The Eucharist

[lunamoth]

What I have always found interesting is that if you read the 39 articles of faith as given by the Anglican communion , You can easily see that these are mainline protestant statements, even anti catholic in nature.
If you read the catechism of the Anglican communion You get no such understanding.

Very few Anglicans or even our priest give much emphasis to the articles... That is if a lay person ever reads them at all.

I personally find that I do not believe many of them, nor feel obliged to do so.. If I did I would more likely be a Calvinist or Lutheran.

In my life time I have not noticed a moving away from belief in the articles; more an almost total ignorance of them.
The reaction of many Church of England goers,on being presented with them, would be almost a Disbelief that they applied to their church.

Very good points Terry. The Articles are viewed as of historical importance to the formation of the Church of England, but not as "Articles of Faith" the way that term is often applied. They are not a Confession, and Anglican Priests are not asked to swear to uphold them, nor are the rest of us. It is part of the discussion about the new Anglican Covenant that the Articles are an historically important document, but if there is a move to make them more like a confession that would cause some problems I think.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Anglicans are united by our form of worship moreso than by dogma, and the BCP outlines our worship. It's an interesting topic which I'm happy to discuss, but not to debate.

Interesting, Luna, thanks for the perspective. However, to me worship bears a direct correlation onto dogma...how does the ECUSA separate the two? Are there any central beliefs that one must hold to be an Episcopalian anymore?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Interesting, Luna, thanks for the perspective. However, to me worship bears a direct correlation onto dogma...how does the ECUSA separate the two? Are there any central beliefs that one must hold to be an Episcopalian anymore?

The Anglican church teaches its young the Catechism, as their introduction to the church and leading up to their confirmation. I do not know any church that teaches the 39 articles.
The Catechism bares a powerful relationship to the BCP which is used as the basis for our services.


Another interesting point is, that many individual Anglican parishes rarely use the BCP as it stands, for their servicesthey use variations that have been approved By their Dioceses, and or By their Arch Bishop....These are sometimes shortened versions of services, or ones using more modern language, but following the same outline.

For instance some churches the choir sing the psalms
Others the Choir and congregation sing them.
In the parish church I go to now,They are read following the first lesson and the congregation say a Responsorial verse between each verse.( this is traditional here.)

The whole running of the church is democratic.
from the local parish council to the various general synods that make the major decisions.

Any changes to the understanding of dogma or its application to church life takes place in the two houses of the Synod (both lay and clergy ,and of the Bishops must agree) It is these that had to agree the ordination of women.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Interesting, Luna, thanks for the perspective. However, to me worship bears a direct correlation onto dogma...how does the ECUSA separate the two? Are there any central beliefs that one must hold to be an Episcopalian anymore?

Answering your question in another way..
Any person Baptised as a trinitarian...This would include Catholic, Orthodox ,and most protestant churches.
Can take full part in all our services including Communion. ( their own churches may not agree with this , but that is another matter.)

How ever some one who is not Baptised as a trinitarian would need to be Baptised again. before taking communion.
Baptism is the entry point of the church which as an adult would include instruction in the Catechism.

Very many Anglicans are never Confirmed as full members of the church, Though this is desirable.
Confirmation entails further instruction in all aspects of Anglican belief and the spiritual meaning of being confirmed. Confirmation is always a public service, with the laying on of hands by a Bishop, followed by Holy Communion

 

[lunamoth]

Interesting, Luna, thanks for the perspective. However, to me worship bears a direct correlation onto dogma...how does the ECUSA separate the two? Are there any central beliefs that one must hold to be an Episcopalian anymore?

Our central beliefs are summed in the Nicene Creed and the Catechism.

I'm going again quote from Webber, not because he is an 'authority' but because he well explains the Anglican approach to worship and theology.

Episcopalians find their unity primarily in worship, an experience that lifts them beyond language and logic, but theology has to do with language and logic. It is not surprising, then, that Episcopalians do theology differently than do the members of many other churches. Episcopalians do care very much about language but they draw the language of theology primarily from the experience of worship and the language they use in speaking to God rather than about God.

...

