The presence of lay person at the Eucharist

Today's question is from Bob Randall and Elizabeth Felicetti who serve on the clergy staff of Old Donation Episcopal Church in Virginia Beach. They ask about a question posed by a member of the congregation who"recently asserted in a meeting that Eucharists must have one lay person and one clergy person present." Bob and Elizabeth replied that two clergy would suffice, but were unable to find a source for either position. They also wonder about an upcoming clergy conference at which no lay persons will be present.

They have managed to touch on an issue that was hotly debated in the mid-16th century. Those who, like most Roman Catholic theologians, saw the celebration primarily in terms of a devout act of prayer to God, reasoned that there was no necessity for any lay person to be present for the Eucharist to be valid. That remains the position of the Roman Catholic Church today, thought the Constitution on the Liturgy adopted at Vatican II (1962-65) said that celebrations with lay person present were to be preferred.

Those who look upon the Eucharist primarily as a proclamation of the deepest mysteries of the faith, as many Protestant theologians did, took the opposite point of view. For them it made no more sense to celebrate in the absence of laity than it did to preach in an empty room. Thomas Cranmer adopted that position in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, adding a new rubric to the conclusion of the Eucharist, directing that "there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper, except that there be a good number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion." The editors of the 1662 version may have no longer trusted to the discretion of the priest to judge a good number, for they set a minimum number at "four (or three at the least) [to] communicate with the Priest."

Americans dropped the rubric in 1789, but not, I think, because there was any great interest in non-communicating celebrations. I think that by that point the idea that parishioners belonged at any celebration of the Eucharist was deeply ingrained. Technically, however, there is no longer a written requirement for lay presence in the American editions of the prayer book.

One could, therefore, argue either way--that we should continue in the spirit of Cranmer's edition of 1552 and not celebrate in the absence of laity, or that technically we are not bound by the English rubrics and can do what we like.

I would argue that Cranmer's emphasis in 1552 on the communal nature of the Eucharist accords well with our contemporary emphasis on the Eucharist as a joint undertaking of the whole people of God and that a celebration without communicants would be incomplete.

I would argue, however, that clergy need to hear the Gospel proclaimed as much--or more--than anyone else and that it does make sense to have a celebration at a clergy conference. There will be a good number to celebrate with the Bishops, but they will just happen to be priests and deacons.

Bob

Beatitudes of the Gospel

Today's post is an updated form of "the Beatitudes of the Gospel," a 19th-century service that was proposed for inclusion in the Book of Common Prayer in 1883, but rejected three years later. The office's chief proponent was William Reed Huntington, a leading Episcopal advocate of the Social Gospel.

The service, which follows, includes a General Intercession, which was also adopted in 1883 and rejected on second reading in 1886.

The rejection of elements of the 1883 revision in 1886 caused so much confusion that the Episcopal Church would not complete the process of prayer book revision until 1892. The final product of that revision omitted almost all the social action elments first proposed in 1883.

I have modernized the language of the service by replacing biblical allusion to the King James Version of the Bible with Biblical allusions to the New Revised Standard Version.

Bob

____________________________

THE BEATITUDES OF THE GOSPEL

¶This Office may be used after the third Collect at Evening Prayer, on any day, instead of the Prayers which are there placed. Or it may be said as a separate Office. The People kneeling, the Minister standing up shall say as follows:

Jesus went up the mountain; and his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

People. Lord, have mercy on us: and let it be with your servants according to your word.

Minister. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

People. Lord, have mercy on us, and let it be with your servants according to your word.

Minister. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

People. Lord, have mercy on us, and let it be with your servants according to your word.

Minister. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

People. Lord, have mercy on us, and let it be with your servants according to your word.

Minister. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

People. Lord, have mercy on us: and let it be with your servants according to your word.

Minister. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

People: Lord, Have mercy on us: and let it be with your servants according to your word.

Minister. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.

People: Lord, Have mercy on us: and let it be with your servants according to your word.

Minister. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

People: Let your steadfast love come to us, O Lord, your salvation according to your promise.

Minister. Let us pray

¶Then the Minister shall kneel, and say the Lord’s Prayer, with the Collects following ; but the Lord’s Prayer may be omitted, if it has been said immediately before.

Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, And the power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

For Grace to seek Spiritual Blessings

O GOD, you have made us for yourself; incline our hearts unto your decrees, and turn away our eyes from beholding vanity ; and that we may be freed from too great a love of earthly things, knit our affections to things heavenly, through Christ our Lord. Amen

For Wisdom

O GOD, by whom the meek are guided in judgment, and light rises up in darkness for the godly; Grant us, in all our doubts and uncertainties, the grace to ask what you would have us to do, that the Spirit of Wisdom may save us from all false choices, and that in your light we may see light, and in your straight path may not stumble; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

A General Intercession

O God, at whose word mortals go forth to their work and to their labor until the evening, be merciful to all whose duties are difficult or burdensome, and comfort them concerning their toil. Shield from bodily accident and harm the workers at their work. Protect the efforts of sober and honest industry, and suffer not the hire of the laborers to be kept back by fraud. Incline the hearts of employers and of those whom they employ to mutual forbearance, fairness, and good-will. Give the spirit of governance and of a sound mind to all in places of authority. Bless all those who labor in works of mercy, and schools of good learning. Care for all aged persons, and for all little children, the sick and the afflicted, those who travel by land or by sea, all strangers, and emigrants, and outcasts. Remember all who by reason of weakness or poverty are forgotten. Let the sorrowful sighing of the prisoners come before you, and according to the greatness of your power preserve those who are sentenced to die. Give ear unto our prayer, O merciful and gracious Father, for the love of your dear Son our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Lord bless us, and keep us. The Lord make his face to shine upon us, and be gracious to us. The Lord lift up his countenance upon us, and give us peace, both now and evermore. Amen

Today’s Service

Today’s service is modernized form of a service crafted by William Reed Huntington. He was a leading advocate of the Social Gospel in the Episcopal Church at the end of the 19^th century. As a deputy to General Convention from 1871 to 1907, he sought to make the Episcopal Church more responsive to the poor and needy. The high point of his efforts was the Convention of 1883, at which he accomplished three things: 1) As co-chair of the committee on prayer book revision, he convinced the convention to adopt on the first of two required readings a revision of the Book of Common Prayer that included the social action prayers that we will read today. 2) As a leading advocate of the ministry of women, he helped to convince the General Convention to adopt a canon recognizing the ministry of Deaconesses. The order had been introduced on a parish level in the middle of the century, and deaconesses were leaders in many forms of social action, but it was Huntington’s efforts that finally brought national recognition. 3) He convinced the House of Bishops to adopt his Quadrilateral, a statement of the essential elements of the church, and an invitation to other denominations to join in the ministry of the Gospel.

Unfortunately, Huntington was not able to follow up on all of his successes of 1883. The Convention of 1886 rejected most of the 1883 revisions to the prayer book on second reading, in part because of an elaborate procedure for revision that Huntington had himself advocated in the interim between conventions. Huntington resigned from the committee on liturgy, which went on to produce the relatively conservative prayer book revision of 1892. The Lambeth Conference adopted Huntington’s Quadrilateral, and a number of Anglican Provinces began ecumenical discussions; in most cases, however, Anglican provinces refused to join the union churches that they helped to plan. Deaconesses continued their work, but they made limited progress in gaining further acceptance in the church. Deaconesses would, for example, be stung by the refusal of the General Convention of 1925 to include an ordination service for Deaconesses in the 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer. Deaconesses continued as a separate order until 1970, when the General Convention eliminated all distinctions between male and female deacons. Deaconesses were allowed at that time to choose whether they retained their status as Deaconesses.

Confirmation in the 18th century

Today's question is from Beth Palmer, rector of St. John's Episcopal Church, West Point, Virginia. She writes:

Bishop Lee will be with us this year and so we are doing confirmations and communion. It is our tradition to use an older prayer book and this year we plan to use the 1662 BCP. I wonder where in the course of the communion liturgy one might encounter confirmation? It seems to me appropriate for confirmation to occur right after the sermon and before the offertory sentences, but I cannot find affirmation of this placement in rubrics or any of the books sitting on my shelf. ID you thoughts on this?

