No Manual Gestures
Anglican Brat
Shipmate
According to my liturgical manual "Let Us Give Thanks", the book used in the Anglican Church of Canada, it is acceptable for the Presider to not touch the elements at all during the Eucharistic Prayer. The simple recitation of the Prayer suffices alone to consecrate.
While this rubs against my Anglocatholic training, does this reflect a low church understanding of the Eucharist, and would a lot of Anglicans/Episcopalians accept this practice of not touching the bread or wine during the Eucharistic Prayer, especially during this time of Pandemic.
While this rubs against my Anglocatholic training, does this reflect a low church understanding of the Eucharist, and would a lot of Anglicans/Episcopalians accept this practice of not touching the bread or wine during the Eucharistic Prayer, especially during this time of Pandemic.
Comments
In any case, with all these 'virtual' services going on, only the priest him/herself is receiving the elements. Granted, once 'real' services get going again, some touching may be necessary in order to get the host from the priest to the communicant - any ideas as to how this is to be done?
Chopsticks.
Seriously, we are already doing "real services" (being an extremely small church), and we consecrate the elements (Yes, we use wee cuppies right now) and place them in the center of the room, with some distance between the wee cuppies, wafers, etc. Then, one by one, we have people come up and take the elements, touching nothing else, while Mr Lamb says the blessing. It takes a pretty long time, even with only ten people. And of course the distancing undercuts the symbolism of the Lord's Supper. But then, symbolism is not the most important thing, and I'm sure Jesus totally understands.
So, no, I'm not a fan.
Wine is self-evidently suitable for distribution by water pistol: if this has unfortunately military overtones then maybe an old washing-up liquid bottle or a plant sprayer might serve the need.
Bread is trickier. Maybe cubes of bread (unleavened would be better as denser so heavier) and a slingshot? This would take some dexterity on the part of both priest and communicant, particularly in traditions where the host is placed in the communicant 's mouth rather than their hand.
To go with administration via water/wine pistol and disc shooter, perhaps the Communion hymn could be Onward, Christian Soldiers.
However I agree strongly with those above who have said that God would prefer no touchies ... I will, when eucharists recommence in our diocese, perform good no touchy consecration (but not "north end") and with plenty of hand waving and genuflections.
Who is?
Though I'd question your "centrality... of the interaction between celebrant and elements." Where do you get that from? IMHO the centrality of interaction, if we must refer to it that way, is a) between Jesus and the elements, and b) between the recipients and the elements. The celebrant is not the center.
No touchies during consecration, and no wine at all (we gave up the chalice before lockdown anyway).
The greater risk, I’d have thought would be the priest breathing over each communicant while administering the sacrament.
I think the directions from the Italian bishops (RC, but followed AIUI by the Anglicans in that country) are that the priest sanitises his [sic, in most cases] hands and dons gloves before administering the host, into the communicant's hands without touching them. Someone will have to place the unconsecrated hosts into the ciborium in the first place; doubtless this will also be done wearing gloves. There is no reason why the priest should not touch and break the large host as usual if he is the only one to consume it. And of course the chalice will be consecrated but not shared.
Like Zappa, I regret the theological/symbolical message that this might convey, but needs must in the circumstances.
Its not as though our liturgical books were parachuted down with a label reading "This way folks, and no other."
I'm quite prepared to have someone try seriously to persuade me I'm wrong. However, if there's an intention to consecrate and the performance of what is intended to be and presented as, a Eucharist, then whether you yourself would prefer it be done some other way or not, it seems to me that that is a Eucharist. I don't see that this has any bearing on whether one is Anglocatholic, Evangelical, High-Church, Low-Church or any other sort of church.
Obviously, I can no more claim to know this than anyone else. However, even if one usually prefers to touch the elements, as indeed the 1662 BCP says, but on which Common Worship is partially silent, if by reason of the pandemic, in stead you hold your hands above them at the appropriate moment, I'm sure you can be confident that they will still become consecrated. After all, it's the Lord's Supper, not yours. He is the one who consecrates the elements not the president, who in some ways - even if this language grates - is more like a sort of holy waiter.
