Ship of Fools: Eucharistic Prayer for Family Communion

Thread: Eucharistic Prayer for Family Communion 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=030511

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

At a recent Family Communion with Baptism at our Parish Church (at which I was unexpectedly called on to assist) the Eucharistic Prayer consisted of the President singing the communion hymn/worship song 'Behold the Lamb who bears our sins away'.
I had and have considerable doubt whether this was a valid consecration of the elements. What do shipmates think?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The C of E has recently authorised two new Eucharistic Prayers especially suitable for Family Communion use. Here's one of them:

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/additional-eucharistic-prayers/prayer-one.aspx

We've used this (without the optional bracketed interpolations) at Our Place for a Harvest Festival service. Short and sweet, and does what it says on the tin!

I can't see that simply singing a worship song can be a valid Anglican consecration, but could you please link to the actual words of the song?

IJ

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

If it's not text authorised by the CofE, it's not valid. I don't know the song you're referring to. Is there a link to the words anywhere?

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

There are numerous entries on Google. A performance is at www.youtube.com/watch?v=na8Xue4VEw4, or, if you can't stand the music, the lyrics are at www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Keith-Kristyn-Getty/Behold-the-Lamb-Communion-Hymn.

During Communion, our church choir and organist gave us a performance of the 'Benedictus' from Faure's Requiem. The contrast of real music with this stuff was painful, though the President had a good voice.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The second link doesn't work, and I personally couldn't get past the first few lines of the 'achingly beautiful' song on the YouTube video... [Projectile]

...but what Spike said. Not a valid Anglican consecration, and so you are all (alas) Hell-bound Hereticks...

IJ

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

And apart from being authorised, does the song include an epiclesis and an anamnesis and words of institution and thanks and offering of some sort?

Or was the "Eucharistic prayer" just regarded as a magic formula to validate communion?

I bet they called the service "Communion" rather than "Eucharist". It is so much more than that. It is the summation of the Christian community's worship of God through Christ.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

As to these new Eucharistic Prayers,the first one is not bad, however I find the second one,very Evangelical and rather poor.
It has struck me several times,that the Eucharistic Prayers as found in the USA and Canada are richer and far more catholic than those found in the Church of England.
Therefore it is quite understandable that Catholic Anglicans in the C.of.E.sometimes opt for those prayers from the Roman missal,or from the US.BCP or the Canadian Book of Alternative servioes

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

You're quite right, VenBede, I can't get that second link to work either, though it does if you type 'Behold the Lamb', etc., into Google and click the link from there. I'm not every good at these technical things. No, the hymn/song certainly does not contain an epiklesis or the actual Words of Institution, etc. The odd thing is that the person concerned is quite high up the candle. The service was headed 'Family Communion with Baptism', but the verses 'Behold the Lamb' were entitled 'Eucharistic Prayer'. I have taken the issue up with the President before -the response was that the epiklesis etc. was 'understood'. I'm certainly not happy - I can only assume that it was a way of getting 'down with the kids'.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I've just found the words to this song. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. It's bad enough that it contains words like "standin" (what's wrong with the g?) it's got some pretty dodgy theology there too. Is this an Anglican Church? If so, your priest needs some urgent retraining on the nature of Communion.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Delete the full-stop at the end of the link.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Following on from my previous post, I've discovered that there is more than one version of this song and I may have been looking at the wrong one.

I've subsequently come across this one which I assume isn't the one under discussion. It also has an explanation as to how and when it should be used. That said, my point still stands about retraining the priest as this is definitely not a valid Eucharistic prayer. I expect your archdeacon would be interested to know about this.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

No, that strikes me as not just irregular but more than irregular. It isn't just a question of authorised or not, although I think that is important. Unlike using another province or denomination's Eucharistic Prayer - which is not authorised and is therefore irregular - that isn't really a Eucharistic Prayer at all. It doesn't contain the things a Eucharistic Prayer usually contains. Even the Gettys themselves who I think come from a Brethren background, might be slightly horrified to hear that it was being used as one.

