(Un)instructed Eucharist
Earlier today, I was minding my own business, reading an Episcopal periodical (the letters to the editor section), and discovered several streams of opinions regarding the "central act of worship" for Christians -- the celebration of the Holy Eucharist (Communion).
One writer was distressed that a recent article in that publication concerning the Eucharist had apparently made no mention of "Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection". I'm interested in how such a feat could have been accomplished myself.
Another writer was concerned that the article had reduced the Eucharist to, "a call to political activism", and then goes on to talk about the individual, spiritual and devotional benefits of participaing in the liturgy. The tension between private devotion and communal celebration is a difficult one to manage -- particularly in the atomized society of suburban North Americans where the "self" and the needs of the self are often deemed of paramount importance.
The writer of the third response confessed an inability to receive Eucharist because she hears in the liturgical language a glorification of the slaughter of Christ. The person writing this letter would prefer a rite that makes no mention of Jesus' death at all. This led me to wonder about ways in which we need to wrestle with words like "body", "blood", "sacrifice", "atonement" and "sin" in relationship to the actions around the Table.
From time to time, people ask me about the possibility of offering "instructed Eucharist" -- sort of a regular liturgy with the equivalent of sports announcer-like color commentary. Usually, these requests have much to do with either ceremonial actions (like when one "crosses" oneself) or the names of the various artifacts of the liturgy (paten, purficator, corporal, etc.), or the history and development of the liturgical tradition. I've never had anyone ask me about how the words of the liturgy relate to the Church's theology.
The letters I read this afternoon poignantly reminded me that liturgical teaching is a significant aspect of my role as a priest...and that all of us who teach in the Church (lay and ordained) have our work cut out for us.
Earlier today, I was minding my own business, reading an Episcopal periodical (the letters to the editor section), and discovered several streams of opinions regarding the "central act of worship" for Christians -- the celebration of the Holy Eucharist (Communion).
One writer was distressed that a recent article in that publication concerning the Eucharist had apparently made no mention of "Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection". I'm interested in how such a feat could have been accomplished myself.
Another writer was concerned that the article had reduced the Eucharist to, "a call to political activism", and then goes on to talk about the individual, spiritual and devotional benefits of participaing in the liturgy. The tension between private devotion and communal celebration is a difficult one to manage -- particularly in the atomized society of suburban North Americans where the "self" and the needs of the self are often deemed of paramount importance.
The writer of the third response confessed an inability to receive Eucharist because she hears in the liturgical language a glorification of the slaughter of Christ. The person writing this letter would prefer a rite that makes no mention of Jesus' death at all. This led me to wonder about ways in which we need to wrestle with words like "body", "blood", "sacrifice", "atonement" and "sin" in relationship to the actions around the Table.
From time to time, people ask me about the possibility of offering "instructed Eucharist" -- sort of a regular liturgy with the equivalent of sports announcer-like color commentary. Usually, these requests have much to do with either ceremonial actions (like when one "crosses" oneself) or the names of the various artifacts of the liturgy (paten, purficator, corporal, etc.), or the history and development of the liturgical tradition. I've never had anyone ask me about how the words of the liturgy relate to the Church's theology.
The letters I read this afternoon poignantly reminded me that liturgical teaching is a significant aspect of my role as a priest...and that all of us who teach in the Church (lay and ordained) have our work cut out for us.
posted by FrGaryB | 4:52 PM
3 Comments:
I am repeatedly bashing my head with my 1662 BCP reprint in response to the third "suggestion." Yes, let's get rid of all that awful crucified Jesus stuff and just become sun worshippers.
As Grey Lessesne (remember him?) said at seminary after preparing an instructed Eucharist for St. P's K-st at the time of the epiklesis, "What happens now is none of your business."
I have tried to find another source online for this and have so far failed, but former ABY David Hope has put forward a solid argument (I think) for the place of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in explicating (without actually explaining) Anglican Eucharistic theology. Gary has a copy and can probably Xerox and send if anyone's interested. He uses Macquarrie heavily in the article I am thinking of.
(Yes, I know that particular liturgy can open up a congregational minefield...)
Post a Comment
<< Home