• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Question for my Episcopalian Friends (and my other Anglican friends who find it interesting)

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
13,948
7,343
50
The Wild West
✟666,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
A concern I have, which was prompted by an article on the RCL by a Canadian Anglican priest in the sadly defunct journal Liturgy Canada (perhaps my Canadian Anglican friend @Andrewn is familiar with it) regarding most of the three year lectionaries including that of the Novus Ordo Missae and the Revised Common Lectionary is they delete verses 27-32 from the Epistle on Maundy Thursday. The only exception was the Episcopalian BCP 1979 lectionary, which has now been replaced by the RCL, which allowed for the priest to read 27 through 30, which is enough, but the 1928 BCP lectionary and the 1662 had the priest read from the start of the institution narrative in 1 Corinthians 11 to verse 32, which was also the practice in all other traditional one year lectionaries.

Yet, since the 1979 BCP lectionary, which I quite liked, allowed for reading througj to verse 30, I should like to ask my dearly beloved Episcopalian brethren (which it seemed appropriate to refer to using the lovely Cranmerian phrase which is such a beautiful example of Anglican liturgt), my dear friends @Deegie @Jipsah seeking.I AM and [USER=307356]@PloverWing who I have been blessed to know almost since I first joined the forum nearly six years ago, would any of you happen to know if a priest get in trouble if he read past verse 26 and included the pericope on not partaking unworthily without special prior authorization? Also given that the Episcopal Church practices open communion, how is this pericope interpreted? My understanding from historic Anglicanism is that the announcements of the intention of the priest to celebrate Holy Communion given at least two Sundays out (since there are two forms in the old BCP) were intended to give the faithful time to spiritually prepare, and in modern Anglicanism the laity can of course decline to partake if they feel they have done something that would preclude them, and many, perhaps most Episcopal priests offer auricular confession in addition to the congregational confiteor ante communionem and the confession at Evening Prayer, and the Prayer for Humble Access, which are intended to prepare the congregation.

I know some priests do read all the way to verse 32 despite the RCL change, indeed, given the diversity in Episcopal worship these days, which I like, for example, St. John’s in Detroit uses the 1928 Book (I thought they were Continuing Anglican and was shocked to discover that parish is an Episcopal parish in good standing, but a friend of mine in the Diocese of Baton Rouge told me there were a number of parishes in places like Virginia, mostly low church parishes, some of which being among the parishes which when using either the 1928 or 1979 BCP use Morning Prayer as their primary morning service much of the time; St. John’s in Detroit is Anglo Catholic, but these parishes are using the 1928 lectionary. And you also have parishes like St. Thomas Fifth Ave and certain others which have a boys choir - St. Paul’s Cathedral in San Diego has been trying to revive one since Covid shut down their school, but you also have other parishes with different styles of worship. As I believe I have said before, this liturgical diversity without disunity facilitated by the 1979 BCP and to some extent toleration of the 1929 BCP, and the provision in the 1979 BCP allowing for traditional language implementations of its services, is something I really like (the latter resulted in the Anglican Service Book of 1994). It lets different parishes worship in a manner that suits them.

Edit: I accidentally posted this in another thread, where I thought I had deleted it before posting it here, and my friend @seeking.IAM replied there; I do apologize for any confusion. If any of you get pinged twice, that was my mistake.
 
Last edited:

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
13,948
7,343
50
The Wild West
✟666,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
As an aside, purely for my Anglican friends who are very interested in liturgics, and also our Roman Catholic friend @RileyG , I thought I would mention that, on the subject of unity in diversity in Episcopalian liturgy, recently the Congregation at the historic Old North Church in Boston* has delighted me as the priest has been going through every Eucharistic Prayer, all four in the 1979 BCP, and those in Volume 1 of Enriching Our Worship; a number of Episcopal parishes tend to use Eucharistic Prayer B exclusively because it is the shortest (although it would be much longer if one included the portions of the liturgy which were omitted by St. Hippolytus - the same Eucharistic Prayer is used by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox to this day, and a similar prayer by the Syriac Orthodox (the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, which is also what the anaphora from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is based on), it appears as though St. Hippolytus included, as was normal at the time, the portions said by the priest and their immediate reply, but not the portions said by the deacon or the hymns, which is why the Liturgy of the Apostolic Tradition appears to be so short.