So, Eirenist and Bishop's Finger, whether one likes the song or not isn't the question. That's a matter of taste, and no more than a version of, 'I disapprove therefore I exist'. Whether you actually like it or not, and whether you'd prefer the 'Benedictus' from Faure's Requiem', that song would be suitable as a song to be sung while people were receiving, a practice that is attested at least back to the C18 if not further.

Spike, I'd have thought the line 'And we drink of His sacrifice' ought to appeal. It's the sort of line that some evos would disapprove of.

As for the suggestion that there's something wrong with describing a service as Communion, that really is taking improbo ergo sum into the stratosphere.

Utrecht Catholic, I agree with you. I think the second Additional Eucharistic is too thin, and should not have been authorised.

[ 06. November 2016, 16:51: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
If it's not text authorised by the CofE, it's not valid.

Really?

Irregular, illicit, illegal with various degrees of probability: for sure.

But surely the C of E hasn't yet given up on its catholic heritage that a validly ordained priest using valid matter and uttering the dominical words of institution with an intention (even a one full of misunderstandings) to do what the church does, succeeds in confecting the sacrament?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Not valid.

It also reeks on penal substitution.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Spike, it is the same song, Stuart Townend sings it with less breathiness than Kristyn Getty, but it's a song they originally collaborated on. Stuart Townend, Keith and Kristyn Getty used to be writing partners. That description doesn't suggest that Behold the Lamb is used instead of the Eucharistic Prayer, but is used as punctuation, or sung while people go up for communion.

Stuart Townend as in the songwriter described on the Non-PSA thread who at one time couldn't write a birthday song for his granny without fitting penal substitutionary atonement into it.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Wronger than a wrong thing that is wrong. It's an evangelical communion hymn. Nothing wrong with that. Might not be to everyone's taste, but if I turned up to a church and they sung that as the communion hymn, I would be fine with it. But it's no more a valid Eucharistic Prayer than "Sweet Sacrament Divine", "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence", "Alleluia Sing to Jesus" or any other much loved communion hymn.

Dom Gregory Dix. It's all in Dom Gregory Dix. Whatever do they teach them in these theological colleges nowadays?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Really?

Irregular, illicit, illegal with various degrees of probability: for sure.

But surely the C of E hasn't yet given up on its catholic heritage that a validly ordained priest using valid matter and uttering the dominical words of institution with an intention (even a one full of misunderstandings) to do what the church does, succeeds in confecting the sacrament?

There's an ambiguity as to at what point using an unauthorised Eucharistic Prayer becomes so irregular/illicit that the bread and wine fail to be consecrated. I'm not sure that has ever been properly answered by someone who has the theological competence to answer it.

One answer would be that unless one uses an authorised form to the letter, the prayer doesn't work at all. That is treating the Eucharistic Prayer like a magician's spell. I think most people would deprecate that view. If so, that means that there is a middle space where a liturgy can be irregular/illicit but, to use Leo's term, still valid.

It also means that the faithful are not at the mercy of incompetent or opinionated priests.

The absence of an epiklesis can't be fatal because for several centuries both Catholic and most Protestant liturgies in the west did not really have one. When the Bishop of London took issue a few years ago, entirely understandably, about some London CofE churches using the RC form of Mass, which was definitely not authorised in the CofE, that specific question seems to have been avoided.

I'd have thought, though that the question is whether intention and holy hands is enough, or whether the words of the song, here are too remote to count as dominical words of institution.

I'd have thought it's also a legitimate question whether using something that was never intended to be a Eucharistic Prayer can become one just by being used.

[ 06. November 2016, 21:09: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The lack of liturgical training and/or awareness among many clergy is appalling. It's like 'correct grammar': you might want to question the rules, you might have good reason for departing from them for effect, but if you don't know what they are in the first place you are liable to produce meaningless drivel.

It's not necessarily 'invalid' to depart from authorised texts. But it is important to know what those texts say, and especially to understand their structure, so that you can justify any departure from it. I would be very reluctant to use anything than an authorised eucharistic prayer in most circumstances (especially for a public service on Sunday), but I know priests who regularly use prayers from other sources. However most of them understand the 'grammar' of the liturgy which saves it from being totally self-indulgent wibble.

