Holy Communion on Good Friday
rhubarb
Shipmate
Our new priest told us today that we would be having Holy Communion this Good Friday. We were all rather stunned as none of us had ever been to an Anglican service on Good Friday and received communion. (Note that the service proposed is not even reserved sacrament.) The general feeling among many of our congregation is that they would not partake, but rather just remain in their seats and I concur with this. My thought is that Good Friday is a day of reflection and abstinence for the death of our Lord, with the celebration and rejoicing to come on Easter Day when we will say "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." We are a very traditional parish which many would consider Anglo Catholic. I'm interested in how shipmates regard all of this situation and if you celebrate the Eucharist on Good Friday.
Comments
Have you discussed this with your priest? Has he explained why he thinks this is OK?
Mind you, the 1662 BCP does provide Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for Good Friday, which rather implies that the 'Lord's Supper may be celebrated if so desired.
I suspect the usual practice in past years was for the service of Ante-Communion to be said (which would include those readings).
I take rhubarb's point, though (welcome aboard, BTW), that it seems a bit odd to introduce a full Eucharist where, in the past, abstinence from Communion has been taught and practised.
IJ
Someone needs to talk to the priest. I’d frame it as “we’re not used to this and are having trouble understanding the reason. Can you help us understand why you think it’s important we celebrate Communion on Good Friday?” If he doesn’t respond pastorally by either changing plans or engaging in some helpful explanation—or maybe at least saying “let’s see how it goes, and then talk about whether it’s something to do next year”—then just go somewhere else on Good Friday.
Samuel Pepys records more communicants at St. Paul's Cathedral on Good Friday than on Easter Day.
I would say that 'celebrating' communion is inappropriate on Good Friday. A day of contemplation, reflection and witness to the faith is called for, not 'celebration' or 'Eucharist'. Some churches do veneration of the cross, others 3 hour devotional Friday afternoon.
Stations of the cross in the local RC church, followed by an ecumenical procession of witness was for many years practiced in our local deanery on Good Friday morning.
But then again, I think of Maundy Thursday–Good Friday–Holy Saturday–Easter as basically one event.
Communion in one kind is common on Good Friday, presumably because the wine/MPB is not normally reserved. In the pre-1955 Roman Rite, the priest did put unconsecrated wine into a chalice along with a particle of consecrated host, and then consumed both himself. No one else received. After 1955, the chalice was no longer used and communion was extended to the people.
I'm not sure what the practice is for the Liturgy of the Presanctified in Eastern churches.
Meaning that you have a Eucharist on Holy Saturday?
In the Catholic tradition (to which I belong), a celebration of the Eucharist is seen as a participation in the sacrifice of Calvary. That sacrifice is present in a particular way on Good Friday, and the joy inherent in an offering of the Eucharist would be inappropriate.
St Thomas writes:
Now, Thomas can be inclined towards retrospective and ahistorical justification for liturgical practices, but I think this is a decent summary of the Catholic view.
Ante-Communion on Good Friday morning, yes: but no consecration.
(By 'we' I mean of course those Christians in the modern Western liturgical tradition, as expressed in the Roman Missal and the C of E's Common Worship/ Times and Seasons, among others. I don't intend to disparage other traditions or other understandings: the mystery of our redemption is too deep to be confined to one way of looking at it.)
IJ
Some would say that the Eucharist - with the Risen Lord present in the sacramental signs of bread and wine (however your church defines that presence!) - is the natural conclusion of the three days' observance, and that it is the spiritual nourishment and strength imparted by the reception of the sacrament that impels the faithful to go out, and proclaim the Risen Lord in their everyday lives.
That does not in any way detract from or denigrate other peoples' views, IMNSHO.
It's proclaiming the Risen Lord - however you do it - that's important.
IJ
It's interesting how you put it as 'backtracking' to the Last Supper. I think of the Eucharist (which I would argue is about 'thanksgiving' more than 'celebration' ) more as placing the commemoration of Christ's death into the wider perspective of him as Risen Lord; rather than stopping to remember a moment where he was killed on the cross. So, more a case of taking Christ's death forward into the future fulfilment of God's purposes, rather than going backwards to relive one particular, albeit important, moment
Maybe that's also reflected in the different beliefs churches have of what the bread and wine actually are, too? I would understand my tradition as teaching that bread and wine are Jesus's real flesh and blood (John 6); therefore the flesh and blood of the triumphant, death-defying Resurrected Christ in the present moment. I suppose if one views bread and wine as symbolic, rather than the bodily presence of Christ, it would make it easier not to worry about the debateable contradiction of his physical resurrected presence on a Good Friday altar!
However, that's the theology. In practice, I can't say I'd get too het up about it myself if I came across it in other places. My experience is of the empty chalice on the Good Friday altar; no celebration of communion, and no distribution of the reserved sacrament. Though I have no objection to the latter, I would personally feel, liturgically, the former to be inappropriate. But only in the context of my own tradition, perhaps. We shall concentrate on the Liturgy and Veneration of the Cross. No doubt that will NOT be enough for some of our folk anyway!
That makes sense on Easter if your text is the Emmaus road experience.
Otherwise, as a non-liturgical Christian I'm prone to thinking Good Friday is a great time for communion, but recognize I'm bucking some larger & older traditions there.
But hearing the amount of heat applied to the poor priest who put forth the notion does make me grateful to be in a (somewhat) more flexible denomination... (not to start a flame war, it was a good message for me as I've been in a vocational funk these days...)