Doing theology, then, is not an isolated activity for Episcopalians. Those who still know Latin will quote the ancient saying, "lex orandi, lex credendi," which means, freely translated, "prayer shapes beleif." Christians' prayer and worship are, of course, shaped by what they believe, but for Episcopalians, what we believe is often learned through worhsip. Roman Catholics have traditionally turned to Thomas Aquinas as a primary theological authority while Lutherans have turned to Martin Luther and Presbyterians and members of the reformed churches to Johm Calvin. TRhe only comparable figure in Anglicanism is Thomas Cranmer, who was not a theologian but who produced the first Book of Common Prayer. Episcopalians may come to a discussion of theology later thn other Christians, but might argue that they do it better as a result of coming to it through worship.
The way Episcopalians do theology grows out of the primary Anglican conern for worship. Worship for example, is inclusive, not exclusive, while theology, by its nature, excludes. Theology is concerned with defining issues and boundaries, with saying we believe this and not that. Worship, on the other hand, like great music and art, can be appreciated on many levels and in many ways. Art, music, and worship are difficult to define in words and it would be difficult to say that someone wholese appreciation is different from ours is wrong. Worship then, has the ability to unite, to draw us in and draw us together.
Episcopalians, as a result of this approach, have an inclusive understanding of the church. We baptize infants rather than limiting membership, as the Puritans did and as some other shurches still do, to those who have had a conversion experience. We are not likely to quiz our fellow members about the depth or sincerity of their beliefs. Queen Elizabeth I once said, "I will not make windows into men's souls." Her concern was that the nation be united in worship but that no questions be asked as to why exactly people were there or what precisely they bleived. If they were in the same building, using the same prayer book, that would provide a solid foundation on which Christians could build a mature faith.
Theology relies on language in is attempt to understand religious experience, and those who worship God know how dificult it is to put that experience into words. God is always beyond our definitions. That will be frustrating to those who want precise answers to all their questions but liberating to those who feel restricted and unsatisfied by some of the answers they have been given in the past. Definitive answers block off further inquiry, but limited answers stimulate the serach for better answers and should lead to a lifelong process of growth and a thirst for a fuller knowledge of God that can only be fully satisfied hereafter in God's presence."

 

[James the Persian]

Answering your question in another way..
Any person Baptised as a trinitarian...This would include Catholic, Orthodox ,and most protestant churches.
Can take full part in all our services including Communion. ( their own churches may not agree with this , but that is another matter.)

How ever some one who is not Baptised as a trinitarian would need to be Baptised again. before taking communion.
Baptism is the entry point of the church which as an adult would include instruction in the Catechism.

Very many Anglicans are never Confirmed as full members of the church, Though this is desirable.
Confirmation entails further instruction in all aspects of Anglican belief and the spiritual meaning of being confirmed. Confirmation is always a public service, with the laying on of hands by a Bishop, followed by Holy Communion

I thought Anglican confirmation was required for someone to take the Eucharist in an Anglican church, just as it is in a Roman Catholic church and Chrismation is for us (though that's usually a moot point for us people are Chrismated immediately after baptism normally)? I know that that was certainly the case at my school (a military school in Dover) where the main chapel was Anglican. It was reasonably high church, though not excessively so - didn't seem overly much like an RC church to my Lutheran eyes. Maybe that was the reason, though I recall you saying that you were high church, so maybe not. Certainly there was no form of open communion, not even for other Trinitarians.

I'd also have to say that I've seen no evidence of such at the Community of the Resurrection in Mirfield, which is where we have our parish (their generosity is greatly appreciated). Of course, in the latter instance that may be due to their realisation that our ecclesiology would not allow us to partake even if it were offered, but I'm still surprised at your suggestion that open communion is normal in Anglicanism. I always thought it was an innovation confined to the low church/evangelical end.

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I thought Anglican confirmation was required for someone to take the Eucharist in an Anglican church, just as it is in a Roman Catholic church and Chrismation is for us (though that's usually a moot point for us people are Chrismated immediately after baptism normally)? I know that that was certainly the case at my school (a military school in Dover) where the main chapel was Anglican. It was reasonably high church, though not excessively so - didn't seem overly much like an RC church to my Lutheran eyes. Maybe that was the reason, though I recall you saying that you were high church, so maybe not. Certainly there was no form of open communion, not even for other Trinitarians.

