Oct 31
Therefore we before him bending (Art XXVIII – Pt 3)
(This post is part of a series on the 39 articles of the Church of England)
In a comment on the first post on the twenty-eighth article Peter Kirk said:
Do you have nothing to say about the last paragraph of this Article, which is blatantly ignored by Anglo-Catholics?
The last paragraph (to save you looking it up) reads:
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped.
I have spent far too long on this one article already, but I did promise to get to this point, and find a certain irony in doing so on what some keep as Reformation Day. Of course, the article does not really say enough to make its point “And therefore you shouldn’t do it.” Catholics and Protestants can quite happily agree that none of these behaviours were or are done “by Christ’s ordinance.” So in that sense, Anglo-Catholics don’t ignore what the article says, they ignore what it may reasonably be assumed to have intended, but never gets around to saying.
First, I regard reservation of the sacrament as quite uncontroversial nowadays. In this parish, for example, there are about ten people on average in any one week who receive Holy Communion from the reserved sacrament in acts of worship led by lay people in the homes of the sick or housebound, or residential care homes. The Church of England provides official rites for this, and also for the use of “Extended Communion” where Holy Communion is administered from the reserved sacrament in public Sunday worship where there is a shortage of priests. This latter use is intended for unusual circumstances, and not as a routine matter. The former use of communion of the sick is generally routine.
So if reservation is unexceptional, the question is then what one does with the reserved sacrament? I have argued that the idea of change in the elements, however (un)precisely conceived, needs to be seen both in the context of the eschatological transformation of all things, and as a sign of that work of the Spirit who is our present foretaste that God will be all in all. Once the elements have been consecrated, they should not be treated as anything else than vehicles of Christ’s presence in the church as the crucified and risen Lord, because his word of promise and the work of the Spirit is irrevocable. At a minimum that requires treating them with reverence at all times.
But the Eucharistic elements powerfully represent how Christ is always given to us in his Church. It is his risen body that makes us one body, and it is his sacrificed life that is the life given to us that makes us alive. In that sense continuous reservation witnesses to what the Church truly is, a Eucharistic community always gathered in prayer and praise around the cross. I see no reason why meditation in front of the reserved sacrament, reverencing and worshiping the Christ who gives himself to us in this Eucharistic gift, should be regarded as a problem. The hymn from which I take the title for this post is used in services of such meditation and prayer before the sacrament. The last two lines of the verse are worth noting here:
Faith our outward sense befriending,
makes our inward vision clear.1
This practice, which some find execrable and others dubious, is one I and many find helpful, precisely as a focus for our faith in Christ, and his gift for us and to us.
As for Corpus Christi processions and the like, I’m not convinced that they lead to reverence. I think they tend to a triumphalism at odds with the humility of self-giving represented in the sacrament. So I’d be very dubious about engaging in them. But I would note that some historians, at least, seem to think that in the high mediaeval period they were a significant reaffirmation of corporate Christian society, and a celebration of its communal life constituted by equal access to and gift from Christ and not simply by the feudal structures. I don’t know enough history to know how well supported this view was. But I can see, if this is true, why neither the rising class sense of the merchant bourgeoisie, nor the absolutism of the Tudor monarchs would have been terribly comfortable with it. I don’t think I’m prepared or equipped to argue the rights and wrongs of it historically, any more than I would want to argue for doing it today.
Notes- St Thomas Aquinas Tantum ergo, tr. E Caswall [↩]
November 1st, 2007 at 7:20 am
doug–
if the second epiclesis is in any way true, or at least of great value, then the reserved sacrament is a ‘half-way point,’ not an end in itself. if we bow to the tabernacle in reverence to the presence of christ, we should, at a minimum, kiss the feet of each other as the ‘end product’ of this sacrament.
or at least get out of the packed parking lot without a harsh word.
peace–
scott
November 1st, 2007 at 11:22 am
Is there a difference between treating the reserved sacraments with respect, and treating them with devotion? We reserve the sacrament - for the purposes of sick communion - which is a reasonably well-attested patristic practice. Yet the devotional aspects associated with Corpus Christi (eg monstrances) seem to be a radical innovation of the Middle Ages, born of the revolution in Eucharistic thought. So whilst I’m very happy with the former, the latter seems to me to undermine most of what the Eucharist is about. I wrote a bit more about this here.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
I think there are ways of doing most things which can either undermine or build up. I would become more concerned if a service of eucharistic exposition and meditation became dominant rather than an occasional adjunct to foster devotion to Christ. (And it does seem to me that this was a problem in the Middle Ages)
November 1st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Doug, I cannot agree that “reservation is unexceptional”. If it is indeed accepted by all in the Church of England (actually I don’t think it is by evangelicals), that is a sign of how far the church has departed not only from the obvious intention (even if not quite spelled out) of the Article, but also from the nature and intention of the Lord’s Supper as originally intended by Jesus and the early church, which was a fellowship meal.
In my church elements are not reserved and “Extended Communion” is never practised. If it were offered I would not take part and I would expect most of the congregation to join me. For I don’t accept that there is any lasting change in the elements, a concept which has more to do with magic than Christianity.
If there is a shortage of priests to administer communion, then authorise more people to do so. If that implies ordaining them, then ordain them. Is there really a good reason, other than tradition, why readers and others in officially recognised lay ministry in the church, are not ordained and so authorised to celebrate the Eucharist?
November 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Actually, Peter, when I was at St John’s Nottingham (over 20 years ago now) it was common practice for the elements to be put aside after the main weekly Eucharist, and usually following dinner, to be taken to anyone who was ill (for more than a few days) by members of their tutor group so that they could receive. This immediacy is not often practicable in parishes, so reservation is extended over, say, the course of the week, but the point is still the same. The sick, by extension, join in the main Eucharist of the community. I would have thought, even by your theology, this is acceptable as an extension of the “fellowship meal.” Obviously, we disagree on what change happens to the elements. I think Cranmer agreed with you, but his revisers, I think, allowed for a range of theories. I think also, myself that Jesus intended more than a “fellowship meal” and that it meant more in the early church than simply that, though it was that as well. (I will have more to say on that theme in a subsequent article)
November 1st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
doug–
i often feel that rules, even rules laid out passively and gently (’if christ didn’t ask it, we shouldn’t do it’), are often in response to past problems. historically, what problems or abuses is this clause in reaction to? and if not reactive, what perceived problems or abuses, either actual, theoretical, or theological, was it written proactively for?
scott
November 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
peter–
what abuses do you feel are at issue here?
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Doug, I can accept the practice of taking to the sick in their rooms portions of the fellowship meal. I suppose it is OK to feed them the leftovers a few days later if there is really no alternative, and a shortage of priests is not a good excuse. My real problem of course, the abuse I see at issue, is with any idea of setting up the elements as idols to be worshipped in place of God himself. That was rightly rejected by Cranmer and should continue to be rejected by the church.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
OK, Peter. You might see it as “idols to be worshipped”: I hope you will at least grant that those who do use the reserved sacrament as a devotional focus (as those who use, e.g. icons) do not believe that is what they are doing, but rather worshipping God through Christ, by means of these instruments of grace. You are still free to believe (wrongly, in my view, as you will realise) that it’s a bad way to do it
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
[...] from me on so many things”. Well, yes, we have big differences on a few issues, such as reservation and adoration of the eucharistic elements. But in fact as brothers in Christ we think very similarly on far more issues - although I [...]