Episcopalian Sacraments: Valid or Not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brofessor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By coincidence, I just bought Evanier’s book on Kirby, and just finished the Showcase collection of Roy Thomas’ All Star Squadron.

But what I had in mind was a line from the ending of Chesterton’s BALLAD OF THE WHITE HORSE.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Accurate, but not complete. A judgement of invalid form was intertwined with an assumption of invalid intention.

Complicated story/many details.

GKC
Click to expand...
Lordy lordy lordy, are we back to this subject again?
 
GKC said:
I assume we will never get past it. As I said in the next post:

“You cannot imagine how many times I’ve participated in threads like this”.

GKC
Click to expand...
I vote for the GKC sticky. 😃

Anna
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by triumphguy
Why go to an Episcopal Church when there’s a Catholic Church near by?

Answer: (somewhat tongue in cheek)
  1. Great language. (some parishes)
  2. Great music
  3. Serious reverence for the the sacraments
  4. Kneeling for communion
  5. Often better architecture than the competition,
  6. Great preaching (some parishes)
  7. Friendly people (some parishes)
  8. We do not have a cantor singing for us. We sing the hymns and responses lovingly and with reverence. No cantor is a good enough reason by itself.
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by triumphguy
Why go to an Episcopal Church when there’s a Catholic Church near by?

Answer: (somewhat tongue in cheek)
  1. Great language. (some parishes)
  2. Great music
  3. Serious reverence for the the sacraments
  4. Kneeling for communion
  5. Often better architecture than the competition,
  6. Great preaching (some parishes)
  7. Friendly people (some parishes)
  8. We do not have a cantor singing for us. We sing the hymns and responses lovingly and with reverence. No cantor is a good enough reason by itself.
Click to expand...
I’ve never been but do most Episcopalians kneel at the Communion rail? I only ask because I’ve had clergy from the local Episcopal church tell me at 2 of their services, one a Saturday evening guitar/piano reflective/healing Mass and the other a late Sunday morning contemporary service, that communicants at the former gather around the rail and pass the bread and cup/Body and blood to each other. And at the latter, people come forward to receive standing. The same church though also has 2 traditional earlier Sunday services so as far as I know they might kneel at those.
 
CMatt25 said:
I’ve never been but do most Episcopalians kneel at the Communion rail? I only ask because I’ve had clergy from the local Episcopal church tell me at 2 of their services, one a Saturday evening guitar/piano reflective/healing Mass and the other a late Sunday morning contemporary service, that communicants at the former gather around the rail and pass the bread and cup/Body and blood to each other. And at the latter, people come forward to receive standing. The same church though also has 2 traditional earlier Sunday services so as far as I know they might kneel at those.
Click to expand...
In most Episcopal churches, kneeling at the altar rail is the normative posture for receiving Communion, although communicating at stations is not unheard of, especially at larger services–Midnight Mass, Easter Vigil, etc. It is also acceptable to receive standing at the rail. In Anglo-Catholic parishes, reception is almost always the former.

At weekday Masses, it really depends on the preference of the priest, and how well attended the Mass is. Gathering round the altar, standing, often inside the sanctuary, is a frequent method. I have been to Catholic Masses where the same is employed.

The problem with passing around the paten and the chalice is that many communicants don’t know how to do this reverently. As in the Catholic Church, it is improper for ‘take communion’ from the paten one’s self. One should always ‘receive communion’ from the person standing next to you. Many people simply hold the paten, and let the next person take one for themself.

It is very common in TEC to intinct the Host by dipping it in the cup. (This is also permitted in some places in the CC, but not in the archdiocese I live in.) The proper way to do this is to hand the Host back to the Chalicist and permit him to dip the Host and place it on one’s tongue. (In some places a second, smaller Cup is employed for intinction.)

There are several different sentences used to present the Host and the Chalice to communicants:

In the 1928 BCP, and in Rite I in the 1979 prayerbook, The priest walks along the altar rail and says, “The Body of our Lord, Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and be thankful,” stopping to communicate each person. The Chalicist says similar words, “The Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee…”

In the 1979 book, it is more common to say, " The Body of Christ, the bread of Heaven," or “The Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation.” or “The Body ( Blood) of Christ, keep you in everlasting live.” If one chooses to intinct, the chalicist should say, “The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you in everlasting life.”

Hope this helps.
 
While we are at it, there are several subtle differences between Episcopal and Catholic Eucharistic practice.

It is permissible to incorporate “Anointing of Sick” and/or laying on of hands into the Mass. This is typically done after the “Prayers of the People”, but before the Consecration.

Although “Behold the Lamb of God…” is used in some Anglo-Catholic parishes, it is more common for the Priest to say, “The Gifts of God for the people of God. Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed on Him in your hearts with faith and thanksgiving.”

The “Dominie non sum dignus” is also optional, but used in most Anglo-Catholic parishes. Interestingly, the form used is similar to that in the new Catholic Missal, Lord, I am not worthy that Thou should enter under my roof…"

More commonly, there is a much more self-effacing ‘Prayer of Humble Access’, “We do not presume to come to this, Thy table, trusting in our own righteousness, but in Thy manifold and great Mercies. We are not worthy to gather up the crumbs under Thy table…that we may evermore dwell in Him, and He in us.”
 