I'd also have to say that I've seen no evidence of such at the Community of the Resurrection in Mirfield, which is where we have our parish (their generosity is greatly appreciated). Of course, in the latter instance that may be due to their realisation that our ecclesiology would not allow us to partake even if it were offered, but I'm still surprised at your suggestion that open communion is normal in Anglicanism. I always thought it was an innovation confined to the low church/evangelical end.

James

Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you.

How ever views change in Anglican Understanding. If you read Lunamoth's post above you will understand rather more how Anglicans think.

When I was a Boy you had to be confirmed to take communion.
It was taken as read that Communion was a necessary "sacrament" before you were able to take communion.

Today after further consideration it is thought there is no proven link between Confirmation and Communion. But there has to be a full understanding of the significance of taking communion, and a desire to Follow Jesus's command to do so in memory of him. (he did not say just the confirmed)

There are still some older Anglican Priests that will not offer communion on these new understandings. They are dwindling in numbers and are in the minority.
Equally there are Congregations that will not allow it. ( democracy in action perhaps)

The present understanding, that Baptism is the one and only sacrament necessary to be a member of Gods church has lead to further changes...

The latest step in allowing unconfirmed children to take communion has made the process speed up further. The process in the Church of England works like this....

The General Synod agreed that there was no impediment to unconfirmed children taking communion.
Local parish councils are required to talk to their congregations about it and then vote on whether to embrace this in their own parish.
The result of the vote is passed to their Bishop who assesses their training programme and gives the authority for them to do it.

Our parish opted to go for this process last year and it is now in operation.



As far as normal Communion services go. The Priest usually says at the start of the service. " Those who are accustomed to take Communion in their own churches are welcome to come forward and take it here" Those who would prefer a blessing may come forward holding a service book"

This makes it quite clear to visitors what the position is.

This general position in relation to communion is now common in all extremes of the church .. From High Anglo Catholic to the ultra low.

Fifty years ago the main services in an Anglican church and to which most people went, were morning prayer and Evensong. To Day these are fairly unusual and have been replaced by The communion Service. This more than anything else has changed our attitude to who may partake. This is now a service of inclusion not exclusion.

As Lunamoth pointed out Anglicans base their understands more on the practice of worship rather than Dogma. this has resulted in a very broad church.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Our central beliefs are summed in the Nicene Creed and the Catechism.

I'm going again quote from Webber, not because he is an 'authority' but because he well explains the Anglican approach to worship and theology.

Episcopalians find their unity primarily in worship, an experience that lifts them beyond language and logic, but theology has to do with language and logic. It is not surprising, then, that Episcopalians do theology differently than do the members of many other churches. Episcopalians do care very much about language but they draw the language of theology primarily from the experience of worship and the language they use in speaking to God rather than about God.

...

Doing theology, then, is not an isolated activity for Episcopalians. Those who still know Latin will quote the ancient saying, "lex orandi, lex credendi," which means, freely translated, "prayer shapes beleif." Christians' prayer and worship are, of course, shaped by what they believe, but for Episcopalians, what we believe is often learned through worhsip. Roman Catholics have traditionally turned to Thomas Aquinas as a primary theological authority while Lutherans have turned to Martin Luther and Presbyterians and members of the reformed churches to Johm Calvin. TRhe only comparable figure in Anglicanism is Thomas Cranmer, who was not a theologian but who produced the first Book of Common Prayer. Episcopalians may come to a discussion of theology later thn other Christians, but might argue that they do it better as a result of coming to it through worship.
The way Episcopalians do theology grows out of the primary Anglican conern for worship. Worship for example, is inclusive, not exclusive, while theology, by its nature, excludes. Theology is concerned with defining issues and boundaries, with saying we believe this and not that. Worship, on the other hand, like great music and art, can be appreciated on many levels and in many ways. Art, music, and worship are difficult to define in words and it would be difficult to say that someone wholese appreciation is different from ours is wrong. Worship then, has the ability to unite, to draw us in and draw us together.
Episcopalians, as a result of this approach, have an inclusive understanding of the church. We baptize infants rather than limiting membership, as the Puritans did and as some other shurches still do, to those who have had a conversion experience. We are not likely to quiz our fellow members about the depth or sincerity of their beliefs. Queen Elizabeth I once said, "I will not make windows into men's souls." Her concern was that the nation be united in worship but that no questions be asked as to why exactly people were there or what precisely they bleived. If they were in the same building, using the same prayer book, that would provide a solid foundation on which Christians could build a mature faith.
Theology relies on language in is attempt to understand religious experience, and those who worship God know how dificult it is to put that experience into words. God is always beyond our definitions. That will be frustrating to those who want precise answers to all their questions but liberating to those who feel restricted and unsatisfied by some of the answers they have been given in the past. Definitive answers block off further inquiry, but limited answers stimulate the serach for better answers and should lead to a lifelong process of growth and a thirst for a fuller knowledge of God that can only be fully satisfied hereafter in God's presence."