It is interesting to consider whether it was ever used in Rome, or whether he included it because of the widespread use of the liturgies of Antioch even in the third century (and indeed, when the Ethiopians converted to Christianity, even though they became a part of the Coptic Orthodox Church, they used an Antiochian liturgy taught to them by a group of clerics from Syria who are venerated as “The Seven Syrian Sages”, which sounds awesome in English, I have to say. This question becomes even more interesting when we consider recent research that suggests that the Roman Canon may be related to the ancient Divine Liturgy of St. Mark (also known as the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril) attested to in the Strasbourg Papyrus and the fourth century Euchologion of St. Sarapion of Thmuis, which is the oldest intact work that is purely a liturgical service book. This raises the intruiging prospect that the Roman Canon and the Alexandrian liturgy share a common ancestor of Apostolic origin, or alternately that perhaps one aspect of the supposed power struggle between between St. Hippolytus, considered an antipope, and the legitimate Popes Urban and St. Pontian, who was martyred with St, Hippolytus and in the process the two were reconciled ,was perhaps over whether to use an Antiochene or Alexandrian form of the liturgy.

Some Episcopalian parishes have been using Rite III or other means to occasionally celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which I find exhilarating, since it shows a love for the liturgy and a desire to tap the riches. And indeed most Episcopal Holy Communion services use an Epiclesis modelled on the one used by the Non Juring Episcopalians of Scotland and the North of England who ordained Bishop Seabury, and that epiclesis was copied from the ancient Divine Liturgy of St. James. There is also the Prayer of St. Chrysostom as a collect that can be said at Evensong, which is the Prayer of the Second Antiphon in the Byzantine Divine Liturgies of St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom and St. Peter** (a disused liturgy mainly of interest to Western Rite Orthodox, which uses the Roman Canon as its eucharistic prayer, coupled to the Byzantine Synaxis), but not the Divine Liturgies of St. James or St. Mark (St. James lacks the three antiphons, and St. Mark in the 1893 recension has different prayers). There is even a society of Byzantine Rite Anglo Catholics in the Episcopal Church.

* I should mention for the benefit of members from countries other than the US not acquainted with our history, this church played a vital part in the war for independence from Britain, because lanterns at the church were used to signal Paul Revere if the British were approaching, “One if by land, two if by sea.” This church, aside from being a historic landmark, has also become the main church for the British Anglican expatriate community in Boston, which I find to be a wonderful turn of events, since we have gone from enmity to friendship, and a church that symbolized a historic war now symbolizes the peace and friendship that has returned to the Americans and English, something i find hopeful and pray will be repeated in coming decades in the form of reconciliation between other Christians who have been in conflict with each other, for example, the Russians and Ukrainians, whose reconciliation I pray for fervently, and also between the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and between the Serbians and Croatians in the former Yugoslavia (whose alienation was partially the result of the nightmare experienced by Croatians when fascists took over their government and attacked Serbians living in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which led to later retaliation, particularly when Yugoslavia collapsed in the 1990s.

** Insofar as it takes the Roman Canon and attaches it to a Liturgy of the Word from another rite, it is similar to the Ambrosian Rite liturgy celebrated in Milan, which takes a Gallican synaxis and couples that to the somewhat fixed Roman Canon; in contrast the Gallican and Mozarabic Rite liturgies feature extremely variable Eucharistic Prayers which change dramatically throughout the year on different liturgical occasions, but which are not divided into distinct named anaphoras like in the various Eastern churches, or numbered and lettered Eucharistic Prayers as in the contemporary Episcopalian and Anglican practice.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,956
5,893
New Jersey
✟381,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yet, since the 1979 BCP lectionary, which I quite liked, allowed for reading througj to verse 30, I should like to ask my dearly beloved Episcopalian brethren (which it seemed appropriate to refer to using the lovely Cranmerian phrase which is such a beautiful example of Anglican liturgt), my dear friends @Deegie @Jipsah seeking.I AM and [USER=307356]@PloverWing who I have been blessed to know almost since I first joined the forum nearly six years ago, would any of you happen to know if a priest get in trouble if he read past verse 26 and included the pericope on not partaking unworthily without special prior authorization?

