Many years ago I was told by an elderly con evo priest that it was wrong for the elements to be presented by laity, elders or sidesmen. He said that they are not our offerings to God. The communion elements are his gift to us and as such should be on the table, already present.
That would fit with the usual Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper that is spiritually present among old school Evangelicals. I share their understanding of the Eucharist, but I do not have the allergy to the bread and wine being brought to Table at the offertory mainly because, on the whole, I would rather have the Table empty through the liturgy of the word.
Many years ago I was told by an elderly con evo priest that it was wrong for the elements to be presented by laity, elders or sidesmen. He said that they are not our offerings to God. The communion elements are his gift to us and as such should be on the table, already present.
That's certainly wrong from an Orthodox POV. We give God bread and wine, and he changes them and gives them back to us as his bread and body. There's a whole theology of this.
Hey @Nick Tamen there is so much that you just make up on the hoof, because no one tells you and there isn’t a book of words. When I realised tat the elders were waiting for me to pray, I did. I usually ask that we who serve may be blessed in our serving. My previous congregations had the elements in place at the beginning fo the service. There’s no one way or hard rules.
. . . but I do not have the allergy to the bread and wine being brought to Table at the offertory mainly because, on the whole, I would rather have the Table empty through the liturgy of the word.
In the last few decades, it has become increasingly common in churches of my tribe to have chalice and paten (and perhaps flagon/pitcher) on the Table at all non-Eucharistic services. This comes from recommendations proposed by a denominational Sacraments Study Group and endorsed by General Assembly.
We give God bread and wine, and he changes them and gives them back to us as his bread and body. There's a whole theology of this.
Yes, a similar (though not identical) understanding figures in our theology, too, but with the additional understanding that before we can offer the bread and wine to God, they are God’s gift to us. That means that offering them to God is returning them to God, in a sense—as the acclamation says, “All things come of thee, O Lord, and of thine own have we given thee.”
Yes, a similar (though not identical) understanding figures in our theology, too, but with the additional understanding that before we can offer the bread and wine to God, they are God’s gift to us. That means that offering them to God is returning them to God, in a sense—as the acclamation says, “All things come of thee, O Lord, and of thine own have we given thee.”
Yes! With the added understanding that God doesn't give us bread and wine, he gives us wheat and grapes, and we do something to them to turn them into bread and wine, THEN give them back to God. There is "value added" here. This goes with our doctrine of synergy, that we and God work together for the salvation of the world (and ourselves).
In the RC church the offering of bread and wine are accompanied by the other offerings of those present ,usually in the form of money. It wouldn't be practical if everyone present brought bread and wine. (Though perhaps in connection with this idea,in some churches those who propose to go to Communion will put an unconsecrated Host in the ciborium when they come in to church and this is brought up to the celebrant at the offertory ).
I have also heard it said that the real 'offertory' is the offering of the consecrated Host and Precious Blood to God above,which is the reason why the eucharistic liturgy is sometimes called 'The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass'
And thats why the "offertory" has been renamed "the preparation of the gifts." Though many still cling to the old name. The old Tridentine prayers at that point became to be seen as anticipating the Eucharistic prayer too much and were replaced with the Jewish prayers now used which praise God for his gift of bread and wine which will be transformed.
And yes the "real" offertory is that of Christ eternally offering himself to the Father and the assembled people uniting themselves with that offering.
Yes, I suggest that the need for Ye Fayre Linen Clothe originally had a practical purpose but has become "sanctified" over time.
A bit like Tying Up The Cat (if you know that story).
Someone from the congregation made it specially. Woe betide the brand new Minister who picks up the Holy Linen Clothe from the Communication Table and tosses it aside instead of folding it up neatly in the proper way. They will be taken into the vestry afterwards for A Talk.
Someone from the congregation (who is totally unknown to all since she died in 1937 but whose grand-daughter still sends a £50 cheque each year even though she hasn't come to a service since a tiff with the new Minister in 1972) made it specially. ...
. . . but I do not have the allergy to the bread and wine being brought to Table at the offertory mainly because, on the whole, I would rather have the Table empty through the liturgy of the word.
In the last few decades, it has become increasingly common in churches of my tribe to have chalice and paten (and perhaps flagon/pitcher) on the Table at all non-Eucharistic services. This comes from recommendations proposed by a denominational Sacraments Study Group and endorsed by General Assembly.
