Episcopal Eucharistic adoration?! 8^O

[Mountainmike]

Ah, I did not know Eucharistic adoration was addressed in the 39 articles. So when you mentioned it I looked it up and sure enough it’s addressed in article #25.

I enter the thread just to say, I think you mean #28.
As Anglican, I always found the wording odd. It doesn’t actually condemn it, it regards it as not an ordinance ie not a “ you must” I felt it leaves wriggle room.
As Anglican, now catholic, I am not challenging Anglican belief, but it is something I felt was left woolly in the wording, neither condemned nor approved.

The exact text at end #28 is here:
“The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”
Just FYI

 

[Tigger45]

I enter the thread just to say, I think you mean #28.
As Anglican, I always found the wording odd. It doesn’t actually condemn it, it regards it as not an ordinance ie not a “ you must” I felt it leaves wriggle room.
As Anglican, now catholic, I am not challenging Anglican belief, but it is something I felt was left woolly in the wording, neither condemned nor approved.

The exact text at end #28 is here:
“The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”
Just FYI

Specifically in the last paragraph.


XXV. OF THE SACRAMENTS
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am aware, but Read 28, it refers to exposition, specifically,

Specifically in the last paragraph.


XXV. OF THE SACRAMENTS
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

 

[PloverWing]

A follow-up to my earlier post: Our parish priest has continued with the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament as part of the Sunday morning service each Sunday since Easter. I continue to find it exactly correct for our isolated circumstances, a way for me to touch the Divine when I can't actually touch anything.

And I did tell our priest that I appreciate his inclusion of this rite in our worship.

I know we range all over the Catholic-Protestant spectrum here in STR, but whatever your sensibilities, I hope you've been able to find some kind of spiritual connection in this time of isolation.

 

[Paidiske]

Thanks, PloverWing.

Having now started to record the Eucharist each week (to be made available online) I must admit that celebrating for the camera really doesn't do it for me. My parishioners wanted something as close as possible to their "normal," which is why I'm doing it, but it's not without discomfort for me. Partly because it's not really clear to me - and, from what they're saying, I think not really clear to them - why they want this over, say, a service of morning prayer, when all they can do it watch it on the screen. What's the appeal of watching a Eucharist in which you can't participate, and which you can't receive? What are we saying about what we do, and why? Shouldn't we be able to answer those questions with more reflectiveness than just "I want what feels normal"? And to reflect on what has formed our sense of normality...?

I don't know, it all just feels a bit knee-jerk and rushing to the band-aids without doing the hard work first...

 

[everbecoming2007]

I know we range all over the Catholic-Protestant spectrum here in STR, but whatever your sensibilities, I hope you've been able to find some kind of spiritual connection in this time of isolation.

There are resources of this that have grown up in Anglican tradition, this being one example.

The Armed Forces Prayer Book

 

[everbecoming2007]

There are resources of this that have grown up in Anglican tradition, this being one example.

The Armed Forces Prayer Book

Note -- I read you as saying "spiritual communion," but some may nevertheless find the resource useful.

 

[Tigger45]

There are resources of this that have grown up in Anglican tradition, this being one example.

The Armed Forces Prayer Book

That’s a great resource

 

[Radagast]

Partly because it's not really clear to me - and, from what they're saying, I think not really clear to them - why they want this over, say, a service of morning prayer, when all they can do it watch it on the screen. What's the appeal of watching a Eucharist in which you can't participate, and which you can't receive?

For Catholics, prayerfully watching the Eucharist is itself an act of prayer, hence the Italian masses on rooftops and bell towers: Coronavirus keeps Palm Sunday worshippers away, Pope Francis delivers mass in empty St Peter's Basilica - ABC News

On the other hand, for a continental Protestant, a service of morning prayer might make more sense.

You make it sound like your parishioners are unsure where they sit.

As a general comment, I think the current crisis is perhaps leading people to think a bit more about what their theology of "church" actually is -- because various Internet technologies facilitate some things, but not others.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I will add this to the conversation. If one prays the Daily Office daily, one might think doing it as a ZOOM on Sunday does not make that Sunday particularly any different from any other day. I find it comforting to hear the familiar words of the mass even if I cannot be present for the Eucharist. I like making Sunday "different," if you will.

I tend to enjoy doing Morning Prayer in solitude more so that following along with a leader on a computer. My priests are doing Morning and Evening Prayer daily on YouTube. But I prefer doing it in solitude, and only check in to the Church's from time-to-time to see a familiar face.

That's the trouble with us pew warmers, we all prefer different things.

 

[Paidiske]

You make it sound like your parishioners are unsure where they sit.

The sense I get - and I hope the way I say this doesn't sound unkind, I'm just trying to be honest - is that they don't really care very much about the theology of it all. They just want something as close as possible to "normal" church, for reasons that are hard to articulate but probably have to do with comfort and familiarity in a time of stress etc.

 

[Radagast]

The sense I get - and I hope the way I say this doesn't sound unkind, I'm just trying to be honest - is that they don't really care very much about the theology of it all. They just want something as close as possible to "normal" church, for reasons that are hard to articulate but probably have to do with comfort and familiarity in a time of stress etc.

I see what you mean, but I think that there would be a vague, unarticulated theology or at least "model" lying underneath all that.

For example, if their model is "the priest does stuff and we watch," then they will want to keep watching electronically. If their model is "it is essential that the sacrament happens," then they will want the sacrament to keep happening.

I'd be curious as to whether (a) congregational responses are unimportant to them, or (b) congregational responses are important, and they keep doing them at home, talking to the computer screen.