That is a quite excellent post ... Clear as a bell to me... but probably totally confusing to a dogmatic or Bible only Christian.

The more you understand the Anglican Church the more you see the genius of Thomas Cranmer. I had forgotten that quote Queen Elizabeth, But warring religions should note her words and apply the principle to their own circumstances.

 

[James the Persian]

Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you.

How ever views change in Anglican Understanding. If you read Lunamoth's post above you will understand rather more how Anglicans think.

When I was a Boy you had to be confirmed to take communion.
It was taken as read that Communion was a necessary "sacrament" before you were able to take communion.

Today after further consideration it is thought there is no proven link between Confirmation and Communion. But there has to be a full understanding of the significance of taking communion, and a desire to Follow Jesus's command to do so in memory of him. (he did not say just the confirmed)

There are still some older Anglican Priests that will not offer communion on these new understandings. They are dwindling in numbers and are in the minority.
Equally there are Congregations that will not allow it. ( democracy in action perhaps)

The present understanding, that Baptism is the one and only sacrament necessary to be a member of Gods church has lead to further changes...

The latest step in allowing unconfirmed children to take communion has made the process speed up further. The process in the Church of England works like this....

The General Synod agreed that there was no impediment to unconfirmed children taking communion.
Local parish councils are required to talk to their congregations about it and then vote on whether to embrace this in their own parish.
The result of the vote is passed to their Bishop who assesses their training programme and gives the authority for them to do it.

Our parish opted to go for this process last year and it is now in operation.



As far as normal Communion services go. The Priest usually says at the start of the service. " Those who are accustomed to take Communion in their own churches are welcome to come forward and take it here" Those who would prefer a blessing may come forward holding a service book"

This makes it quite clear to visitors what the position is.

This general position in relation to communion is now common in all extremes of the church .. From High Anglo Catholic to the ultra low.

Fifty years ago the main services in an Anglican church and to which most people went, were morning prayer and Evensong. To Day these are fairly unusual and have been replaced by The communion Service. This more than anything else has changed our attitude to who may partake. This is now a service of inclusion not exclusion.

As Lunamoth pointed out Anglicans base their understands more on the practice of worship rather than Dogma. this has resulted in a very broad church.

Interesting. I only left school in '94, though, and the chaplain there didn't retire until several years later, so the attitude there certainly wouldn't have changed until 10 years ago at the earliest. I actually very much doubt that it has changed to this day, though I might be wrong. I'm surprised to hear what you say is true amongst the Anglo-Catholic lot, though. There's a very high church (seems more Catholic than our local RC church) congregation in my mother's village, and I seriously couldn't imagine them practicing open communion, or forgoing confirmation. But then, you didn't say such parishes had vanished entirely.

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Interesting. I only left school in '94, though, and the chaplain there didn't retire until several years later, so the attitude there certainly wouldn't have changed until 10 years ago at the earliest. I actually very much doubt that it has changed to this day, though I might be wrong. I'm surprised to hear what you say is true amongst the Anglo-Catholic lot, though. There's a very high church (seems more Catholic than our local RC church) congregation in my mother's village, and I seriously couldn't imagine them practicing open communion, or forgoing confirmation. But then, you didn't say such parishes had vanished entirely.

James

The crux of the matter was the Communion service becoming the main Service. Rather than a separate service held either before or after morning Prayer.

This became a problem for the thousands of worshippers who were not confirmed.
They were feeling to a large extent excluded; when previously they were a significant and important part of the congregation.
For a worship based denomination this was critical.
Church attendance of those people reduced drastically. Not through lack of faith but by perceived exclusion.