Somebody who thinks a hymn written for another context is an acceptable alternative to a eucharistic prayer needs compulsory retraining.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

Somebody who thinks a hymn written for another context is an acceptable alternative to a eucharistic prayer needs compulsory retraining.

I'm imagining such training involving running laps around the churchyard for an hour before breakfast, carrying a thurible above your head.

[ 07. November 2016, 01:26: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I worked with an ordinand from St Mellitus for a bit (as little as possible, if I'm honest about it). Liturgy wasn't much on the syllabus, if at all. It was expected to be taught in the parish.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Now there's a recipe for the transmission of liturgical illiteracy, if ever there was one.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's an ambiguity as to at what point using an unauthorised Eucharistic Prayer becomes so irregular/illicit that the bread and wine fail to be consecrated. I'm not sure that has ever been properly answered by someone who has the theological competence to answer it.

Well the Romans seem to have answered it pretty unambiguously at the Council of Trent, as did St Robert Bellarmine. Given wheaten bread and fermented grape wine, and an intention as weak as "what christians do" then all that is necessary under this head is that the priest uses the dominical words of institution.

I don't think the C of E has expressed a more restrictive view.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

I don't find the dominical words in 'Behold the Lamb'.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

I don't see how it is possible simultaneously to believe that validity of the sacrament is important and to believe that this song is a valid formula.

That is to say, you may think the idea of a valid/invalid sacrament is ipso facto absurd -- e.g. if you believe there is nothing more than a memorial in the Eucharist and no formula can be any more or less effective than any other. If so, I can see this potentially being acceptable. But otherwise I can't see how anyone can think this is OK. Certainly if I encountered it in the Church of England I would be writing to the archdeacon.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Well the Romans seem to have answered it pretty unambiguously at the Council of Trent, as did St Robert Bellarmine. Given wheaten bread and fermented grape wine, and an intention as weak as "what christians do" then all that is necessary under this head is that the priest uses the dominical words of institution.

I don't think the C of E has expressed a more restrictive view.

Obviously, the Council of Trent has no authority in the CofE, but have you got a reference to the relevant bit of Bellarmine. He'd be no more than persuasive, and, as a J, traditionally assumed to be a suspect source but it would be interesting to know what he said and what his reasoning is.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just for a bit of light relief, Father Fuckwit at Our Place earlier this year revised our service booklets. About the only authorised C of E bit left is the Eucharistic Prayer (usually B). Everything else is the clunky RC material (sorry, RC shipmates).

Father F retires soon (Deo Gratias), so hopefully we will be able to rid ourselves of this ridiculous abortion of a liturgy. Talk about self-indulgent wibble (thanks, Angloid)...

The archdeacon and bishop were informed of what Father F had done, but I suspect they are waiting for him to go in order to then close the church.

IJ

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Well the Romans seem to have answered it pretty unambiguously at the Council of Trent, as did St Robert Bellarmine. Given wheaten bread and fermented grape wine, and an intention as weak as "what christians do" then all that is necessary under this head is that the priest uses the dominical words of institution.

I don't think the C of E has expressed a more restrictive view.
Obviously, the Council of Trent has no authority in the CofE, but have you got a reference to the relevant bit of Bellarmine. He'd be no more than persuasive, and, as a J, traditionally assumed to be a suspect source but it would be interesting to know what he said and what his reasoning is.

Of course the Council of Trent has no authority, but insofar as it articulated what was common teaching until the reformation it can be illuminating on matters where the C of E hasn't changed its mind.

I lift this from Fr Hunwicke's blog, writing on the validity question:

"the locus classicus here is S Robert Bellarmine, de Sacramentis in genere chapter 27 paragraph 8."

Fr Hunwicke tranlates this para as:

"There is no need to intend what the Roman Church does; but what the true Church does, whatever that True Church is. Or what Christ instituted. Or what Christians do. Because these all amount to the same thing. You ask: What if someone intends to do what some particular and false church does, which he himself believes to be the true one - for example, the church of Geneva; and intends not to do what the Roman Church does? I answer, even that suffices. Because the man who intends to do what the church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal Church does. For he intends to do what such-and-such a church does, because he believes it to be a member of the true Universal Church, granted that he is mistaken in recognising the True Church. For the error of the minister about the Church does not take away the efficacy of the Sacrament. Only defect of intention does that."

