The Eucharist (blood, churches, dogma, protestants, catholic)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

The crux of the matter was the Communion service becoming the main Service. Rather than a separate service held either before or after morning Prayer.

This became a problem for the thousands of worshippers who were not confirmed.
They were feeling to a large extent excluded; when previously they were a significant and important part of the congregation.
For a worship based denomination this was critical.
Church attendance of those people reduced drastically. Not through lack of faith but by perceived exclusion.

Change was inevitable and is still in process.

The Church has not forgone Confirmation it holds the same spiritual meaning... It is still necessary, for you to be able vote, or to hold an official post or function in the church. It is Just the link with communion that is broken.

Even most Anglo Catholics have realised it does not change their worship in any way.
All their practices and services remain the same.
It was the dominant use of the Communion service that spread out from the new young Anglo Catholic priests to the church at large, that perhaps precipitated the change in the first place.

Up to that time it was not unusual for some churches to hold morning communion services only once or twice a month.

On a separate point The various Church seminaries each teach their own " brand" of Anglicanism. There is, to day, a slight predominance of Anglo Catholic students,over all others. It is now very difficult to find a very low church... I would not know where to find one. One of the retired relief Priests who sometimes comes to our church will not even use the same books as our own priest ... he calls them papist.

Obviously, as we have Chrismation immediately after baptism, we don't have exactly this problem (if you aren't Chrismated you can at best be a catechumen, not really Orthodox) but the Eucharist is and always has been central to the Liturgy and we do have many people present who do not receive because they cannot (you must prepare by fasting and confession in our Church, unless you are very young) and yet they don't feel excluded. What is it exactly, do you think, that made people feel excluded simply because they couldn't receive and why wasn't confirmation encouraged rather than the reverse?

I hope that I don't appear to be badgering you. I'm just interested in the reasoning. Seeing as our parish is hosted by an Anglican seminary-cum-monastery (I'm not sure really what the correct terminology is but it trains priests and includes a community of monastics) I would like to understand their position if possible. They are nice people who occasionally attend our Liturgy, but the gulf between us often seems vast, which is a shame as by all accounts in the '30s we were very close to a reconcilliation (to the point where the Antiochian Patriarch allowed diaspora Orthodox to take Anglican communion if they couldn't get to an Orthodox church).

On a more personal note, do you regret the change, or see it as a good thing? Do you think perhaps that it might have been better to return to the ancient practice (both western and eastern) of having both sacraments together and then communing infants? What do you think might have happened if you had something like the antidoron (blessed bread distributed to all in Orthodox churches) or an annointing with myron (peculiarly Romanian, this tradition, but one I love) as part of the service? Might something like that have served to make people feel more included (I don't mean those exact things necessarily)?

James

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by James the Persian

Obviously, as we have Chrismation immediately after baptism, we don't have exactly this problem (if you aren't Chrismated you can at best be a catechumen, not really Orthodox) but the Eucharist is and always has been central to the Liturgy and we do have many people present who do not receive because they cannot (you must prepare by fasting and confession in our Church, unless you are very young) and yet they don't feel excluded. What is it exactly, do you think, that made people feel excluded simply because they couldn't receive and why wasn't confirmation encouraged rather than the reverse?

I hope that I don't appear to be badgering you. I'm just interested in the reasoning. Seeing as our parish is hosted by an Anglican seminary-cum-monastery (I'm not sure really what the correct terminology is but it trains priests and includes a community of monastics) I would like to understand their position if possible. They are nice people who occasionally attend our Liturgy, but the gulf between us often seems vast, which is a shame as by all accounts in the '30s we were very close to a reconcilliation (to the point where the Antiochian Patriarch allowed diaspora Orthodox to take Anglican communion if they couldn't get to an Orthodox church).

On a more personal note, do you regret the change, or see it as a good thing? Do you think perhaps that it might have been better to return to the ancient practice (both western and eastern) of having both sacraments together and then communing infants? What do you think might have happened if you had something like the antidoron (blessed bread distributed to all in Orthodox churches) or an annointing with myron (peculiarly Romanian, this tradition, but one I love) as part of the service? Might something like that have served to make people feel more included (I don't mean those exact things necessarily)?

James

Can you tell me what a Chrismation is? I am wondering if in fact it is anything like our Confirmation. At what age do you Baptise? and or Chrismate.

In our church it is usual to Baptise infants, and not confirm till between about ten and fifteen ( some much later as adults). as it include considerable instruction and understanding it can not be done before this. What is the position of children in your church. Do they take communion or not?

In the early English church Children and every one took communion... It was only much later that Confirmation became a requirement. ( sorry no dates I have asked with no result) In a way you can say we are going back to the old way.

