to Leeds to worship).

Jengie

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

A full communion service on Good Friday is a typical German Lutheran invention.
As far as I know, it is unknown in the Scandinavian or US Lutheran Churches.
Furthermore,Communion from the Reserved Sacrament,as practised by the Anglicans,Eastern Orthodox and Roman-Catholics is not allowed in the Lutheran tradition.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I am at a loss to know of any (Anglican) church that has the full order of service of Mass/Eucharist/Communion with the consecration of the sacred elements on Good Friday. But I am attached to the liturgy of the presanctified as my personal choice.

At my main church, a change of priest-in-charge occurred three years ago, but one change (not for the better in my view), is that the incoming priest "dropped" the use of the presanctified, so that communion can no longer be received on Good Friday at that church. Consequently, I find my preferred usage with the presanctified in a neighbouring parish.

The rite of the presanctified makes sense to me, because in this way, communion can be received uninterruptedly on each of the three days of the Easter Triduum.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I am at a loss to know of any (Anglican) church that has the full order of service of Mass/Eucharist/Communion with the consecration of the sacred elements on Good Friday.

The red "Lent, Holy Week and Easter" service book that ran alongside the ASB had a rubric that suggested that it was entirely appropriate to celebrate the Eucharist on Good Friday. I notice that its replacement "Times and Seasons" notes that communion should be taken from the reserved sacrament.

As I mentioned upthread, they certainly used to do a full Eucharist at St Leonard's, Streatham on Good Friday, but I don't know if they still do.

[ 04. April 2015, 15:27: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The ' Three Hours' was indeed originally a Jesuit devotion,from an earlier time in the Catholic church.

Before the changes instituted by Pius XII in the 1950s the Good Friday liturgy with the Mass of the Presanctified took place in the morning.

Other parts of the day were filled with extra-liturgical or paraliturgical devotions such as Three hours, Seven last words,Stations of the Cross,Maria Desolata.

Since the changes the Mass of the Presanctified has been changed into a simple distribution of Holy Communion and many of the other extra liturgical devotions have simply disappeared.

Sometimes Anglicans have kept them.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
BCP 1662 gives readings for Communion on Good Friday, doesn't it- so presumably it must envisage (have envisaged) a celebration that day?

It also has provision fopr Holy saturday but there is no evidencve that it was evidence that it was ever ce;lebrated. Instead, 'table prayers' - ante-communion was said.

However, there is evidence from Pepys' diaries that Good Friday communion took place in St. Paul's Cathedral.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

Our Anglo-Catholic church had the Liturgy of Good Friday, as described by Pete. The odd thing is that it started, rather than finished, at three o'clock [Ultra confused]

Good Friday is the day that I am least comfortable with moving up the candle and want a proper 3-hours as used to be done at the MOTR church of my youth. I had not realised that it came from the Jesuits.

Posted by nobody but me (# 18084) on :

I am feeling tired and a bit dim: where this happened what was the reason for using reserved sacraments?

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Thank you, Gamaliel. I think I'm going to start using that!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
BCP 1662 gives readings for Communion on Good Friday, doesn't it- so presumably it must envisage (have envisaged) a celebration that day?

It also has provision fopr Holy saturday but there is no evidencve that it was evidence that it was ever ce;lebrated. Instead, 'table prayers' - ante-communion was said.

However, there is evidence from Pepys' diaries that Good Friday communion took place in St. Paul's Cathedral.

Very interesting- thank you.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Our Anglo-Catholic church had the Liturgy of Good Friday, as described by Pete. The odd thing is that it started, rather than finished, at three o'clock

That is the time appointed in the "extraordinary form" of the Roman Rite, and both the traditional Roman Catholic churches in this area (SSPX and FSSP) had their Liturgies at 3. (The Anglican cathedral came close, at 2, going to about 4 or so).

I'm given to understand that it's less common in the US, since the provision of a statutory holiday on Good Friday varies by state. In Canada, however, I have never encountered an evening Good Friday Liturgy.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

No Eucharist on Good Friday … No offering, either ...

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
No Eucharist on Good Friday … No offering, either ...

In the Canadian Church, as far as I can remember in my Catholic adulthood, there is a special collection for the Holy Land. Preprinted envelopes are in your envelope set, or available in the pews.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by nobody but me:
I am feeling tired and a bit dim: where this happened what was the reason for using reserved sacraments?

It is very ancient.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

I'm not keen on celebrations of the Eucharist on Good Friday, but I'd accept communion from the reserved sacrament and it took me a while to get used to that. We receive it in just one kind though - I think it's because of the events we're commemorating (?)

Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :

Indeed, Forthview. The typological aspects of the Mass of the Presanctified was lost in the 1955 Reforms - as much else of worth in the classical Roman Triduum. The Priest alone would take communion then, illustrating, even representing what is typologically set forth in the lection from Hebrews.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But the priest was usually the only one to communicate at any mass back then. General communion was rare.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Depends what you mean by 'back then'.Yes,it was the case on Good Friday at the Mass of the PreSanctified that only the priest communicated

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

sorry,got cut off there.
Rubrics for Good Friday stated that only the priest communicated from the Host used in the Mass of the Presanctified.

There was,however, no rubric which stated that others might not communicate.
It was generally the tradition that the priest alone communicated at the Sunday Sung Mass.
Much of this had to do with fasting laws before reception of Communion.

Granted that before the time of pope Pius X the lay faithful would generally not receive Communion more than once a month and then generally at Mass in the early morning or even
as was also common at one time outside of the celebration of Mass again in the early morning.

In the early 1900s Pius X encouraged the regular reception of Communion,even daily by the faithful.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

We did the Solemn Liturgy of Good Friday as outlined in the American Missal :

1) Altar Service (i.e. the lessons from Hosea, Hebrews, & the Passion from St John, with tracts in between)
2) the Solemn Collects
3) the Veneration of the Cross
4) the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified (i.e. communion in one kind only from the reserved Sacrament)

No organ; the choir sang the tracts, the Reproaches, Crux fidelis, and Pange lingua (not the Eucharistic one). Post-communion hymn was "Were you there?", a cappella, of course! The only strangeness was that a couple of folks (who should have known better) stood at the rail for a bit waiting for someone to come around with the chalice. [Hot and Hormonal]

As mentioned above, the fact that the BCP has propers for both Good Friday & Holy Saturday implies that a celebration of the Eucharist was envisioned. I tend to like the Missal version of the Triduum much better.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0