Change was inevitable and is still in process.

The Church has not forgone Confirmation it holds the same spiritual meaning... It is still necessary, for you to be able vote, or to hold an official post or function in the church. It is Just the link with communion that is broken.

Even most Anglo Catholics have realised it does not change their worship in any way.
All their practices and services remain the same.
It was the dominant use of the Communion service that spread out from the new young Anglo Catholic priests to the church at large, that perhaps precipitated the change in the first place.

Up to that time it was not unusual for some churches to hold morning communion services only once or twice a month.

On a separate point The various Church seminaries each teach their own " brand" of Anglicanism. There is, to day, a slight predominance of Anglo Catholic students,over all others. It is now very difficult to find a very low church... I would not know where to find one. One of the retired relief Priests who sometimes comes to our church will not even use the same books as our own priest ... he calls them papist.

 

[James the Persian]

The crux of the matter was the Communion service becoming the main Service. Rather than a separate service held either before or after morning Prayer.

This became a problem for the thousands of worshippers who were not confirmed.
They were feeling to a large extent excluded; when previously they were a significant and important part of the congregation.
For a worship based denomination this was critical.
Church attendance of those people reduced drastically. Not through lack of faith but by perceived exclusion.

Change was inevitable and is still in process.

The Church has not forgone Confirmation it holds the same spiritual meaning... It is still necessary, for you to be able vote, or to hold an official post or function in the church. It is Just the link with communion that is broken.

Even most Anglo Catholics have realised it does not change their worship in any way.
All their practices and services remain the same.
It was the dominant use of the Communion service that spread out from the new young Anglo Catholic priests to the church at large, that perhaps precipitated the change in the first place.

Up to that time it was not unusual for some churches to hold morning communion services only once or twice a month.

On a separate point The various Church seminaries each teach their own " brand" of Anglicanism. There is, to day, a slight predominance of Anglo Catholic students,over all others. It is now very difficult to find a very low church... I would not know where to find one. One of the retired relief Priests who sometimes comes to our church will not even use the same books as our own priest ... he calls them papist.

Obviously, as we have Chrismation immediately after baptism, we don't have exactly this problem (if you aren't Chrismated you can at best be a catechumen, not really Orthodox) but the Eucharist is and always has been central to the Liturgy and we do have many people present who do not receive because they cannot (you must prepare by fasting and confession in our Church, unless you are very young) and yet they don't feel excluded. What is it exactly, do you think, that made people feel excluded simply because they couldn't receive and why wasn't confirmation encouraged rather than the reverse?

I hope that I don't appear to be badgering you. I'm just interested in the reasoning. Seeing as our parish is hosted by an Anglican seminary-cum-monastery (I'm not sure really what the correct terminology is but it trains priests and includes a community of monastics) I would like to understand their position if possible. They are nice people who occasionally attend our Liturgy, but the gulf between us often seems vast, which is a shame as by all accounts in the '30s we were very close to a reconcilliation (to the point where the Antiochian Patriarch allowed diaspora Orthodox to take Anglican communion if they couldn't get to an Orthodox church).

On a more personal note, do you regret the change, or see it as a good thing? Do you think perhaps that it might have been better to return to the ancient practice (both western and eastern) of having both sacraments together and then communing infants? What do you think might have happened if you had something like the antidoron (blessed bread distributed to all in Orthodox churches) or an annointing with myron (peculiarly Romanian, this tradition, but one I love) as part of the service? Might something like that have served to make people feel more included (I don't mean those exact things necessarily)?

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Obviously, as we have Chrismation immediately after baptism, we don't have exactly this problem (if you aren't Chrismated you can at best be a catechumen, not really Orthodox) but the Eucharist is and always has been central to the Liturgy and we do have many people present who do not receive because they cannot (you must prepare by fasting and confession in our Church, unless you are very young) and yet they don't feel excluded. What is it exactly, do you think, that made people feel excluded simply because they couldn't receive and why wasn't confirmation encouraged rather than the reverse?