In my youth Communion was always before breakfast.( Fasting).. but that went the way of all things. Confession is available, but most people Just say the General confession as part of the service

Anglican seminary-cum-monastery

as these were mostly established a very long time ago; mostly in monasteries or in Oxford or Cambridge, I don't think there is a single term for a priests training school. They seem to be all called by the name of the foundation and you have to guess what they are????
Though they probably have their full title by their gateway.

They each have a very distinct character and teach priests that suit the various types
Of Anglican. It sounds like yours are very high church... they would of course answer to the Arch Bishop of York not Canterbury. ( as we do.) This is a very ancient divide.
The arch bishop of York usually replaces that of Canterbury ( If he out lives him.)

As to your question why did people feel excluded?..... I think any one accustomed to taking a full part in their main weekly service were not exactly happy about being excluded for the major part of a service for the first time in their lives. It also hit very hard those who were returning to the church after some years, who found the new format strange. and exclusive. Not at all what they had been accustomed to.

To help with this problem of returnees... Our own church has reverted to the old words of the Lords Prayer which every one knew from their child hood.

in the '30s we were very close to a reconciliation (to the point where the Antiochian Patriarch allowed diaspora Orthodox to take Anglican communion if they couldn't get to an Orthodox church).

A shame indeed.. I think some of the ideas are not that different and there is a lot of sympathy between the churches. However there have been many changes since then
And our adoption of women Priests has somewhat settled the matter for a long time.

I do not know if the Episcopalian's have followed the same pattern as the Church of England. I do know their equivalent to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury is now a woman.
Whilst we have only got to the stage of agreeing that there is no impediment to women Bishops.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some useful information in simple words from the Church of England Site

You will see that On Baptism a child is anointed with oil to receive the holy spirit.. I think this is done at your chrismation? I would say that that is the reason Confirmation ( which is not a Sacrament) is not necessary to take communion.
(It is more like a personal renewal of vows.)

at one time only Bishops were permitted to anoint ( today all priests have oil consecrated by a Bishop and use that.

I have only known adult Baptism done by a bishop this has always been combined with confirmation, and take place at the same time as candidates for confirmation present themselves.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeeve.../sectionc.html
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeeve.../baptism1.html

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

Some useful information in simple words from the Church of England Site

You will see that On Baptism a child is anointed with oil to receive the holy spirit.. I think this is done at your chrismation? I would say that that is the reason Confirmation ( which is not a Sacrament) is not necessary to take communion.
(It is more like a personal renewal of vows.)

at one time only Bishops were permitted to anoint ( today all priests have oil consecrated by a Bishop and use that.

I have only known adult Baptism done by a bishop this has always been combined with confirmation, and take place at the same time as candidates for confirmation present themselves.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeeve.../sectionc.html
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeeve.../baptism1.html

That's very interesting. I never knew this. Chrismation is, indeed, being annointed with oil as the seal of the Holy Spirit. It happens immediately after baptism and this is usually as an infant (in fact it should be as a very small infant indeed - it's normal for us to baptise a few weeks after birth, not as late as some western ones I've seen). Anyone who is baptised and Chrismated can take the Eucharist so long as they are prepared (children are exempt from fasting and confession until they get older), so first communion is usually directly after Chrismation (in the case of infants, this is only the Blood at first, later Blood with small crumbs of the Body and later still just like the adults). The strange thing about what you say here is that RC confirmation is a post-Schism alteration of the pre-Schism practice which was identical to ours, so confirmation = Chrismation, just at a different time. From what you say, in Anglicanism, confirmation is more of a re-affirmation of commitment and the sacrament of sealing with the Spirit (by whatever name you call it) was already performed at baptism. If this is indeed the case, then your practice is rather more similar to ours than I thought (though the closest we would come to a confirmation would be first confession, which in some local traditions is a big deal, in others less so). Very interesting discussion.

James

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by James the Persian

That's very interesting. I never knew this. Chrismation is, indeed, being annointed with oil as the seal of the Holy Spirit. It happens immediately after baptism and this is usually as an infant (in fact it should be as a very small infant indeed - it's normal for us to baptise a few weeks after birth, not as late as some western ones I've seen). Anyone who is baptised and Chrismated can take the Eucharist so long as they are prepared (children are exempt from fasting and confession until they get older), so first communion is usually directly after Chrismation (in the case of infants, this is only the Blood at first, later Blood with small crumbs of the Body and later still just like the adults). The strange thing about what you say here is that RC confirmation is a post-Schism alteration of the pre-Schism practice which was identical to ours, so confirmation = Chrismation, just at a different time. From what you say, in Anglicanism, confirmation is more of a re-affirmation of commitment and the sacrament of sealing with the Spirit (by whatever name you call it) was already performed at baptism. If this is indeed the case, then your practice is rather more similar to ours than I thought (though the closest we would come to a confirmation would be first confession, which in some local traditions is a big deal, in others less so). Very interesting discussion.

James

I am glad we got that sorted....
I would love to find out when and why we went back to the Pre-schism practice after we left the ranks of the Roman Church.
But I am Glad we did.