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
If it's not text authorised by the CofE, it's not valid. I don't know the song you're referring to. Is there a link to the words anywhere?

Well, it may be valid. The validity of a sacrament doesn't depend on C of E canons.

Certainly not licit, though.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Is it possible that the sacrament had been reserved?

Some while ago we attended a large city centre Anglican church which had several communion services on some Sundays, and the "family" communion was often low key and was presided by a lay minister using reserved sacrament. I can't remember what liturgy was used during distribution, but I'm pretty sure it was minimal.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Thank you american piskie. That's interesting, though I suspect the RCC may not now accept it. Unless his words only apply to some sacraments and not all of them, I would have though that is not consistent with Apostolicae Curae of 1896.

Mr Cheesy, that's an interesting suggestion. I'm fairly sure that if people are communicating from a reserved sacrament, there is a requirement that nothing is used that sounds like it could be interpreted as a prayer of consecration. The person leading also has to make it clear and explicit that these are elements that a. have been consecrated at an earlier Eucharist, and b. this service is not a Eucharist. If your suggestion were to turn out to be correct, I would have thought if this wasn't clear to Eirenist at the time, that wasn't being done right either.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Mr Cheesy, that's an interesting suggestion. I'm fairly sure that if people are communicating from a reserved sacrament, there is a requirement that nothing is used that sounds like it could be interpreted as a prayer of consecration. The person leading also has to make it clear and explicit that these are elements that a. have been consecrated at an earlier Eucharist, and b. this service is not a Eucharist. If your suggestion were to turn out to be correct, I would have thought if this wasn't clear to Eirenist at the time, that wasn't being done right either.

Reading some of the English Diocese policies on this, "reserved" might be the wrong term - as that seems to be uniquely used for the ministry to the sick - and it doesn't look like you can be a priest distributing the sacrament in the way I've described above.

But I do agree that if this was what was happening, it wasn't properly flagged to Eirenist and presumably the congregation.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Could one of you tell an outsider what is the consequence of having an invalid consecration of the elements?

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Could one of you tell an outsider what is the consequence of having an invalid consecration of the elements?

If the bread and wine are not truly consecrated, they remain simply bread and wine, the Eucharist has not been celebrated, and the Body and Blood of Christ has not been received by his people.

At best, it is a pious act by well-intentioned people.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you american piskie. That's interesting, though I suspect the RCC may not now accept it. Unless his words only apply to some sacraments and not all of them, I would have though that is not consistent with Apostolicae Curae of 1896.

I don't think that anything I have said suggests that one doesn't need a priest for validity --- Ap Cur is surely concerned with that issue not the form and matter.

I looked up on the Vatican website what the modern Catechism of the RCC says about it all. Paras 1411 and 1412 of this in particular, although 1408 warms my reformed heart

Eucharist

.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
If the bread and wine are not truly consecrated, they remain simply bread and wine, the Eucharist has not been celebrated, and the Body and Blood of Christ has not been received by his people.

At best, it is a pious act by well-intentioned people.

I think that rather depends on your theological position on the Eucharist, of which there are many within the Episcopalian/Anglican communion.

Unlike the RCC, I'm not sure that the Anglican church really has an accepted concept of fake or faulty Eucharist to the extent of saying with one voice that a lack of liturgy means that "and the Body and Blood of Christ has not been received by his people".

Whilst some bishops might indeed take this position, I think the general understanding within England would be more that this was problematic because the set rules hadn't been followed. A significant amount of liturgical rule-bending has been going on in many English diocese, often with the tacit support of bishops - but I think it'd probably be a step too far for them to knowingly allow reduced or non-liturgical Eucharist.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think that is the point. The C of E is notably relaxed about people's theology of the sacraments, but the rules it insists on ensure that the sacraments are truly sacraments whatever the personal views of those involved.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

And, of course, most Nonconformists would insist that the bread and wine SHOULD remain bread and wine, and that the Eucharist "happens" when people are met by the Holy Spirit as they reflect on the significance of the occasion and eat and drink.