I hope that I don't appear to be badgering you. I'm just interested in the reasoning. Seeing as our parish is hosted by an Anglican seminary-cum-monastery (I'm not sure really what the correct terminology is but it trains priests and includes a community of monastics) I would like to understand their position if possible. They are nice people who occasionally attend our Liturgy, but the gulf between us often seems vast, which is a shame as by all accounts in the '30s we were very close to a reconcilliation (to the point where the Antiochian Patriarch allowed diaspora Orthodox to take Anglican communion if they couldn't get to an Orthodox church).

On a more personal note, do you regret the change, or see it as a good thing? Do you think perhaps that it might have been better to return to the ancient practice (both western and eastern) of having both sacraments together and then communing infants? What do you think might have happened if you had something like the antidoron (blessed bread distributed to all in Orthodox churches) or an annointing with myron (peculiarly Romanian, this tradition, but one I love) as part of the service? Might something like that have served to make people feel more included (I don't mean those exact things necessarily)?

James

Can you tell me what a Chrismation is? I am wondering if in fact it is anything like our Confirmation. At what age do you Baptise? and or Chrismate.

In our church it is usual to Baptise infants, and not confirm till between about ten and fifteen ( some much later as adults). as it include considerable instruction and understanding it can not be done before this. What is the position of children in your church. Do they take communion or not?

In the early English church Children and every one took communion... It was only much later that Confirmation became a requirement. ( sorry no dates I have asked with no result) In a way you can say we are going back to the old way.

In my youth Communion was always before breakfast.( Fasting).. but that went the way of all things. Confession is available, but most people Just say the General confession as part of the service

Anglican seminary-cum-monastery

as these were mostly established a very long time ago; mostly in monasteries or in Oxford or Cambridge, I don't think there is a single term for a priests training school. They seem to be all called by the name of the foundation and you have to guess what they are????
Though they probably have their full title by their gateway.

They each have a very distinct character and teach priests that suit the various types
Of Anglican. It sounds like yours are very high church... they would of course answer to the Arch Bishop of York not Canterbury. ( as we do.) This is a very ancient divide.
The arch bishop of York usually replaces that of Canterbury ( If he out lives him.)

As to your question why did people feel excluded?..... I think any one accustomed to taking a full part in their main weekly service were not exactly happy about being excluded for the major part of a service for the first time in their lives. It also hit very hard those who were returning to the church after some years, who found the new format strange. and exclusive. Not at all what they had been accustomed to.

To help with this problem of returnees... Our own church has reverted to the old words of the Lords Prayer which every one knew from their child hood.

in the '30s we were very close to a reconciliation (to the point where the Antiochian Patriarch allowed diaspora Orthodox to take Anglican communion if they couldn't get to an Orthodox church).

A shame indeed.. I think some of the ideas are not that different and there is a lot of sympathy between the churches. However there have been many changes since then
And our adoption of women Priests has somewhat settled the matter for a long time.

I do not know if the Episcopalian's have followed the same pattern as the Church of England. I do know their equivalent to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury is now a woman.
Whilst we have only got to the stage of agreeing that there is no impediment to women Bishops.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some useful information in simple words from the Church of England Site

You will see that On Baptism a child is anointed with oil to receive the holy spirit.. I think this is done at your chrismation? I would say that that is the reason Confirmation ( which is not a Sacrament) is not necessary to take communion.
(It is more like a personal renewal of vows.)

at one time only Bishops were permitted to anoint ( today all priests have oil consecrated by a Bishop and use that.

I have only known adult Baptism done by a bishop this has always been combined with confirmation, and take place at the same time as candidates for confirmation present themselves.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/baptismconfirm/sectionc.html
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/baptismconfirm/baptism1.html

 

[James the Persian]

Some useful information in simple words from the Church of England Site

You will see that On Baptism a child is anointed with oil to receive the holy spirit.. I think this is done at your chrismation? I would say that that is the reason Confirmation ( which is not a Sacrament) is not necessary to take communion.
(It is more like a personal renewal of vows.)

at one time only Bishops were permitted to anoint ( today all priests have oil consecrated by a Bishop and use that.

