Eucharistic Reservation in the current day Church of England

2

Comments

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    .... It's complicated by the way a higher level caster can designate certain targets within the area of effect to be unaffected. It's usually used to avoid frying your mates when fireballing zombies, but you could use it, for example, to exclude the crusts for particularly picky congregations who won't eat them.
    If you wrap those bits in kitchen foil, does it have that effect?

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    The safest way is not to place them on the corporal. The zap stops at the edge. And before you ask, I don't know if the limit is of the cloth or extends to any lace trimming.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    The safest way is not to place them on the corporal. The zap stops at the edge. And before you ask, I don't know if the limit is of the cloth or extends to any lace trimming.

    Oh ye of little faith. When I zap the rafters shake, and everything in the church is affected. (There are stories of a blind man walking past the church who regained his sight, but I don't like to boast. People say I astound them with my humility.)
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    <snip> People say I astound them with my humility.)

    Another miracle!
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Gee D wrote: »
    The safest way is not to place them on the corporal. The zap stops at the edge. And before you ask, I don't know if the limit is of the cloth or extends to any lace trimming.

    I fear my learned colleague has subscribed to a naive view of the matter. It s an ancient tradition, attested by the best authorities, that as the presider stands in persona Christi the area of epicletical influence extends to the dual hand-span of one Palestinian carpenter, as measured in a vertical dove's eye view from directly above the centre of the altar. As the Incarnated Body of Our Lord is not available to scientific research a law of average must be applied. The "width of a corporal tangent" was introduced to the debate by self-interested Jansenists in the early eighteenth century as they attempted to place parametrical limitations on the efficacy of divine grace. .
  • the corporal should not have lace trimming.
  • Indeed not.

    Lace trimming confuses...
    :grimace:
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    the corporal should not have lace trimming.

    But what else are the ladies of the parish to do after dinner on a cold evening except to make lace trimming for everything in sight?
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    the corporal should not have lace trimming.

    But what else are the ladies of the parish to do after dinner on a cold evening except to make lace trimming for everything in sight?

    Add brocade?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    It's easy enough for them to make yards of lace while still watching the soaps. Much harder to add brocade.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    the corporal should not have lace trimming.
    Perhaps one shouldn't be saying this these days, but why does that statement make me think of this well known sketch from nearly 50 years ago?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    .... It's complicated by the way a higher level caster can designate certain targets within the area of effect to be unaffected. It's usually used to avoid frying your mates when fireballing zombies, but you could use it, for example, to exclude the crusts for particularly picky congregations who won't eat them.
    If you wrap those bits in kitchen foil, does it have that effect?

    That's microwaves.
  • Wouldn't it depend on whether the foil had been blessed or not?
  • No, you’re misremembering. The phrase is “Curses! Foiled again!”
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    FWIW, conservative Lutherans will consecrate on the spot when visiting the sick. It's the only way we do it.
    Define 'conservative.' I'm a conservative Lutheran priest, and we do bring consecrated hosts.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Those for me avoid the arid scholasticism of Aquinas, which completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament.
    Which text of Aquinas do you base this on?
  • kmann wrote: »
    FWIW, conservative Lutherans will consecrate on the spot when visiting the sick. It's the only way we do it.
    Define 'conservative.' I'm a conservative Lutheran priest, and we do bring consecrated hosts.

    And there I am disproven.

    Pray, tell me what synod/group/body you belong to, so I can correct my thinking.
  • @Lamb Chopped, have you learnt nothing? This is your chance to tell @kmann that he's got it all wrong, and that his experience counts for nothing. Really, sometimes I despair.
  • Oh drat.

    Must try harder.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    FWIW, conservative Lutherans will consecrate on the spot when visiting the sick. It's the only way we do it.
    Define 'conservative.' I'm a conservative Lutheran priest, and we do bring consecrated hosts.

    And there I am disproven.

    Pray, tell me what synod/group/body you belong to, so I can correct my thinking.
    I'm in the Church of Norway.
  • Oooh Ahhh! I have a correspondent IRL in your church body. (Yeah, like you'd know everyone in the country... :wink: )
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Those for me avoid the arid scholasticism of Aquinas, which completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament.
    Which text of Aquinas do you base this on?