_____________

Beth,

It is unlikely that confirmation would have been celebrated at any point in the communion liturgy in England in the 17th or 18th century. The idea that the communion liturgy was divisible into two part (the Synaxis or Word of God and the Great Thanksgiving) and that it was appropriate to add various elements (baptism, marriage, Eucharist, etc) to the Eucharist is a result of the 20th century scholarship of authors like Gregory Dix.

It would have been more common in the 18th century to combine elements with Morning or Evening Prayer. This was, for example, where baptism was celebrated. I suspect that Confirmation (with the possible recitation of the Catechism) was celebrated as a separate office or connected with Morning or Evening Prayer.

That is not to say, however, that there is anything wrong with your intention to place the confirmation service where you have indicated. Any attempt to recreate an historic involves some compromises.

Bob

Reserved Sacrament

Today's question is from Todd Bruce, a recently ordained Episcopal priest who is working as an assistant rector in a parish in Kansas City. He writes:

I have a kind of long question that I would like to have your opinion on. We reserve the Sacrament here so that the deacon will be able to take it to people he visits during the week. However, on Sunday mornings, the Sacrament migrates from an aumbry in a chapel that is off of the nave, and not visible from the nave, to a shelf on the wall in the sanctuary.

I am finding, the more I celebrate, that I have a problem with this, and I'm not sure why. My reading of BCP is that the Sacrament is properly not reserved, and the only provisions made for reservation are for the sick (p.396, and that seems to be discouraged in favor of a proper celebration) and for Good Friday. At the same time, the rubrics seem permissive in not forbidding reservation. One priest said that he thought the rubrics about the reserved Sacrament for Good Friday implicitly permit and even assume the reservation of the Sacrament. I not only disagree, but think that the instructions on p.401 ("...after all have received, any of the Sacrament that remains is then consumed."), for the "Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist," assume that the Sacrament is reserved only in extraordinary situations. And, of course, though it is only part of a "historical document" informing but not dictating our practice, I keep thinking of Article XXVIII.

Why bring it out on Sunday morning? It seems that one of the "practical" reasons for doing this is in case we run out of consecrated bread and wine. I countered this reason by suggesting that since there is also extra unconsecrated bread and wine, we should use the short form to consecrate additional elements rather than communicate people from reserved Sacrament. In fact, the rubrical instruction (p.365) for what to do if one runs out of consecrated bread and wine is to use the short form. At this point in the discussion, I got the sense that not everyone trusts the validity of the short form. I find myself convinced by [Marion] Hatchett's thoughts on the dynamic nature of the Eucharistic prayers, that the short form is indeed quite valid and preferable to communicating people from the reserved.

What do you think?

Todd

____________________________________________

Todd:

Episcopalians have been debating about the reservation of the sacrament since the immediate post-Civil War years. That was the point when "advanced high-church" Episcopalians re-introduced the practice of reservation of the sacrament, which Anglicans had rejected at the time of the Reformation. The House of Bishops objected to the practice, particularly when connected with Veneration of the elements that had been reserved. The Bishops issued a pastoral letter against "eucharistic adoration" in 1871 and convinced the House of Deputies to amend the canons in 1874 to ban "elevation of the Elements in the Holy Communion in such manner as to expose them to the view of the people as objects toward which adoration is to be made." SeeWhite and Dykman, Annotated Constitution and Canons (1982) 1:442-46 for details. In 1892 the General Convention retained the rubric in the communion office directing that all elements be consumed following communion.

The advanced high-church party was undeterred, however, and continued both to reserve the sacrament and to celebrate the Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament. Bishops in certain dioceses brought clergy to ecclesiastical trial, but they continued the practice anyway. Finally in 1904, the Bishops quit trying to enforce the regulations and the General Convention of 1904 dropped the prohibition from the canons. The 1928 prayer book retained the unenforced rubic calling for consuming all of the elments. As you have noted the prayer book of 1979 revised that rubric by allowing reservation for home communions, but still makes no provision for general reservation.

A basic disagreement about the character of the Eucharist lies behind this debate about resevation. The Reformation point of view is that the Eucharist is an act of proclamation to a group of people. The eucharist is effective, it does convey grace to those who hear the proclamation of the mysteries of faith, but elements have no power outside of that act of proclamation. The 1552 edition of the Book of Common Prayer made that point by forbidding communion unless there were a "good number of communicate with the priest" and a directing that any left over bread be given to the curate "to his own use."