I have noticed that on my odd forays to First Pres. for organ recitals. They seem to set up for whatever is going on Sunday on Friday mornings, so by the time the recital starts they have the paten and communion cup on the Table, and everything set up for Sunday.
When they reordered the church some years ago they decided to make the pulpit, table etc., moveable. The only problem was that when designing the pulpit, it was made to go through a double doorway. With the doors in position it would not go through so you had to knock the pins out the hinges and remove the doors first.
After 35 years (I kid you not!) they decided to do something about it, and so they formed a committee. Being an Anglican, this is counterintuitive to me because we tend to form committees when we don't want something to happen, but I have gradually come to understand that it works t'other way about in Presbyterianism. Anyway, it took almost a year for them to come up with the obvious solution which was to convert the two side entrances to the pulpit into a single rear entrance so the pulpit will fit through the door. In the meantime our organist who is also the organist over there was giving me a blow-by-blow on the great pulpit debate.
I am now waiting to find out who will be the first preacher to walk backwards in the pulpit and go down the steps. Having had that experience, I usually keep one hand on the front lip of the pulpit.
Anyway, back to the original point. My tribe seem to be unable to make their minds up on the propriety of having the vessels on the altar during the liturgy of the word. Just in the district where I live, three of the churches prepare the elements before the service, and place them on the Table before the start; two do the pre-Vatican II RC style offertory; my parish puts the elements on the credence table before the service already in/on the chalice and paten; and as for the other two I have never celebrated there, so I don't know. Both the 1928 and the 1996 services say that the elements should be presented at (and one assumes brought to) the Table at the Offertory, but it does not seem to get past the supreme authority in Anglicanism, which is 'we have always done it this way.'
. . . but I do not have the allergy to the bread and wine being brought to Table at the offertory mainly because, on the whole, I would rather have the Table empty through the liturgy of the word.
In the last few decades, it has become increasingly common in churches of my tribe to have chalice and paten (and perhaps flagon/pitcher) on the Table at all non-Eucharistic services. This comes from recommendations proposed by a denominational Sacraments Study Group and endorsed by General Assembly.
I have noticed that on my odd forays to First Pres. for organ recitals. They seem to set up for whatever is going on Sunday on Friday mornings, so by the time the recital starts they have the paten and communion cup on the Table, and everything set up for Sunday.
When they reordered the church some years ago they decided to make the pulpit, table etc., moveable. The only problem was that when designing the pulpit, it was made to go through a double doorway. With the doors in position it would not go through so you had to knock the pins out the hinges and remove the doors first.
After 35 years (I kid you not!) they decided to do something about it, and so they formed a committee. Being an Anglican, this is counterintuitive to me because we tend to form committees when we don't want something to happen, but I have gradually come to understand that it works t'other way about in Presbyterianism. Anyway, it took almost a year for them to come up with the obvious solution which was to convert the two side entrances to the pulpit into a single rear entrance so the pulpit will fit through the door. In the meantime our organist who is also the organist over there was giving me a blow-by-blow on the great pulpit debate.
I am now waiting to find out who will be the first preacher to walk backwards in the pulpit and go down the steps. Having had that experience, I usually keep one hand on the front lip of the pulpit.
Anyway, back to the original point. My tribe seem to be unable to make their minds up on the propriety of having the vessels on the altar during the liturgy of the word. Just in the district where I live, three of the churches prepare the elements before the service, and place them on the Table before the start; two do the pre-Vatican II RC style offertory; my parish puts the elements on the credence table before the service already in/on the chalice and paten; and as for the other two I have never celebrated there, so I don't know. Both the 1928 and the 1996 services say that the elements should be presented at (and one assumes brought to) the Table at the Offertory, but it does not seem to get past the supreme authority in Anglicanism, which is 'we have always done it this way.'
My observations lead me to the conclusion that Presbyterian committees are, like Anglican ones, intended to prevent things happening. However, it seems that with sufficient committees and enough time decisions get made despite everyone's best efforts. I think it is a form of quantum tunnelling.