It seems odd that a priest would get in trouble for having the lectors read extra Bible passages in church, but I don't know the exact rules; perhaps @Deegie would know.

I note, from the document you posted, this quote: "Any lectionary presupposes on the part of its hearers a prior knowledge of the overall shape and content of the Scriptures." I think this is right. Listening to the Sunday morning readings is not enough to give the entire picture of Scripture. The Sunday readings have to be accompanied by extensive readings by individual parishioners in their own private lives (or perhaps in Bible study groups) for the listeners to make sense of what we're hearing on Sunday.

Also given that the Episcopal Church practices open communion, how is this pericope interpreted? My understanding from historic Anglicanism is that the announcements of the intention of the priest to celebrate Holy Communion given at least two Sundays out (since there are two forms in the old BCP) were intended to give the faithful time to spiritually prepare, and in modern Anglicanism the laity can of course decline to partake if they feel they have done something that would preclude them, and many, perhaps most Episcopal priests offer auricular confession in addition to the congregational confiteor ante communionem and the confession at Evening Prayer, and the Prayer for Humble Access, which are intended to prepare the congregation.

Two thoughts on open communion and I Corinthians 11.

1. We are expected to be courteous to each other at the Communion rail, not getting drunk or pushing each other out of the way, as I Corinthians describes. In the spirit of Jesus' instructions about making things right with my brothers and sisters before coming to offer my gift in worship, I would also expect us to acknowledge and ask forgiveness of our sins (privately to God, at the very least, but also to a priest and/or the person wronged, if appropriate), and to make amends when we can. Open communion doesn't change this; I think that visiting Baptists and Presbyterians also understand that love of God should be accompanied by love of neighbor.

2. Current Episcopal theology has a strong emphasis on grace. We don't, we can't, earn a place at God's table. We gather at God's table because God has invited us, in spite of our sinfulness. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And that includes my Baptist and Presbyterian neighbors, who are also invited to God's table.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
28,493
17,145
29
Nebraska
✟533,733.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
**I am Roman Catholic

I have often used the Book of Common Prayer for daily private prayer which included other books from the Bible that wasn't part of their official canon, such as from the apocrypha.

I have no experience with the Episcopal Church outside of my private use of the Book of Common Prayer.

I have never attended one of their *Mass/services in my life.

*I know some Episcopalians use the term Mass depending on how high Church they are, some call their priest Father, use the term Eucharist etc. I'm entirely ignorant on this manner

I DO LOVE studying liturgy, so I thank you for making this post.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
13,948
7,343
50
The Wild West
✟666,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
It seems odd that a priest would get in trouble for having the lectors read extra Bible passages in church, but I don't know the exact rules; perhaps @Deegie would know.

I note, from the document you posted, this quote: "Any lectionary presupposes on the part of its hearers a prior knowledge of the overall shape and content of the Scriptures." I think this is right. Listening to the Sunday morning readings is not enough to give the entire picture of Scripture. The Sunday readings have to be accompanied by extensive readings by individual parishioners in their own private lives (or perhaps in Bible study groups) for the listeners to make sense of what we're hearing on Sunday.



Two thoughts on open communion and I Corinthians 11.

1. We are expected to be courteous to each other at the Communion rail, not getting drunk or pushing each other out of the way, as I Corinthians describes. In the spirit of Jesus' instructions about making things right with my brothers and sisters before coming to offer my gift in worship, I would also expect us to acknowledge and ask forgiveness of our sins (privately to God, at the very least, but also to a priest and/or the person wronged, if appropriate), and to make amends when we can. Open communion doesn't change this; I think that visiting Baptists and Presbyterians also understand that love of God should be accompanied by love of neighbor.