    This, from the Summa Theologia, is the sort of thing I'm referring to:

    I answer that, Some have contended that after the consecration not only do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form. But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that it would be changed, not into the whole body of Christ, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the sacrament, wherein it is said: "This is My body."

    Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, it would remain either in matter, or separated from matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is against what was said above (Article 2). Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain separate from matter, it would then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms separated from matter are such.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Those for me avoid the arid scholasticism of Aquinas, which completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament.
    Which text of Aquinas do you base this on?

    This, from the Summa Theologia, is the sort of thing I'm referring to:

    I answer that, Some have contended that after the consecration not only do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form. But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that it would be changed, not into the whole body of Christ, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the sacrament, wherein it is said: "This is My body."

    Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, it would remain either in matter, or separated from matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is against what was said above (Article 2). Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain separate from matter, it would then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms separated from matter are such.
    Yes. That's pretty arid.

    And with all due respect to the Angelic Doctor, his reasoning appears to be founded in an underlying assumption that 'if God does something that I don't understand, it must be him rather than my understanding, that is wrong'. He has to fit in with my reasoning rather than the core appropriate way round.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Yes, there's that, and also no reference to Grace in the provision of the sacrament.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Those for me avoid the arid scholasticism of Aquinas, which completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament.
    Which text of Aquinas do you base this on?

    This, from the Summa Theologia, is the sort of thing I'm referring to:

    I answer that, Some have contended that after the consecration not only do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form. But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that it would be changed, not into the whole body of Christ, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the sacrament, wherein it is said: "This is My body."

    Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, it would remain either in matter, or separated from matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is against what was said above (Article 2). Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain separate from matter, it would then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms separated from matter are such.
    Yes. That's pretty arid.

    And with all due respect to the Angelic Doctor, his reasoning appears to be founded in an underlying assumption that 'if God does something that I don't understand, it must be him rather than my understanding, that is wrong'. He has to fit in with my reasoning rather than the core appropriate way round.

    It is also predicated on a view of the structure of the world that cannot be sustained.
  • There does seem to be a flaw in the hypothesis that bread cannot remain in nature bread while also becoming, in nature, the body of Christ. After all, we worship a God who we believe was able to fully take on human nature while remaining fully God.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    There does seem to be a flaw in the hypothesis that bread cannot remain in nature bread while also becoming, in nature, the body of Christ. After all, we worship a God who we believe was able to fully take on human nature while remaining fully God.

    Indeed.
  • Hookers_TrickHookers_Trick 8th Day Host, Admin Emeritus
    teddybear wrote: »
    (by the way if anyone recognizes this book and the author, please enlighten me as I would love to read it again, but can't seem to remember title or author.).

    Could it be by Barbara Pym? Sounds like her...

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    teddybear wrote: »
    (by the way if anyone recognizes this book and the author, please enlighten me as I would love to read it again, but can't seem to remember title or author.).

    Could it be by Barbara Pym? Sounds like her...
    Daily celebration wouldn't have been unusual enough to be scandalous in Barabara Pym's time. I'd have thought Charlotte Yonge might be a better bet.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    teddybear wrote: »
    (by the way if anyone recognizes this book and the author, please enlighten me as I would love to read it again, but can't seem to remember title or author.).

    Could it be by Barbara Pym? Sounds like her...
    Daily celebration wouldn't have been unusual enough to be scandalous in Barabara Pym's time. I'd have thought Charlotte Yonge might be a better bet.

    Might it be something by Compton MacKenzie?

  • Enoch wrote: »
    teddybear wrote: »
    (by the way if anyone recognizes this book and the author, please enlighten me as I would love to read it again, but can't seem to remember title or author.).