I have only known adult Baptism done by a bishop this has always been combined with confirmation, and take place at the same time as candidates for confirmation present themselves.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/baptismconfirm/sectionc.html
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/baptismconfirm/baptism1.html

That's very interesting. I never knew this. Chrismation is, indeed, being annointed with oil as the seal of the Holy Spirit. It happens immediately after baptism and this is usually as an infant (in fact it should be as a very small infant indeed - it's normal for us to baptise a few weeks after birth, not as late as some western ones I've seen). Anyone who is baptised and Chrismated can take the Eucharist so long as they are prepared (children are exempt from fasting and confession until they get older), so first communion is usually directly after Chrismation (in the case of infants, this is only the Blood at first, later Blood with small crumbs of the Body and later still just like the adults). The strange thing about what you say here is that RC confirmation is a post-Schism alteration of the pre-Schism practice which was identical to ours, so confirmation = Chrismation, just at a different time. From what you say, in Anglicanism, confirmation is more of a re-affirmation of commitment and the sacrament of sealing with the Spirit (by whatever name you call it) was already performed at baptism. If this is indeed the case, then your practice is rather more similar to ours than I thought (though the closest we would come to a confirmation would be first confession, which in some local traditions is a big deal, in others less so). Very interesting discussion.

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That's very interesting. I never knew this. Chrismation is, indeed, being annointed with oil as the seal of the Holy Spirit. It happens immediately after baptism and this is usually as an infant (in fact it should be as a very small infant indeed - it's normal for us to baptise a few weeks after birth, not as late as some western ones I've seen). Anyone who is baptised and Chrismated can take the Eucharist so long as they are prepared (children are exempt from fasting and confession until they get older), so first communion is usually directly after Chrismation (in the case of infants, this is only the Blood at first, later Blood with small crumbs of the Body and later still just like the adults). The strange thing about what you say here is that RC confirmation is a post-Schism alteration of the pre-Schism practice which was identical to ours, so confirmation = Chrismation, just at a different time. From what you say, in Anglicanism, confirmation is more of a re-affirmation of commitment and the sacrament of sealing with the Spirit (by whatever name you call it) was already performed at baptism. If this is indeed the case, then your practice is rather more similar to ours than I thought (though the closest we would come to a confirmation would be first confession, which in some local traditions is a big deal, in others less so). Very interesting discussion.

James

I am glad we got that sorted....
I would love to find out when and why we went back to the Pre-schism practice after we left the ranks of the Roman Church.
But I am Glad we did.

I was discussing this before communion last night, and some thought it was probably To do with the number of bishops and how far they could ride in a day?

At one time Bishops Did virtually all Christenings in Catholic England... As time went on more churches were built and they could only get to visit an individual church once a year. So the local Priest did the Baptism and The Bishop Followed up once a year and did the anointing and confirmation.
When the anointing was taken up by local priests, The link between Communion and confirmation was broken... though the practice of Communion waiting till after confirmation remained. It is only in recent years that this was challenged and found to be an unreasonable condition.

I wonder if was because the Orthodox asked the question when we were much closer in the 30's... as their young people would have expected to take communion with their parents.... and they certainly would have asked why not. If that is the case we owe you all a favour. (Just a theory)

 

[James the Persian]

I am glad we got that sorted....
I would love to find out when and why we went back to the Pre-schism practice after we left the ranks of the Roman Church.
But I am Glad we did.

I was discussing this before communion last night, and some thought it was probably To do with the number of bishops and how far they could ride in a day?

At one time Bishops Did virtually all Christenings in Catholic England... As time went on more churches were built and they could only get to visit an individual church once a year. So the local Priest did the Baptism and The Bishop Followed up once a year and did the anointing and confirmation.
When the anointing was taken up by local priests, The link between Communion and confirmation was broken... though the practice of Communion waiting till after confirmation remained. It is only in recent years that this was challenged and found to be an unreasonable condition.