I can't help thinking that the 1662 BCP's Communion Service, with its cross-centred theology, would actually feel quite appropriate on Good Friday...
IJ
The Eucharist, (if seen as non-mandatory or optional), should not turn into an event to squabble over. If people turn up on Good Friday to this priests 'celebration', then that's fine, if they don't, that's fine too.
Since it seems to have been an 'introduced' novelty though it would hardly be right if the priest got the hump if no one turned up. On the other hand, some people there might have been secretly longing for opportunity to receive a 'consecrated there and then' communion.
I wonder what prompted the priest to bring in this innovation? Is he ultra enthusiastic at celebrating communion?
Does he object to reserved sacrament in principle?
Does he want to establish who is 'on his side' in liturgical matters?
Does he want to see who does what about it?
Or is he just wet behind the ears and didn't have any idea what he was getting into?
I'd say he needs a good Reader, (CPO) to sus out the morale of the lower deck and report back if there are mutinous mutterings in the fo'cs'tle. Many an incumbent has had an unnecessarily uncomfortable maiden voyage simply by not listening to the 'shot rolling' on the upper deck, in the night watches.
Celebrating the Eucharist on Good Friday however is not forbidden in the C of E and as some have argued in this thread, maybe appropriate. What is important is to establish a liturgical tradition and stick to it, not make radical changes without consultation.
Evangelical*: no Holy Communion on Good Friday.
Missouri Synod**: definitely Holy Communion on Good Friday.
*Evangelical in this context, like inconceivable, does not mean what you think it means.
**Missouri Synod and similar bodies (WELS, LCC, and other TLA's)
Yes. One of my favourite services.
St. Whatsit had a Seven Last Words service, focusing on the last 7 things Jesus said from the cross. Readings, meditation and prayer, sometimes respectful liturgical dance performance. No Eucharist. Packed service, every year. Lasted about 3 hours; but it was in a business district, so people came and went. Really hard to find a seat.
I did a search, and I see lots of other churches have that kind of service, too. Some call it "Tennebrae".
(I am also used to a children's service at 10am and a ecumenical Walk of Witness, both telling the story of Easter, one in the church and the other as a public procession down the High Street led by someone carrying a full size cross and stopping at various points along the way to tell parts of the story.)
I'm much more familiar with European Lutheranism than with American (therefore I'm very familiar with the meaning of Evangelical/Evangelische!) so this is really interesting.
With regards to the new minister who wants GF to be a full communion service - I actually don't think that there is a big problem with people attending the service but not receiving. If they show up (rather than going elsewhere) they are showing support - but they are simply saying "it is not my practice to receive HC on Good Friday." You don't have to make a big song and dance about it, but giving the minister a quiet heads up before the service would be nice.
(Of course, I think that this new minister is WRONG to lead a service of Holy Communion and WRONG to not have checked what the local customs are before making this decision.)
(I have just recalled that, in the dim and distant past, when I was a member of a Baptist Church, Good Friday was one of the few times when we DID have a communion service.)
FWIW.
No, Tenebrae is anticipated Morning Prayer with Lamentations.
I gather that it can be rather long......but that there are some really dramatic moments......
IJ
In the past we have begun Good Friday with Stations of the Cross which led into Passion readings, reflection and other liturgy. Because the choir has a commitment at church, we will participate in the service but have decided not to take communion and just stay quietly in our seats. We are not going to make a big issue, but felt that what we have planned is to make a statement in our own way. After all, there is no compulsion to take communion.
I'm not sure what we can do about Fred. He has come from a very liberal congregation to a traditional Anglo Catholic parish and is just not fitting in. I get the impression he wants to 'fix' us. I'm not sure how we ended up with him and it would be sad if people left because of the changes he wants to make. I can but pray for some resolution.
I wondered about that. I'd known of Tenebrae, long ago, and forgotten what it was. But GF didn't see right for it. However, many of the search hits contained that.
I just did more searching. The Wikipedia article for Tenebrae is quite a mouthful, and the intricacies of the liturgical calendar are beyond me. But I gleaned that RC, Anglican, Orthodox, and Protestant church practices vary. RC practices changed with Vatican II, and there's a very detailed chart of the pre-Vat2 practices. Some churches on the Protestant end of things either dropped Tenebrae in favor of Seven Last Words, or merged them.
I can't help but be amused at the thought of him needing to finish up the cup if he fills it presuming everyone will commune and then everyone stays put.
The priest asked me to finish up the wine, as he was driving that afternoon. Fortunately, I was still, at that time, not allowed to drive (fits!), so was able to oblige.
Oops...
Re the OP, perhaps we ought not to speculate too much about rhubarb's church and vicar, but it does seem as though he's not made too auspicious a start.
IIRC, when the C of E's little red book Lent, Holy Week, and Easter came out in 1986, it was made quite clear that Communion on Good Friday - whether from the Reserved Sacrament, or from a 'full' celebration - was quite as much in order as a liturgy without Communion, and various suitable options were available. AFAIK, this is still the case with the current Times and Seasons provision.
IJ
For some, I guess, the idea of 'worshipping' Jack Chick's 'Cookie God' is anathema, but if they'd only look at the history of the early Church, they'd see that taking the Sacrament to those unable to be at the Sunday Eucharist was common practice.
I understand that, in our local hospital, the Sacrament is reserved, and set aside for use on the wards, by various hospital chaplains - so it could well have been consecrated by e.g. a URC minister. IIRC, the Romans keep theirs separate.....
IJ