Although this example is the other way round, I think the principle is the same. When the Israelites were in the wilderness, God provided them with daily manna. When they got to the Holy Land and didn't need it any more, the manna stopped. I am sure God can work with what we do to protect one another from infection, and what we abstain from doing, even if we think he might expect us to do something different under more normal circumstances.
But this is just what I think. You're quite entitled to tell me I'm talking nonsense provided you explain to me convincingly why.
Sacrifice.
Remaining faithful even so.
Stuff like that.
I recite liturgy and sing parts when out with the dog at 6am. Grubbing around and trying to connect. I'm not very good at Christianity best of times. That's all I've got.
Someone may correct me on this, but I seem to recall that in the late lamented Alternative Service book, manual actions were not required until after the conclusion of the Eucharistic Prayer, when the "President" would pick up the Host and say "The bread that we break is it not a sharing in the Body of Christ...." and there was a suitable response from the congregation.
Certainly in the nearly snake belly low Anglican parish that I attended in those days the manual actions were performed at the consecration, the priest being thoroughly ingrained with the BCP rubrics.
[1] all references are gender specific
There is a certain type of protestant who defines themselves primarily in opposition to Catholicism (whether Roman or otherwise). I've encountered the attitude among Anglicans and Presbyterians.
He certainly performed the manual actions prescribed.
That particular Vicar (long since promoted to glory) was never particularly happy with Series 3 or ASB Rite A, and I can't remember what he did in those services, but I expect he continued with the manual actions he had been trained to do.
I agree with you on that. There are some "evangelical" clergy in the CofE who would make Zappa's Sidney Anglican look very formal. I remember one such cleric who conducted an informal eucharist in the church lounge, producing a plastic bag of cubed bread from under his seat at the offertory and tipping the contents on to a plate. The local branch of the mafia Mothers Union made sure that never happened again.
Our local, now closing, theological college was the lower end of the CofE, and we (Mr Dragon and I) did always comment that based on the graduates we saw liturgy classes were rather lacking in the curriculum: how anyone can do it week after week and still seem like they're celebrating for the first time is somewhat beyond me.
Dulcimalleus, please, dulcimalleus. Plated with gold or silver, and preferably held in a vimpa by anyone not in Orders. You forget where you are!
The True Dulcimalleus™ is made of solid gold, or perhaps silver, if that is the best that can conveniently be gotten.
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a vimpa hiding in the back of the cupboard, as long as the Fathers of that vintage were that spikey whilst remaining good members of the CofE.
When we had bishops visit in the autumn there was always a spare priest to hold their crozier, so I don't think the issue arose then.
....and besides, the wench is dead?
* - best description I can come up with for the governmental response.
In some of those rites there is an elevation by the deacon, but it is the vessels that are handled, and not the Gifts themselves.
I have never come across the idea that the priest has to touch the Gifts for them to be consecrated. Where does this come from?
None of that is in dispute, and in all traditions I think the priest touches the Gifts at some point during the eucharistic rite, particularly at the fraction and at communion.
However, the OP was asking about the absence of such contact specifically during the anaphora, and seemed to suggest that this might have some bearing on whether consecration takes place. It is this that I have never encountered anywhere before and I was curious.
Is your question really more to do with when exactly the consecration takes place ?
Generally the Roman rite would say that the consecration takes place when the priest pronounces the word 'This is my body This is my blood.
We know however that that is only from our human point of view,the epiclesis and the final elevation at the words per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso (through him and with him and in him) are in a sense all part of the consecration
I think that some Anglicans would say that the consecration is not complete until the end of what the Roman rite calls the Canon of the Mass
Is it not the case that Orthodox do not officially say that the consecration takes place exactly at the saying of the Dominical Words ?
The Orthodox "party line" is that we do not know when the transformation takes place. We know that it is completed by the end of the eucharistic prayer, when the congregation respond with "Amen".
It’s the prayer that begins with the liturgical greeting and sursum corda, and ends with the doxology and “Amen.”