GKC said:
I assume we will never get past it. As I said in the next post:

“You cannot imagine how many times I’ve participated in threads like this”.

GKC
Click to expand...
This thread is a proof of eternal life.
 
martininthefiel said:
While we are at it, there are several subtle differences between Episcopal and Catholic Eucharistic practice.

It is permissible to incorporate “Anointing of Sick” and/or laying on of hands into the Mass. This is typically done after the “Prayers of the People”, but before the Consecration.

Although “Behold the Lamb of God…” is used in some Anglo-Catholic parishes, it is more common for the Priest to say, “The Gifts of God for the people of God. Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed on Him in your hearts with faith and thanksgiving.”

The “Dominie non sum dignus” is also optional, but used in most Anglo-Catholic parishes. Interestingly, the form used is similar to that in the new Catholic Missal, Lord, I am not worthy that Thou should enter under my roof…"

More commonly, there is a much more self-effacing ‘Prayer of Humble Access’, “We do not presume to come to this, Thy table, trusting in our own righteousness, but in Thy manifold and great Mercies. We are not worthy to gather up the crumbs under Thy table…that we may evermore dwell in Him, and He in us.”
Click to expand...
The Book of Divine Worship (the rather cumbersome Roman Catholic reworking of the already ponderous 1979 Book of Common Prayer simply adds the Agnus Dei, the Prayer of Humble Access (optional, don’t you know), a combined Gifts of God for the people of God and Behold the Lamb of God, and the Domine non sum dignus. A lengthy setting of the Agnus Dei could make the whole post-consecration pre-communion business into a mini liturgy in its own right (rite?).

By the way, my Catholic friends, have you noticed that the new ICEL texts are copyrighted? I will remind you that the Episcopal Church has never copyrighted its Books of Common Prayer. Indeed, the Catholic Church did not need to ask permission of the Episcopal Church when it lifted, wholesale, the bulk of the 1979 BCP to create the Book of Divine Worship. Just saying.
 
On the Book of Divine Worship, just a note on the sentences of administration below: the expression with the host, "THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving. and the similar sentence with the cup have been edited to delete the underlined portion. It is possible that the “remembrance” is too suggestive of Protestant understandings of the Lord’s Supper, but the word does echo Christ’s own “in remembrance of me”. It does, however re-institute the formula in the 1549 Prayerbook which was criticized as being too Catholic (or not Protestant enough). The longer sentences of administration were added in the Puritan inspired book of 1559.
martininthefiel said:
In most Episcopal churches, kneeling at the altar rail is the normative posture for receiving Communion, although communicating at stations is not unheard of, especially at larger services–Midnight Mass, Easter Vigil, etc. It is also acceptable to receive standing at the rail. In Anglo-Catholic parishes, reception is almost always the former.

At weekday Masses, it really depends on the preference of the priest, and how well attended the Mass is. Gathering round the altar, standing, often inside the sanctuary, is a frequent method. I have been to Catholic Masses where the same is employed.

The problem with passing around the paten and the chalice is that many communicants don’t know how to do this reverently. As in the Catholic Church, it is improper for ‘take communion’ from the paten one’s self. One should always ‘receive communion’ from the person standing next to you. Many people simply hold the paten, and let the next person take one for themself.

It is very common in TEC to intinct the Host by dipping it in the cup. (This is also permitted in some places in the CC, but not in the archdiocese I live in.) The proper way to do this is to hand the Host back to the Chalicist and permit him to dip the Host and place it on one’s tongue. (In some places a second, smaller Cup is employed for intinction.)

There are several different sentences used to present the Host and the Chalice to communicants:

In the 1928 BCP, and in Rite I in the 1979 prayerbook, The priest walks along the altar rail and says, “The Body of our Lord, Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and be thankful,” stopping to communicate each person. The Chalicist says similar words, “The Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee…”

In the 1979 book, it is more common to say, " The Body of Christ, the bread of Heaven," or “The Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation.” or “The Body ( Blood) of Christ, keep you in everlasting live.” If one chooses to intinct, the chalicist should say, “The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you in everlasting life.”

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
On the Book of Divine Worship, just a note on the sentences of administration below: the expression with the host, "THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving. and the similar sentence with the cup have been edited to delete the underlined portion. It is possible that the “remembrance” is too suggestive of Protestant understandings of the Lord’s Supper, but the word does echo Christ’s own “in remembrance of me”. It does, however re-institute the formula in the 1549 Prayerbook which was criticized as being too Catholic (or not Protestant enough). The longer sentences of administration were added in the Puritan inspired book of 1559.
Click to expand...
A history and juxtaposition that is often used to illustrate the Elizabethan Compromise.

The sequence, as I recall it, was that the first Edwardian PB, 11549, used “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”, the 2nd, 1552, used the “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving”, and the 1559 PB joined them.* Via media*.

GKC
 
JC,

Surely, kind sir, you are not insinuating these Vampires would be Anglicans? 😃

Anna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top