Those who opposed this point of view in the 19th century subscribed to a form of incaranational theology according to which God uses concrete phsyical objects as means of conveying grace. The bread and wine, once altered by the communion, continue to be active agents of grace and were worthy of reservation and veneration. As Peter Brown's Cult of the Saints pointed out, this is a very old way of thinking, one that many christians held by the 3rd and 4th centuries.l

Has anything changed since the debates of the 19th century? Yes, both in terms of practice and scholarship. Among those changes:

• The scholars of the Liturgical Movement, who in large measure provided leadership of the 1979 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, sought to replace a sacramental vision that focused on holy objects with a sacramental view that focused on the community of faith.
  
• Scholars like Byron Stuhlman, Andrew McGowan, and Paul Bradshaw are arguing that the reservation of the sacrament dates right back to the second century and may be earlier than weekday celebrations of the eucharist or even Sunday morning celebrations. Reservations may have played a key role in the transition from an Saturday celebration in the context of an evening meal to the elements only Sunday morning celebration that is standard today.
• The 1979 prayer book simplified the consecration of additional elements, which had to that time required a recitation of the rull eucharistic prayer. There is less practical reason to argue that it is too difficult to consecrate additional elements.
• The Episcopal Church's decision in 1967 to allow lay persons a role in the distribution of the eucharist for the first time opened up the possibility for more home communions for the sick, creating a need for more reserved elements.

All of this said, I think that your instincts are right. The attempt of the revisers of the 1979 prayer book was to steer a middle course between the Reformation No-reserved-sacraments -ever position and the veneration-of-holy-objects position of the advanced high-church party. The 1979 revisers asked utilitarian questions about what best served the worshipping community. They favored a reservation so that the eucharist might be more widely available for the sick and housebound, rather than a reservation for adoration. The kind of questions you are asking, such as why to bring out reserved elements when it is just as efficient to consecrate additional elements, are in keeping with the general direction of the book.

Communion by reservation on Good Friday is an explicit acknowledgement of reserved sacrament, as your colleague argues, but if the current scholarship is right, it is also a remainder of a practice that preceeded morning and weekday celebrations of the eucharist and therefore is only a very imperfect guide for present practice.

One final thought: you are really asking a double question. The first question is about your own understanding of the eucharist and the practices that you will follow when you are rector of a congregation. The second question is about understanding the practice in the parish where you are assisting and where your role is to provide input an ask questions of those who make the decisions, rather than making them yourself. Wise assisting clergy remember that distinction.

Bob

Raccoons in the Chapel

Susan Shillinglaw's photograph of one of two young racoons that fell through the ceiling of the choir room at Immanual Chapel at Virginia Theological Seminary is a graphic reminder that humans, bats, and church mice are not the only mammels that appear from time to time in church buildings.


Bob

Black Stoles

Today's question comes from a recent ordinand who had a question about liturgical colors:

Dear Dr. Prichard,

I was wondering if you could help me with a liturgical (perhaps liturgical history) question.

A priest gave me a graduation/ordination gift of a black stole. I had never heard of black stoles before and was wondering about its significance.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Peace,

Bingham Powell

________________

Dear Bingham:

Black (or purple) stoles were used for funerals prior to the 1960s, when clergy began to switch to white stoles. My 1965 edition of the Parson's Handbook (13th edition) still recommended Black or Blue for funerals for adults, but added the possibility of white for a child's burial. By the mid 1970s black stoles had pretty much disappeared, and white was used for everyone. The rationale usually given was that white was the color of resurrection, and that it was more appropriate than the penitential dark colors.

What that would mean in practical terms for you would be that the black stole would not be used currently, but would be kept as an historical object. My guess is that there are very few of them left at this point.

Elaborate colors schemes for vestments date to the 19th century for the Anglican Church, though there are certainly pre-Reformation precedents for multiple colors. From the 16th to the 19th century Anglican parish clergy wore a black scarf or tippet, rather than a colored stole. Some 19th century liturgical innovators in the Episcopal Church intentionally created confusion about the difference between a tippet and a stole as a means of introducing more catholic vesture. I even have come across the designation "fool-the vestry" vestments, which involved a series of shrinking tippets of changing shades that eventually reached the size of a stole.

Bob