2. Current Episcopal theology has a strong emphasis on grace. We don't, we can't, earn a place at God's table. We gather at God's table because God has invited us, in spite of our sinfulness. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And that includes my Baptist and Presbyterian neighbors, who are also invited to God's table.

I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, you are also in full communion with, for example, the ELCA and most recently the UMC?
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
13,948
7,343
50
The Wild West
✟666,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
*I know some Episcopalians use the term Mass depending on how high Church they are, some call their priest Father, use the term Eucharist etc.

That’s what we said at the Episcopal Church I attended. Fr. Steve celebrated the Eucharist, which some called the Mass, on Sunday. It was a high church parish but not fully Anglo Catholic, but rather one might have called it upper broad church. It was named for a Roman saint popular among Anglicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyG
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
28,493
17,145
29
Nebraska
✟533,733.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
[posting in fellowship]

The Episcopal Church is indeed in full Communion with the ELCA, not the UMC.


(Growing up, there was a (very small) Church in my (small) hometown that was both UMC/PCUSA. They alternated on pastors between Methodist and Presbyterian, until the pastor from the Evangelical Convent Church, who's church was kitty corner from my childhood home and also my neighbor, became their pastor)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
28,493
17,145
29
Nebraska
✟533,733.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, you are also in full communion with, for example, the ELCA and most recently the UMC?
[posting in fellowship]

Per my education, Methodists share a common history with Anglicans/Episcopalians, because John and Charles Wesley were Anglican priest and hymn writers respectively. Officially, there is no official communion between The Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church because of issues with their bishops, if I understand correctly.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
28,493
17,145
29
Nebraska
✟533,733.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Indeed I remember there is a church I subscribe to on YouTube which is a joint ELCA/Episcopal parish.
Yes!

(A woman I know that graduated with my brother (we are from Nebraska) belongs to a Church that is both ELCA/Episcopal in Arizona. She was is/was raised ELCA. The nearest Episcopal Church was 45 minutes away in Iowa).
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
28,493
17,145
29
Nebraska
✟533,733.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
  • Informative
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
461
343
Brighton
✟9,579.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Also given that the Episcopal Church practices open communion, how is this pericope interpreted?
I am especially interested in this. If anyone has a response...thank you.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,956
5,893
New Jersey
✟381,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, you are also in full communion with, for example, the ELCA and most recently the UMC?

The Episcopal Church is indeed in full Communion with the ELCA, not the UMC.

To my knowledge, @RileyG is correct: we are in full communion with the ELCA but not (yet) the UMC.

We're much closer to full communion with the UMC than I realized, though. I just read an article from the Episcopal News Service (Resolution affirming goal of full communion with United Methodist Church gets approval by House of Bishops) which tells me that full communion has been approved on the Methodist side, while it's still in progress on the Episcopal side. But it looks like we may be close to an agreement.
 
Upvote 0

Deegie

Priest of the Church
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2011
303
196
✟511,324.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hello, friends! I don't have time just now to address the theology of the 1 Corinthians passage, although I'd like to come back to it soon because it's an interesting topic especially when viewed in the light of Cranmer and his friends from the 16th century. But I can quickly weigh in on the TEC rules about the lectionary. There is a direction in the BCP that allows shortening or lengthening of the psalm only. Any other changes would not technically be allowed. That said, at least in my experience, no one is getting in trouble for that. In fact, I tend to do it perhaps once or twice a year -- always with a good reason in mind.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
13,948
7,343
50
The Wild West
✟666,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Hello, friends! I don't have time just now to address the theology of the 1 Corinthians passage, although I'd like to come back to it soon because it's an interesting topic especially when viewed in the light of Cranmer and his friends from the 16th century. But I can quickly weigh in on the TEC rules about the lectionary. There is a direction in the BCP that allows shortening or lengthening of the psalm only. Any other changes would not technically be allowed. That said, at least in my experience, no one is getting in trouble for that. In fact, I tend to do it perhaps once or twice a year -- always with a good reason in mind.