I wonder if was because the Orthodox asked the question when we were much closer in the 30's... as their young people would have expected to take communion with their parents.... and they certainly would have asked why not. If that is the case we owe you all a favour. (Just a theory)

We also had the thing with bishops, where originally they would have done baptisms and the like, rather than the priests, I believe. I suspect that for us the practice would have changed rather earlier, though, as eastern dioceses would have very rapidly become unmanageably large in comparison to western ones (imagine the difference between say Constantinople and London in the 8th century, for instance - the east was much more of an urban population). I'm not exactly sure when the changes took place, but our myron (that's the oil used for Chrismation, and in the Romanian case only - so far as I know - blessing the congregation at the end of the Liturgy) is all produced by the Patriarchate (so Bucharest for us), once a year and then distributed to all the priests and bishops, so that's not really different from your practice (except that it would be like everyone in the Church of England getting oil produced once a year at Canterbury). I am intrigued, though, to know some more details. Is your oil just oil or does it contain other ingredients? I know myron contains a whole host of other things, though I don't know the details. Also, how is the sealing done? In Chrismation, we are sealed on forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, breast, hands and feet.

You might be interested in this article on our practice:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chrismation

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We also had the thing with bishops, where originally they would have done baptisms and the like, rather than the priests, I believe. I suspect that for us the practice would have changed rather earlier, though, as eastern dioceses would have very rapidly become unmanageably large in comparison to western ones (imagine the difference between say Constantinople and London in the 8th century, for instance - the east was much more of an urban population). I'm not exactly sure when the changes took place, but our myron (that's the oil used for Chrismation, and in the Romanian case only - so far as I know - blessing the congregation at the end of the Liturgy) is all produced by the Patriarchate (so Bucharest for us), once a year and then distributed to all the priests and bishops, so that's not really different from your practice (except that it would be like everyone in the Church of England getting oil produced once a year at Canterbury). I am intrigued, though, to know some more details. Is your oil just oil or does it contain other ingredients? I know myron contains a whole host of other things, though I don't know the details. Also, how is the sealing done? In Chrismation, we are sealed on forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, breast, hands and feet.

You might be interested in this article on our practice:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chrismation

James

During Christening the oil is used to mark a simple cross on the forehead, though I have known priests to be more elaborate ( no rule against it )

I have been quite unable to find out what it contains... it is always under lock and key so I can't even get a sniff of it. It is the same oil that is used in all anointing.... It was used by the Bishop to anoint the altar I made.... though he used his own supply not the churches. As these things are bought from the large appointed Christian supply houses, I expect it is the same oil that Catholics and Orthodox use.


The Canons also lay down that Christians from churches in which confirmation is not performed by a bishop need to be confirmed by a bishop if they wish formally to be admitted into the Church of England.

I found this on the Anglican site

Those who have been confirmed in a church whose ministerial orders are recognised and accepted by the Church of England and in which confirmation is performed by a bishop, or by a priest acting on the bishop’s behalf and using chrism blessed by the bishop, do not need to be confirmed. They are simply received into the Church of England instead.

I would read this as that those who have been anointed during Christening/Confirmation by their own church. Can be simply received into the Church of England.

Whilst they say they do not need confirming.... I have seen it done during a confirmation service as a separate more simplified ceremony.

Of course lots of people from other churches simply come through the door and start attending services.
They may or may not ever take the step of officially becoming members of the church. ( It depends on whether they want to become more involved in the church.)

 

[James the Persian]

I have been quite unable to find out what it contains... it is always under lock and key so I can't even get a sniff of it. It is the same oil that is used in all anointing....

You should visit us in Mirfield one Sunday - you'd definitely get a sniff of myron then - the whole congregation smells of it for hours afterwards. It's quite perfumed, but not like anything else I've ever smelled. I think we use this for all annointings (annointing the sick etc. for instance) also, though the Greeks also use straight olive oil to rub the person with before baptism (a practice which is apparently symbolic of readying yourself for combat with the devil and is based on the preparations of Greek athletes).

It was used by the Bishop to anoint the altar I made.... though he used his own supply not the churches. As these things are bought from the large appointed Christian supply houses, I expect it is the same oil that Catholics and Orthodox use.

Well, I have no knowledge of what the RCs use or whether it's the same as ours, but I can say that you certainly can't get myron from any supplier other than your bishop, who receives his supply from the Patriarchate. And the only person who can get a supply at all is the priest.

This has been a very interesting discussion. If you can put up with a mostly, but not totally, foreign language service and can make the journey to Mirfield one day, then consider my passing comment to be an invitation - you can then tell me whether my belief that i am a half decent Byzantine chanter is truth or self-delusion! i'm sure everyone would make you very welcome and if you time it right you might even get a veritable feast of Romanian food to try.

James