I was discussing this before communion last night, and some thought it was probably To do with the number of bishops and how far they could ride in a day?

At one time Bishops Did virtually all Christenings in Catholic England... As time went on more churches were built and they could only get to visit an individual church once a year. So the local Priest did the Baptism and The Bishop Followed up once a year and did the anointing and confirmation.
When the anointing was taken up by local priests, The link between Communion and confirmation was broken... though the practice of Communion waiting till after confirmation remained. It is only in recent years that this was challenged and found to be an unreasonable condition.

I wonder if was because the Orthodox asked the question when we were much closer in the 30's... as their young people would have expected to take communion with their parents.... and they certainly would have asked why not. If that is the case we owe you all a favour. (Just a theory)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

I am glad we got that sorted....
I would love to find out when and why we went back to the Pre-schism practice after we left the ranks of the Roman Church.
But I am Glad we did.

I was discussing this before communion last night, and some thought it was probably To do with the number of bishops and how far they could ride in a day?

At one time Bishops Did virtually all Christenings in Catholic England... As time went on more churches were built and they could only get to visit an individual church once a year. So the local Priest did the Baptism and The Bishop Followed up once a year and did the anointing and confirmation.
When the anointing was taken up by local priests, The link between Communion and confirmation was broken... though the practice of Communion waiting till after confirmation remained. It is only in recent years that this was challenged and found to be an unreasonable condition.

I wonder if was because the Orthodox asked the question when we were much closer in the 30's... as their young people would have expected to take communion with their parents.... and they certainly would have asked why not. If that is the case we owe you all a favour. (Just a theory)

We also had the thing with bishops, where originally they would have done baptisms and the like, rather than the priests, I believe. I suspect that for us the practice would have changed rather earlier, though, as eastern dioceses would have very rapidly become unmanageably large in comparison to western ones (imagine the difference between say Constantinople and London in the 8th century, for instance - the east was much more of an urban population). I'm not exactly sure when the changes took place, but our myron (that's the oil used for Chrismation, and in the Romanian case only - so far as I know - blessing the congregation at the end of the Liturgy) is all produced by the Patriarchate (so Bucharest for us), once a year and then distributed to all the priests and bishops, so that's not really different from your practice (except that it would be like everyone in the Church of England getting oil produced once a year at Canterbury). I am intrigued, though, to know some more details. Is your oil just oil or does it contain other ingredients? I know myron contains a whole host of other things, though I don't know the details. Also, how is the sealing done? In Chrismation, we are sealed on forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, breast, hands and feet.

You might be interested in this article on our practice:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chrismation

James

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by James the Persian

We also had the thing with bishops, where originally they would have done baptisms and the like, rather than the priests, I believe. I suspect that for us the practice would have changed rather earlier, though, as eastern dioceses would have very rapidly become unmanageably large in comparison to western ones (imagine the difference between say Constantinople and London in the 8th century, for instance - the east was much more of an urban population). I'm not exactly sure when the changes took place, but our myron (that's the oil used for Chrismation, and in the Romanian case only - so far as I know - blessing the congregation at the end of the Liturgy) is all produced by the Patriarchate (so Bucharest for us), once a year and then distributed to all the priests and bishops, so that's not really different from your practice (except that it would be like everyone in the Church of England getting oil produced once a year at Canterbury). I am intrigued, though, to know some more details. Is your oil just oil or does it contain other ingredients? I know myron contains a whole host of other things, though I don't know the details. Also, how is the sealing done? In Chrismation, we are sealed on forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, breast, hands and feet.

You might be interested in this article on our practice:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chrismation

James

During Christening the oil is used to mark a simple cross on the forehead, though I have known priests to be more elaborate ( no rule against it )

I have been quite unable to find out what it contains... it is always under lock and key so I can't even get a sniff of it. It is the same oil that is used in all anointing.... It was used by the Bishop to anoint the altar I made.... though he used his own supply not the churches. As these things are bought from the large appointed Christian supply houses, I expect it is the same oil that Catholics and Orthodox use.


The Canons also lay down that Christians from churches in which confirmation is not performed by a bishop need to be confirmed by a bishop if they wish formally to be admitted into the Church of England.

I found this on the Anglican site

Those who have been confirmed in a church whose ministerial orders are recognised and accepted by the Church of England and in which confirmation is performed by a bishop, or by a priest acting on the bishop’s behalf and using chrism blessed by the bishop, do not need to be confirmed. They are simply received into the Church of England instead.

I would read this as that those who have been anointed during Christening/Confirmation by their own church. Can be simply received into the Church of England.

Whilst they say they do not need confirming.... I have seen it done during a confirmation service as a separate more simplified ceremony.

Of course lots of people from other churches simply come through the door and start attending services.
They may or may not ever take the step of officially becoming members of the church. ( It depends on whether they want to become more involved in the church.)