Hence any suitable liturgy, or even informal prayers (depending on the church circles you move in) will be appropriate.

[ 08. November 2016, 08:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And, of course, most Nonconformists would insist that the bread and wine SHOULD remain bread and wine, and that the Eucharist "happens" when people are met by the Holy Spirit as they reflect on the significance of the occasion and eat and drink.

Hence any suitable liturgy, or even informal prayers (depending on the church circles you move in) will be appropriate.

That's kind of irrelevant given we're talking about Anglican Eucharist, and "Anglican non-conformist" is a bit of an oxymoron. And there certainly are non-conformists who take exception to the Anglican Eucharistic form anyway.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Then can someone tell me what happens in interdenominational worship? Is communion not possible there.
I know the Uniting Church I have just joined sometimes has a combined communion at the Anglican church. Would this preclude a return communion at the Uniting Church if the Uniting Church had a form that was inconsistent with the rules of the Anglican church?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Then can someone tell me what happens in interdenominational worship? Is communion not possible there.
I know the Uniting Church I have just joined sometimes has a combined communion at the Anglican church. Would this preclude a return communion at the Uniting Church if the Uniting Church had a form that was inconsistent with the rules of the Anglican church?

I suspect a form of words is usually used to make it acceptable to Anglicans. Those who object to the Anglican forms are unlikely to be attending combined communion services.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

It wasn't communion from a reserved sacrament. I suspect the President misinterpreted permission from the Bishop to use 'any appropriate form of words.'

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Quite a major misinterpretation, then, coupled with a lack of proper training, and a penchant for self-indulgent wibble...

IJ

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
"Anglican non-conformist" is a bit of an oxymoron.

Plenty of them round our neck of the woods.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
It wasn't communion from a reserved sacrament. I suspect the President misinterpreted permission from the Bishop to use 'any appropriate form of words.'

Well that was bloody daft of the Bishop to give that very vague permission, wasn't it? It's not as if there isn't a choice of authorised Eucharist prayers.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
It wasn't communion from a reserved sacrament. I suspect the President misinterpreted permission from the Bishop to use 'any appropriate form of words.'

A. Has your Bishop given any such permission? and
B. Does anyone know whether a CofE Bishop actually has the power to give any such permission?

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

According to the President at the service, yes. But a colleague is trying to check up on this.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Then can someone tell me what happens in interdenominational worship? Is communion not possible there.
I know the Uniting Church I have just joined sometimes has a combined communion at the Anglican church. Would this preclude a return communion at the Uniting Church if the Uniting Church had a form that was inconsistent with the rules of the Anglican church?
I suspect a form of words is usually used to make it acceptable to Anglicans. Those who object to the Anglican forms are unlikely to be attending combined communion services.

So it's a "We will come and commune with you on the condition that you abandon your form and only use what we approve." It seems to be following the letter of the law in place of the spirit, or perhaps the Spirit.

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

LKK, at least two of our clergy friends hold joint Anglican/UCA appointments in regional NSW dioceses. I suspect that the Australian experience is somewhat less rigid than that of the CofE.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas Aus:
LKK, at least two of our clergy friends hold joint Anglican/UCA appointments in regional NSW dioceses. I suspect that the Australian experience is somewhat less rigid than that of the CofE.

It is entirely possible that normal UCA practice meets the Anglican requirements.

I'd imagine it is more of an issue when Anglicans have communion at joint events with Baptists and various kinds of Evangelical.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

@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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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 [Killing me]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I think translations are required here.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

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 ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Is there an approved rite that's so close to the Roman I might have been confusing it?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Eucharistic Prayer B is, I am told, the nearest to the Roman Rite:

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/principal-services/holy-communion/epsforonefront/prayerb.aspx

IJ

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Eucharistic Prayer B is, I am told, the nearest to the Roman Rite:

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/principal-services/holy-communion/epsforonefront/prayerb.aspx

IJ

I would concur, having previously worshipped in a place which uses the recent Roman abomination.

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0