My feeling is that a lot of committees are formed with Good Intentions and an intent to Get Something Done. The problem though lies with the Chair: they can be enthusiastic and push things through, only for the idea to be rejected by the wider constituency as being too radical. They can be over-cautious, agreeing to nothing for fear of criticism. Or their agenda may one of making sure that no changes are made.
. . . but I do not have the allergy to the bread and wine being brought to Table at the offertory mainly because, on the whole, I would rather have the Table empty through the liturgy of the word.
In the last few decades, it has become increasingly common in churches of my tribe to have chalice and paten (and perhaps flagon/pitcher) on the Table at all non-Eucharistic services. This comes from recommendations proposed by a denominational Sacraments Study Group and endorsed by General Assembly.
I have noticed that on my odd forays to First Pres. for organ recitals. They seem to set up for whatever is going on Sunday on Friday mornings, so by the time the recital starts they have the paten and communion cup on the Table, and everything set up for Sunday.
Yes, that’s generally how my folk roll. At our place, a chalice, paten and pitcher stay on the Table, so they would be there any day of the week if you wandered in. (Perhaps I should add that those that stay on the Table are not silver; they are pottery, made by potters in the congregation. We generally only pull the silver out for funerals of older members or maybe weddings, or on the two occasions each year when we use wee cuppies.)
After 35 years (I kid you not!) they decided to do something about it, and so they formed a committee.
My observations lead me to the conclusion that Presbyterian committees are, like Anglican ones, intended to prevent things happening. However, it seems that with sufficient committees and enough time decisions get made despite everyone's best efforts. I think it is a form of quantum tunnelling.
Heh! My experience is that committees can get in the way, but more often that not they lead to good results more quickly. But not always, to be sure.
My feeling is that a lot of committees are formed with Good Intentions and an intent to Get Something Done. The problem though lies with the Chair: they can be enthusiastic and push things through, only for the idea to be rejected by the wider constituency as being too radical. They can be over-cautious, agreeing to nothing for fear of criticism. Or their agenda may one of making sure that no changes are made.
This! A competent chair/convener makes a world of difference.
The other thing that makes a difference is the body (and the moderator of that body) that formed the committee and to which the committee reports. If things are working well, that body will balance allowing adequate time for work to get done with holding the committee accountable.
There are committees, committees and committees. There are committees whose purpose is to make sure everyone's voice is heard, there are committees whose role is to make members feel important and there are committees who role is to get a specific job done. Needless to say the first two take forever to do something but for different reasons; the first around building consensus at every stage and the second around petty squabbles and in fighting often around procedure.
My other observation is that very small committees can be exceptionally efficient. I was once on one (Christian Aid) that was requested by a larger committee (Church Meeting) to give its views. We convened a meeting, formed a view and returned it before the larger committee meeting had finished. Alright the CA committee was of size 2, both members sitting on the same row (although not next to each other) and basically an informal conversation in whispers went on for about five minutes. This was a former Congregational Church and I do not think we would have got away with it in a former Presbyterian Church because the CA Committee meeting would have needed minuting.
My feeling is that a lot of committees are formed with Good Intentions and an intent to Get Something Done. The problem though lies with the Chair: they can be enthusiastic and push things through, only for the idea to be rejected by the wider constituency as being too radical. They can be over-cautious, agreeing to nothing for fear of criticism. Or their agenda may one of making sure that no changes are made.
My experience is that committees come in three main varieties:
Those intended to do something, which usually consist of a small number of people who you know can work together who usually have a shrewd idea as to what they need to do.
Those intended to prevent anything getting done which consist of volunteers with nothing in common, who won't ever be able to agree an agenda never mind discuss rationally whatever it is has been suggested that you need to bury.
Those required by the Tribal Rule which have to meet specific responsibilities and targets. These usually function well if they are (a) not too big, (b) the presiding officer is prepared to remind them of deadlines, and (c) you keep the big fish in a small pond off the Committee because they will take over.
All permanent committees need a rotation bylaw to prevent folks from getting entrenched. This makes the rest of the congregation's, and the minister's lives more pleasant.
All permanent committees need a rotation bylaw to prevent folks from getting entrenched. This makes the rest of the congregation's, and the minister's lives more pleasant.
Nice idea. Only works if you don't already have every adult member of the congregation under 90 and of reasonably sound mind on the committee.