    Could it be by Barbara Pym? Sounds like her...
    Daily celebration wouldn't have been unusual enough to be scandalous in Barabara Pym's time. I'd have thought Charlotte Yonge might be a better bet.
    I don't think the quote suggests it was considered 'scandalous.' Just unusual, which even 50 years ago it would have been in a small rural parish. Full-on anglo-catholic religion in English villages has always been extremely rare, and in these days of multi-church benefices has almost disappeared.
  • There are still one or two around - I can think of a certain Suffolk village...
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Any priest celebrating Communion daily in my neck of the woods, except in a town parish with a Catholic tradition, would automatically been designed an "odd duck" or something similar but slightly less polite by most of his parishioners.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    I wonder if the habit of actually attending daily Mass was ever particularly popular, even in town parishes?

    Registers of services at Our Place from some 20-25 years ago show daily attenders in single figures, and today we rarely get more than 2 or 3, except on special occasions, or at the monthly Walsingham Cell Mass.

    We don't now have the nucleus of local, retired folk who might have the time and inclination to come to church on a weekday morning (or evening), although our Sunday numbers are increasing.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Even our parish was in its Prayer Book Catholic heyday, Communion was celebrated 8am and 12noon on Sundays; 10:00am on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Holydays. The Sunday numbers were respectable considering most folks would have gone to Matins, the Wednesday Mass made it into the 12 to 20 bracket, but the rest were decidedly single figures.

    When I was in my 20s I lived in London briefly, and even the shrines there did not get that much in the way of daily Mass attendance. All Saints, Margaret St., was usually around 10 or 12 at 12:15pm, and probably the same in the evening, and it seemed to be the best attended.
  • I would think the numbers at All Saints, Margaret Street, are probably still in that range.

    I used (back in the 80s) to attend St John's, Waterloo, London, during the week, when they had a daily 1230pm Eucharist. IIRC, this was a parish which had been 'higher up the candle' before WW2, but at that time (and today) would probably be more MOTR.

    Anything from 3 or 4 to 10 would be present on weekdays, more if it was a special Holyday (on Ash Wednesday, the chapel would be too small, so the main church was used). These days, I think they have a lunchtime Eucharist on 2 days per week, which seems reasonable, with an evening Eucharist at their 'other church'.

    Eucharistic reservation seems to be quite common in the C of E, but daily Eucharists are not so easily found. Most of the churches in our Deanery have just one mid-week service (though some have daily - or almost daily - Morning Prayer as well).
  • 50 years ago (can't believe it was that long!) when I was in my curacy, our 'prayer-book-adjusting-to-Alternative-Services catholic' parish had a daily mass. That was not unusual then for many MOTR+ churches. It would be now.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Those for me avoid the arid scholasticism of Aquinas, which completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament.
    Which text of Aquinas do you base this on?

    This, from the Summa Theologia, is the sort of thing I'm referring to:

    I answer that, Some have contended that after the consecration not only do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form. But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that it would be changed, not into the whole body of Christ, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the sacrament, wherein it is said: "This is My body."

    Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, it would remain either in matter, or separated from matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is against what was said above (Article 2). Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain separate from matter, it would then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms separated from matter are such.
    Yes. That's pretty arid.

    And with all due respect to the Angelic Doctor, his reasoning appears to be founded in an underlying assumption that 'if God does something that I don't understand, it must be him rather than my understanding, that is wrong'. He has to fit in with my reasoning rather than the core appropriate way round.

    The ex opere operato idea is at fault. Aquinas - and the others - follow Augustine in their odd belief that they know better than God. By defeating the Donatists, bad faith became an acceptable and routine expetation amongst ministers. They took the holy out of worship so that a sacrament can be empty of God. It is only important that an ordained personage goes mechanically through the motions. So there is no 'essential'/ 'substantial' in the first place only 'accidents'. I don't think he approves of this.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Those for me avoid the arid scholasticism of Aquinas, which completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament.
    Which text of Aquinas do you base this on?

    This, from the Summa Theologia, is the sort of thing I'm referring to:

    I answer that, Some have contended that after the consecration not only do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form. But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that it would be changed, not into the whole body of Christ, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the sacrament, wherein it is said: "This is My body."

    Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, it would remain either in matter, or separated from matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is against what was said above (Article 2). Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain separate from matter, it would then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms separated from matter are such.
    And where, exactly, does this text 'completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament'?
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Yes, there's that, and also no reference to Grace in the provision of the sacrament.
    What about the Summa, part III, q.62?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    To answer "where, exactly, does this text 'completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament'?" is of course an impossibility; you cannot say where in a passage something was omitted save that it was.