Thank you for that! When you have time to respond in more detail to the theology of the 1 Corinthians Institution Narrative and admonitions, I will greatly look forward to that.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
28,493
17,145
29
Nebraska
✟533,733.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Hello, friends! I don't have time just now to address the theology of the 1 Corinthians passage, although I'd like to come back to it soon because it's an interesting topic especially when viewed in the light of Cranmer and his friends from the 16th century. But I can quickly weigh in on the TEC rules about the lectionary. There is a direction in the BCP that allows shortening or lengthening of the psalm only. Any other changes would not technically be allowed. That said, at least in my experience, no one is getting in trouble for that. In fact, I tend to do it perhaps once or twice a year -- always with a good reason in mind.
Thanks for the info! :)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Shane R

Priest
Site Supporter
Jan 18, 2012
2,365
1,209
Southeast Ohio
✟656,350.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
My former bishop didn't mind if the clergy changed out a reading of a Sunday, but if it was going to be a multiple week sort of affair he wanted to be consulted and hear the logic for the variance. That was in the context of the 1 year lectionary.

The RCL and it's various proprietary permutations that most denominations use has many Sundays where there is a choice of how much to read. 90% of the time I go with the longer reading. The prescribed Psalms drive me crazy. Why are they so often fragmented into oblivion? If I am given my way, the cantor goes through the whole thing.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Deegie

Priest of the Church
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2011
303
196
✟511,324.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Two thoughts on open communion and I Corinthians 11.

1. We are expected to be courteous to each other at the Communion rail, not getting drunk or pushing each other out of the way, as I Corinthians describes. In the spirit of Jesus' instructions about making things right with my brothers and sisters before coming to offer my gift in worship, I would also expect us to acknowledge and ask forgiveness of our sins (privately to God, at the very least, but also to a priest and/or the person wronged, if appropriate), and to make amends when we can. Open communion doesn't change this; I think that visiting Baptists and Presbyterians also understand that love of God should be accompanied by love of neighbor.

2. Current Episcopal theology has a strong emphasis on grace. We don't, we can't, earn a place at God's table. We gather at God's table because God has invited us, in spite of our sinfulness. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And that includes my Baptist and Presbyterian neighbors, who are also invited to God's table.
I think this is a spot-on answer, but I promised a reply, which is intended to add to your excellent thoughts and not repeat them. Apologies in advance for its length.

Since I've been down a rabbit trail this last year or so into 16th century Anglicanism, I'd like to begin with a little historic context. For Cranmer at the time the first BCPs were written, this wouldn't have been much of a problem. He warned rather early on that for those who receive the Eucharist improperly, "it is to us rather death than life" (Q&A on the Sacraments, 1540). However, his eucharistic theology took a very large shift later in that decade, under the influence of Martin Bucer and others, away from Lutheranism and toward Reformed thinking. He became a receptionist and believed that all of the sacraments were only efficacious for the faithful. A nonbeliever would only be eating bread and drinking wine, without the sacramental presence of Christ. As Cranmer himself put it:

But to utter the matter plainly without fallax or cavillation, I teach that no man can eat Christ's flesh or drink his blood but spiritually; which forasmuch as evil men do not, although they eat the sacramental bread until their bellies be full, and drink the wine until they be drunken, yet eat they neither Christ's flesh, nor drink his blood, neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, because they cannot be eaten and drunken but by spirit and faith, whereof ungodly men be destitute, being nothing but world and flesh. (Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 1551?)

He goes on to note, however, that the 1 Corinthians passage speaks not of body and blood, but of bread and wine. Thus, "Good men eat the Lord's body spiritually to their eternal nourishment, whereas evil men eat but the bread carnally to their eternal punishment."