Every Tuesday morning the worship leaders (pastor, choral master, and organist) meet to review the previous Sunday and to plan out the following Sundays. Once a month they do long term planning--about three months ahead.
All permanent committees need a rotation bylaw to prevent folks from getting entrenched. This makes the rest of the congregation's, and the minister's lives more pleasant.
Nice idea. Only works if you don't already have every adult member of the congregation under 90 and of reasonably sound mind on the committee.
I take the point, but it does not invalidate the principle. My last parish was one of those where the average age was around 70, and the only thing that stopped us having that problem was that there were five seats on the vestry, and seven folks capable of holding a slot.
The two churches either side of mine had non-rotating vestries, and both were utterly dominated by what I would technically refer to as a 'lay pope' FOR-EV-ER. If I remember correctly they had been on their respective vestries since Jimmy Carter was president, and one had been on since Eisenhower was President except for 1977/8 when he resigned when he temporarily moved out of town! Needless to say, they had the capacity to make or break the ministry of any priest sent to those parishes.
To my mind, the non-rotating vestry tips the balance a little too much in favour of vested interests against those of both the other parishioners and the minister. Entrenched vestrymen are extremely difficult to kind rid of kindly, and if you attempt it, there is a good chance you will be the one that ends up leaving. I have usually worked on the principle of work out who the permanent fixtures are, and get them on your side.
All permanent committees need a rotation bylaw to prevent folks from getting entrenched. This makes the rest of the congregation's, and the minister's lives more pleasant.
Nice idea. Only works if you don't already have every adult member of the congregation under 90 and of reasonably sound mind on the committee.
Agreed. And there's some nuances here, too. If the chair of the Pastoral Team knows every single name on the congregational list and their diagnosis and which visitor they prefer, LEAVE THEM THERE. But if you've got a team that isn't doing much, let them all resign, and try something else. I am a long time member of our "nominating team". Please be assured that we try very hard to put the right bums in the right seats. But we're also not ageist, and if something's kinda working, we're not inclined to butt in unless someone yells help.
Comments
That would fit with the usual Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper that is spiritually present among old school Evangelicals. I share their understanding of the Eucharist, but I do not have the allergy to the bread and wine being brought to Table at the offertory mainly because, on the whole, I would rather have the Table empty through the liturgy of the word.
That's certainly wrong from an Orthodox POV. We give God bread and wine, and he changes them and gives them back to us as his bread and body. There's a whole theology of this.
In the last few decades, it has become increasingly common in churches of my tribe to have chalice and paten (and perhaps flagon/pitcher) on the Table at all non-Eucharistic services. This comes from recommendations proposed by a denominational Sacraments Study Group and endorsed by General Assembly.
Yes, a similar (though not identical) understanding figures in our theology, too, but with the additional understanding that before we can offer the bread and wine to God, they are God’s gift to us. That means that offering them to God is returning them to God, in a sense—as the acclamation says, “All things come of thee, O Lord, and of thine own have we given thee.”
Yes! With the added understanding that God doesn't give us bread and wine, he gives us wheat and grapes, and we do something to them to turn them into bread and wine, THEN give them back to God. There is "value added" here. This goes with our doctrine of synergy, that we and God work together for the salvation of the world (and ourselves).
And thats why the "offertory" has been renamed "the preparation of the gifts." Though many still cling to the old name. The old Tridentine prayers at that point became to be seen as anticipating the Eucharistic prayer too much and were replaced with the Jewish prayers now used which praise God for his gift of bread and wine which will be transformed.
And yes the "real" offertory is that of Christ eternally offering himself to the Father and the assembled people uniting themselves with that offering.
Someone from the congregation made it specially.
I have noticed that on my odd forays to First Pres. for organ recitals. They seem to set up for whatever is going on Sunday on Friday mornings, so by the time the recital starts they have the paten and communion cup on the Table, and everything set up for Sunday.
When they reordered the church some years ago they decided to make the pulpit, table etc., moveable. The only problem was that when designing the pulpit, it was made to go through a double doorway. With the doors in position it would not go through so you had to knock the pins out the hinges and remove the doors first.