    Where was it mentioned in what I've quoted is my question.
  • teddybear wrote: »
    Many years ago I read a novel about a rural parish in England where the parish priest was in trouble with his bishop over his practice of reserving the sacrament. He was also considered a bit of an odd ball by his parishioners for wanting to celebrate the Eucharist on a daily basis, but they loved him so made sure every day someone was in church so he could celebrate. (by the way if anyone recognizes this book and the author, please enlighten me as I would love to read it again, but can't seem to remember title or author.). I know that neither of these is controversial in the present day, but how common are they? Are they usual in the evangelical wing of the church? Encouraged or discouraged?

    I can't say I recognize the book reference. But it sounds a little like something Dorothy L Sayers might have included in one of her Lord Peter Wimsy novels. I half recall one of her characters, Miss Climpson, who travels to a rural parish, glad to find a place where she can have communion every day. 'Unnatural Death', I think was the book. I'm probably imagining it, but I'm almost sure Miss Climpson references the priest in question as being thought a little suspect for this practice, though as a High Churcher herself she likes to support him.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Yes, 'Unnatural Death' it is, and the church in question is St Onesimus (sic), Leahampton, whose Vicar is the Rev Treadgold. He gives, at one point, some interesting spiritual advice to Lord Peter Wimsey himself...

    Miss Sayers might well have preferred IRL to have been more of a 'Roaming Catholic' like Miss Climpson, though her fictional clergy often seem to be more of a Prayer Book tradition ('High, but not Keble').
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    To answer "where, exactly, does this text 'completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament'?" is of course an impossibility; you cannot say where in a passage something was omitted save that it was.

    Where was it mentioned in what I've quoted is my question.
    Well, I just cited an article which disproves that Aquinas 'omits' grace in the sacrament.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    To answer "where, exactly, does this text 'completely omit the Grace of God in the sacrament'?" is of course an impossibility; you cannot say where in a passage something was omitted save that it was.

    Where was it mentioned in what I've quoted is my question.
    Well, I just cited an article which disproves that Aquinas 'omits' grace in the sacrament.

    I referred to the passage I set out. You've tried to move the goal posts.
  • Eucharistic reservation seems to be quite common in the C of E, but daily Eucharists are not so easily found. Most of the churches in our Deanery have just one mid-week service (though some have daily - or almost daily - Morning Prayer as well).

    Some USA Anglo-Catholic "shrine" parishes have reduced their weekday schedules, reluctantly but in line with low attendance and reduced availability of servers. This includes Ascension, Chicago (now just Wednesdays at noon and 6:30pm and Saturdays at 10am), and St. Paul's, K Street in Washington, and possibly some others. Atonement, Chicago, with its large roster of clergy and well-established daily Mass attendee group (which typically stays for coffee and conversation in the kitchen), maintains its 7-day daily Mass schedule.

  • What on earth has the 'reduced availability of servers' got to do with it? You don't need a server at a low mass.
  • Quite so.

    We manage without, unless it's the monthly Walsingham Mass, in which case Madam Sacristan acts as server.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    angloid wrote: »
    What on earth has the 'reduced availability of servers' got to do with it? You don't need a server at a low mass.

    In my younger life, the lavabo bowl and cruets spent a lot of time happily balanced on the end of the gradine for use at Low Mass, as it was only about 50-50 that I would have a server. The only worry then was not getting communicants, as I have always been a bit of a stickler about 'no mass without communicants.'
  • When Father NewPriest was being interviewed prior to coming to Our Place, we asked him for at least one mid-week Eucharist.

    O, says he, I'm a Daily Mass man!

    Ah, says we, but we can't guarantee much in the way of attendance!

    Never mind, says he, if there's no-one else there, I'll simply say the first part of the service, and then communicate myself from the Reserved Sacrament.


    So, that's what he does, possibly not quite in accordance with The Rules, but most of the daily services do have at least 1 or 2 other communicants, sometimes a few more.
Sign In or Register to comment.