He also became quite the predestinarian, and thus, I expect for him, there was absolutely nothing a person could do to either earn or lose eternal life -- that was God's free and immutable choice, such that a fall from grace was not possible. Combining his doctrines, for example, the general confession did absolutely nothing for the non-elect but was fully effective for the elect. He just chose not to tell people that during the service out of the (very accurate) sense that it would be a pastoral disaster. Thus, he need only concern himself with true believers who were mired in sin, and that was easily enough handled with the general confession and prayer of humble access to put everyone in the right frame of mind since he rejected the medieval penitential cycle that required auricular confession and acts of penance.

I believe you could make a very good argument that the CoE generally wasn't, and has never been, as Reformed as Cranmer wanted it to be. But, fortunately, that argument is irrelevant to the question at hand. Because we're talking about the modern-day Episcopal Church, and that is absolutely the case in that context. We shamelessly engage in practices Cranmer specifically condemned, e.g. handing out palms on Palm Sunday. Heck, I'm not even at a particularly Anglo-Catholic parish and I'm planning a Candlemas procession this year since it happens to fall on a Sunday -- and I picture the good Dr. Cranmer rolling in his grave at the mere thought of it. My point here is that the pendulum continued to swing after the Elizabethan Settlement and, more than most, Anglicanism has been the church that is always reforming. (Yes, I have ironically appropriated Karl Barth's famous phrase, with a nod to Cranmer's idol Augustine.)

So, where are we today? We are focused less on sin than grace, for sure. (Note: I'm not suggesting that's good or bad in this post, it just is.) We can see that clearly in the changes from the 1928 BCP to the 1979. Early in that reform process, the Standing Liturgical Commission wrote (regarding proposed changes for Ash Wednesday) that they had "eliminated the attempt to frighten people into repentance by invoking the wrath of God" (PBS VII, 1957). That is evidenced also in changes to the weekly Eucharist: making the Decalogue optional, a general confession that no longer speaks of our "wickedness," the removal of the prayer of humble access, etc.

First, a caveat: even more so from here on out, I am speaking only for my own thought and make no claim to it being any official position of the church since I'm about to go out onto a ledge. Second, I am not arguing for CWOB since I'm ambivalent about it at best. Third, we must remember that Paul speaks not about unworthy people, but about unworthy reception, which seems to mean to him that they do not recognize Christ in the elements. Open communion, in its technical sense, still restricts communion to those who are baptized. I'm not convinced that a person I baptized 15 years ago as an infant and has been coming sporadically to church on high holy days is better able to "discern the body" than her friend from the Baptist church down the street. If there is indeed "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" as we proclaim there to be, then it shouldn't matter where that took place. We don't have examinations of a person's theology at the altar rail.

Finally, if that sacrament is "an inward and spiritual grace" then it is God's work to do. I'm only responsible for the "outward and visible sign." Just as when I baptize someone, I trust that God will work in them what God chooses to do and let go of the outcome, so I feel about distributing the elements at communion. We plant. God waters.

Okay, that's enough for only having had one cup of coffee so far this morning. Peace, friends.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
13,948
7,343
50
The Wild West
✟666,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I think this is a spot-on answer, but I promised a reply, which is intended to add to your excellent thoughts and not repeat them. Apologies in advance for its length.

Since I've been down a rabbit trail this last year or so into 16th century Anglicanism, I'd like to begin with a little historic context. For Cranmer at the time the first BCPs were written, this wouldn't have been much of a problem. He warned rather early on that for those who receive the Eucharist improperly, "it is to us rather death than life" (Q&A on the Sacraments, 1540). However, his eucharistic theology took a very large shift later in that decade, under the influence of Martin Bucer and others, away from Lutheranism and toward Reformed thinking. He became a receptionist and believed that all of the sacraments were only efficacious for the faithful. A nonbeliever would only be eating bread and drinking wine, without the sacramental presence of Christ. As Cranmer himself put it:

But to utter the matter plainly without fallax or cavillation, I teach that no man can eat Christ's flesh or drink his blood but spiritually; which forasmuch as evil men do not, although they eat the sacramental bread until their bellies be full, and drink the wine until they be drunken, yet eat they neither Christ's flesh, nor drink his blood, neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, because they cannot be eaten and drunken but by spirit and faith, whereof ungodly men be destitute, being nothing but world and flesh. (Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 1551?)