After 35 years (I kid you not!) they decided to do something about it, and so they formed a committee. Being an Anglican, this is counterintuitive to me because we tend to form committees when we don't want something to happen, but I have gradually come to understand that it works t'other way about in Presbyterianism. Anyway, it took almost a year for them to come up with the obvious solution which was to convert the two side entrances to the pulpit into a single rear entrance so the pulpit will fit through the door. In the meantime our organist who is also the organist over there was giving me a blow-by-blow on the great pulpit debate.
I am now waiting to find out who will be the first preacher to walk backwards in the pulpit and go down the steps. Having had that experience, I usually keep one hand on the front lip of the pulpit.
Anyway, back to the original point. My tribe seem to be unable to make their minds up on the propriety of having the vessels on the altar during the liturgy of the word. Just in the district where I live, three of the churches prepare the elements before the service, and place them on the Table before the start; two do the pre-Vatican II RC style offertory; my parish puts the elements on the credence table before the service already in/on the chalice and paten; and as for the other two I have never celebrated there, so I don't know. Both the 1928 and the 1996 services say that the elements should be presented at (and one assumes brought to) the Table at the Offertory, but it does not seem to get past the supreme authority in Anglicanism, which is 'we have always done it this way.'
My observations lead me to the conclusion that Presbyterian committees are, like Anglican ones, intended to prevent things happening. However, it seems that with sufficient committees and enough time decisions get made despite everyone's best efforts. I think it is a form of quantum tunnelling.
But of course they did.
Heh! My experience is that committees can get in the way, but more often that not they lead to good results more quickly. But not always, to be sure.
This! A competent chair/convener makes a world of difference.
The other thing that makes a difference is the body (and the moderator of that body) that formed the committee and to which the committee reports. If things are working well, that body will balance allowing adequate time for work to get done with holding the committee accountable.
My other observation is that very small committees can be exceptionally efficient. I was once on one (Christian Aid) that was requested by a larger committee (Church Meeting) to give its views. We convened a meeting, formed a view and returned it before the larger committee meeting had finished. Alright the CA committee was of size 2, both members sitting on the same row (although not next to each other) and basically an informal conversation in whispers went on for about five minutes. This was a former Congregational Church and I do not think we would have got away with it in a former Presbyterian Church because the CA Committee meeting would have needed minuting.
My experience is that committees come in three main varieties:
Those intended to do something, which usually consist of a small number of people who you know can work together who usually have a shrewd idea as to what they need to do.
Those intended to prevent anything getting done which consist of volunteers with nothing in common, who won't ever be able to agree an agenda never mind discuss rationally whatever it is has been suggested that you need to bury.
Those required by the Tribal Rule which have to meet specific responsibilities and targets. These usually function well if they are (a) not too big, (b) the presiding officer is prepared to remind them of deadlines, and (c) you keep the big fish in a small pond off the Committee because they will take over.
All permanent committees need a rotation bylaw to prevent folks from getting entrenched. This makes the rest of the congregation's, and the minister's lives more pleasant.
Nice idea. Only works if you don't already have every adult member of the congregation under 90 and of reasonably sound mind on the committee.
I take the point, but it does not invalidate the principle. My last parish was one of those where the average age was around 70, and the only thing that stopped us having that problem was that there were five seats on the vestry, and seven folks capable of holding a slot.
The two churches either side of mine had non-rotating vestries, and both were utterly dominated by what I would technically refer to as a 'lay pope' FOR-EV-ER. If I remember correctly they had been on their respective vestries since Jimmy Carter was president, and one had been on since Eisenhower was President except for 1977/8 when he resigned when he temporarily moved out of town! Needless to say, they had the capacity to make or break the ministry of any priest sent to those parishes.
To my mind, the non-rotating vestry tips the balance a little too much in favour of vested interests against those of both the other parishioners and the minister. Entrenched vestrymen are extremely difficult to kind rid of kindly, and if you attempt it, there is a good chance you will be the one that ends up leaving. I have usually worked on the principle of work out who the permanent fixtures are, and get them on your side.
Agreed. And there's some nuances here, too. If the chair of the Pastoral Team knows every single name on the congregational list and their diagnosis and which visitor they prefer, LEAVE THEM THERE. But if you've got a team that isn't doing much, let them all resign, and try something else. I am a long time member of our "nominating team". Please be assured that we try very hard to put the right bums in the right seats. But we're also not ageist, and if something's kinda working, we're not inclined to butt in unless someone yells help.