Elsewhere around the world, varying technological approaches to church are, I think, indicating which aspects people think are truly important -- whether it is singing, or community, or the sacrament, or the homily, or something else.

 

[Paidiske]

No, I would say congregational responses are important. One thing which became quite the debate here was which platform to use; some people really wanted to use Zoom for that sense of interaction. I refused because Zoom is closed (invitation only) and I insisted that public worship is meant to be open to everyone, not just the special in-group whose email addresses we already have.

Interestingly, some people have indicated that while they do want to pray along with the prayers, they don't want hymns to sing along to (or not) at home!

 

[Radagast]

No, I would say congregational responses are important. One thing which became quite the debate here was which platform to use; some people really wanted to use Zoom for that sense of interaction.

That sort of thing is exactly what I meant.

I refused because Zoom is closed (invitation only) and I insisted that public worship is meant to be open to everyone, not just the special in-group whose email addresses we already have.

Some clergy have posted a public "you are welcome to join in; message me for the Zoom meeting id" notice. However, that really requires an additional person to check the messages -- things are generally too hectic otherwise.

 

[Paidiske]

Even with that sort of message, it's not the same as livestreaming that anyone (with the internet) can access.

Frankly at this point in time I'm far more concerned for my folks who don't have internet access; my internet-enabled folks have options and the world at their fingertips; but the ones who are relying on the printed material I send them have much more limited options.

 

[Radagast]

Frankly at this point in time I'm far more concerned for my folks who don't have internet access

And that is an important point.

 

[PloverWing]

This is one of those times when "doing" is preceding "analyzing" for me. I'm feeling spiritually disoriented; many old patterns of prayer and worship have been yanked away, and I don't yet know what the replacement will look like.

I can say that watching and meditating on the Eucharist touched me in a way that Morning Prayer did not. Radagast's observation that "For Catholics, prayerfully watching the Eucharist is itself an act of prayer" is about right. I'm remembering that when my youngest was an infant -- a nocturnal infant! -- I watched Mass on a Catholic cable TV channel a number of times in the middle of the night, when I was up with the baby, and drew strength from it.

I do not yet have a good theological analysis of why this is so.

Thanks, PloverWing.

Having now started to record the Eucharist each week (to be made available online) I must admit that celebrating for the camera really doesn't do it for me. My parishioners wanted something as close as possible to their "normal," which is why I'm doing it, but it's not without discomfort for me. Partly because it's not really clear to me - and, from what they're saying, I think not really clear to them - why they want this over, say, a service of morning prayer, when all they can do it watch it on the screen. What's the appeal of watching a Eucharist in which you can't participate, and which you can't receive? What are we saying about what we do, and why? Shouldn't we be able to answer those questions with more reflectiveness than just "I want what feels normal"? And to reflect on what has formed our sense of normality...?

I don't know, it all just feels a bit knee-jerk and rushing to the band-aids without doing the hard work first...

I think there is something in reaching out for familiar ritual in hard times. We do belong to a church that repeats particular words and actions every week, and we chose this church over the Baptist and nondenominational churches (or, at least, I did) because that ritual repetition works for us.

But, at the same time, I do worry about becoming the old church lady who never lets anything change and who holds the church back.

Which brings us to "doing the hard work". Since mid-March, when the lockdown began here in the US, almost all of my brain cells, all day long, have been devoted to reorganizing my university classwork for online course delivery, and to caring for the emotional well-being of my students and my family. I'm mentally and emotionally exhausted, and I think that's what's keeping me from the theological study and meditation I might otherwise be doing. But the semester ends Friday after which I have a long summer break. Probably, what needs to happen is that I create my own rituals and sacred spaces here at home, and that I find ways to carve out some solitude for prayer and meditation. (Ironically, in this time of "isolation", solitude is actually hard to find.) And then my theological self and my worshipping self can have a conversation, and I'll get back to you.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, the point about exhaustion is really important and fair. Maybe I should remember to be gentle with folks who are in survival mode, after all.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Thanks, PloverWing.

Having now started to record the Eucharist each week (to be made available online) I must admit that celebrating for the camera really doesn't do it for me. My parishioners wanted something as close as possible to their "normal," which is why I'm doing it, but it's not without discomfort for me. Partly because it's not really clear to me - and, from what they're saying, I think not really clear to them - why they want this over, say, a service of morning prayer, when all they can do it watch it on the screen. What's the appeal of watching a Eucharist in which you can't participate, and which you can't receive? What are we saying about what we do, and why? Shouldn't we be able to answer those questions with more reflectiveness than just "I want what feels normal"? And to reflect on what has formed our sense of normality...?

I don't know, it all just feels a bit knee-jerk and rushing to the band-aids without doing the hard work first...

I am curious, are you offering the eucharist in complete physical solitude, with no one present to give the responses?

I've seen here in Texas that there is at least one person, usually about four, to give responses, in the local Episcopal parish, though everyone stays spaced out. At least the two priests commune, though the bishop has frowned on this, without forbidding them.

I'm just curious because I am not sure if physically solitary masses occur in Anglicanism, though it is my understanding that a friend of a friend, was a hermit and priest in the Episcopal Church and had special permission to say mass and commune while alone, though I have not had this confirmed.

 

[Paidiske]

My understanding is that under canon law at least two people besides the priest must be present, to preclude the possibility of "private masses" being said with only a priest and server. I can imagine that special dispensation from that might occur in particular circumstances.

Fortunately, our government is allowing up to five people in the church building to produce material for distribution online. So I am doing it with another priest, a lay reader, and a tech person present.

Why is communing being frowned on? I would have thought it more objectionable to go through the rite without anyone receiving (that would raise questions about how we "duly use" the sacraments).