He goes on to note, however, that the 1 Corinthians passage speaks not of body and blood, but of bread and wine. Thus, "Good men eat the Lord's body spiritually to their eternal nourishment, whereas evil men eat but the bread carnally to their eternal punishment."

He also became quite the predestinarian, and thus, I expect for him, there was absolutely nothing a person could do to either earn or lose eternal life -- that was God's free and immutable choice, such that a fall from grace was not possible. Combining his doctrines, for example, the general confession did absolutely nothing for the non-elect but was fully effective for the elect. He just chose not to tell people that during the service out of the (very accurate) sense that it would be a pastoral disaster. Thus, he need only concern himself with true believers who were mired in sin, and that was easily enough handled with the general confession and prayer of humble access to put everyone in the right frame of mind since he rejected the medieval penitential cycle that required auricular confession and acts of penance.

I believe you could make a very good argument that the CoE generally wasn't, and has never been, as Reformed as Cranmer wanted it to be. But, fortunately, that argument is irrelevant to the question at hand. Because we're talking about the modern-day Episcopal Church, and that is absolutely the case in that context. We shamelessly engage in practices Cranmer specifically condemned, e.g. handing out palms on Palm Sunday. Heck, I'm not even at a particularly Anglo-Catholic parish and I'm planning a Candlemas procession this year since it happens to fall on a Sunday -- and I picture the good Dr. Cranmer rolling in his grave at the mere thought of it. My point here is that the pendulum continued to swing after the Elizabethan Settlement and, more than most, Anglicanism has been the church that is always reforming. (Yes, I have ironically appropriated Karl Barth's famous phrase, with a nod to Cranmer's idol Augustine.)

So, where are we today? We are focused less on sin than grace, for sure. (Note: I'm not suggesting that's good or bad in this post, it just is.) We can see that clearly in the changes from the 1928 BCP to the 1979. Early in that reform process, the Standing Liturgical Commission wrote (regarding proposed changes for Ash Wednesday) that they had "eliminated the attempt to frighten people into repentance by invoking the wrath of God" (PBS VII, 1957). That is evidenced also in changes to the weekly Eucharist: making the Decalogue optional, a general confession that no longer speaks of our "wickedness," the removal of the prayer of humble access, etc.

First, a caveat: even more so from here on out, I am speaking only for my own thought and make no claim to it being any official position of the church since I'm about to go out onto a ledge. Second, I am not arguing for CWOB since I'm ambivalent about it at best. Third, we must remember that Paul speaks not about unworthy people, but about unworthy reception, which seems to mean to him that they do not recognize Christ in the elements. Open communion, in its technical sense, still restricts communion to those who are baptized. I'm not convinced that a person I baptized 15 years ago as an infant and has been coming sporadically to church on high holy days is better able to "discern the body" than her friend from the Baptist church down the street. If there is indeed "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" as we proclaim there to be, then it shouldn't matter where that took place. We don't have examinations of a person's theology at the altar rail.

Finally, if that sacrament is "an inward and spiritual grace" then it is God's work to do. I'm only responsible for the "outward and visible sign." Just as when I baptize someone, I trust that God will work in them what God chooses to do and let go of the outcome, so I feel about distributing the elements at communion. We plant. God waters.

Okay, that's enough for only having had one cup of coffee so far this morning. Peace, friends.

Thank you, that was edifying.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RamiC
Upvote 0

RamiC

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2025
461
343
Brighton
✟9,579.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 1 Corinthians 11 NRSVA

This does read to me like we should all check our own consciounses prior to partaking, the negative impact of failing to do so impacts only on those individuals who did not, and not the entire church, so that is okay. I am not at all bothered about sharing with any Baptised trinitarian gospel believer from another denomination, I am proud to be in a place that does share with them, nothing in Paul's warning here seems to forbid that.

I rather like being in a church that is "always reforming", it proves the church is actually a group of fallible people.
 
Upvote 0