What's wrong with the 2019 Prayer Book?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Father Timothy Matkin examines the issue of the fatal flaw with the 2019 Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). A rubric in the additional directions for the Holy Eucharist (page 141) allows excess consecrated wine to be poured out rather than consumed.
Father Matkin explains why this is a common misconception about the way the sacrament should be handled, but outside the tradition and even a sacrilege.
Please urge your bishop and delegation to vote against adoption of the proposed Prayer Book unless and until the rubric is corrected.
The proposed 2019 Book Common Prayer can be accessed online at the ACNA website.
www.anglicanchurch.net
I have a blog post with additional information, the rubrical history and frequently asked questions:
timotheosprolog...
UPDATE: At the 2019 provincial assembly when the new Prayer Book was introduced, the last sentence of the rubric was changed by the House of Bishops to read: "If any consecrated Bread or Wine remains after the Communion, it may be set aside in a safe place for future reception. Apart from that which is to be set aside, the Priest or Deacon, and other communicants, reverently consume the remaining consecrated Bread, either after the Ministration of Communion or after the Dismissal. The consecrated Wine shall likewise be consumed, except as authorized and directed by the Bishop."
This was changed in second printing to "The consecrated Wine shall likewise be consumed, except as authorized and directed by the Bishop."
I can verify this change has been made!
I have an enate fear of ' Bishop's directions'.
I can confirm that my BCP 2019 has the same correct Rubric as well.
I just don't understand the need for the 2019 BCP. I admit that growing up with the 1928 BCP, and having heard all sort of bad things about the 1979 version. I just don't understand why there was a need to write a new one. The continuum of course sticks to 1928, and the ACNA is a mix of books, but if there is a need to depart from the 1979 book, why not just go back to 1928?
I happen to be a senior citizen and a proud Catholic, but could not help noticing Fr. Timothy's believe in the Blessed Eucharist. He definitely has more than a valid point in the understanding of the Blessed Eucharist.
Also, glad that he made reference to Arch. Fulton Sheen and the story of little Lee. God Bless us all.
I was ordained a Deacon in the Episcopal church 22 years ago and I promise that we always consumed the blood of Christ at the end of the Mass. I always poured a little water in the chalice and consumed that also.
Well said and glad that the change was made.
Besides water and salt going down the sacrarium, the wash water for cleaning the sacred vessels also goes down the sacrarium.
It is January 2019, and a day or two ago I downloaded a PDF of the 2019 BCP from the ACNA Web site. The typo in the table of contents has been fixed, and the sentence in question has been changed to, "The consecrated Wine shall
likewise be consumed, except as authorized and directed by the
Bishop."
You mean January of 2020?
consecrated wine is to be poured out?????????????????? that's so inappropriate so sacrilegious so offensive. its supposed to be consumed reverently by the minister(s) and deacon(s)
I enjoy Fr. Matkin's lectures! I wonder if he read St John Neumann's treatises on the Holy Eucharist. Does his parish have Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament ? Fr. Matkin's lectures are very interesting, I was in the Redemptorist college seminary back in the mid 1970s....the Redemptorist monastery wasn't far from Nashotah House, Wisconsin.
1928 all the way, point blank period.
Page 141 of the 2019 BCP states:
“If the consecrated Bread or Wine does not suffice for the number of communicants, the Celebrant returns to the Holy Table and consecrates more of either or both saying,
“If any consecrated Bread or Wine remains after the Communion, it may be set aside in a safe place for future reception. Apart from that which is to be set aside, the Priest
or Deacon, and other communicants, reverently consume the remaining consecrated Bread, either after the Ministration of Communion or after the Dismissal. The consecrated Wine shall likewise be consumed, except as authorized and directed by the Bishop.”
As I was leaving the RC Church, my last attempt at mainstream Christianity was an Anglican parish. After the liturgy one Sunday, I was asked to go into the church kitchen and pick up some items for the coffee hour. There, in the dish rack by the sink, along with old plates and glasses, were the chalices, full of leftover wine.
It was a clear sign to me that despite all the "Catholic" trappings, these people nothing more than the rankest Protestants. I never went back.
Catriona M. MacKirnan you shouldn’t be judging the way you are. Most ACNA churches are not the way you claim.
I'm doubtful about your description, simply because the eucharistic vessels would not be taken to the church kitchen. There would be no reason for them to leave the sacristy.
Timothy Matkin ? Are you saying that I made this up?
Perhaps you shouldn’t have left Catholic Christianity then
Am now looking at the rubric in my ACNA BCP. Change has been made. Is this, in your opinion, suitable? Thank you, Fr. Timothy.
Why not use the remaining sacrament for visitations.
Well researched and presented, Fr. Matkin. As an Altar Guild member, we are occasionally called to assist with consuming the sacrament. I always felt it a great honor to help.
Some use the 1979 Prayer Book. Some use the 1928 version. Now they have a new version in the works. Why change anything?
Because unlike you in the Episcopal Church, we are orthodox. You are heretical.
@@michaelcaza-schonberger9282 Really? I see women "priests" in the ACNA, so I wouldn't be playing the heresy card bud. The Episcopal Church in America, in communion with Canterbury still bears the marks of the true church, regardless of the bad.
@@Michael_Chandler_Keaton how so?
Yeah, my jaw dropped when I heard the rubric about pouring out the consecrated wine.
The ACNA is too indecisive to be a part of. So much rich tradition and Scriptural reverence within American Anglicanism, and they keep stepping to the side of it.
Because they allow as much autonomy as possible to local parishes. That's a good thing. It's mainly the sexual deviancy that is being avoided.
A church whose main purpose is to sideline, judge, and exclude people for being the way God made them has no valid reason to exist. So, God is Love-except when we say otherwise.
@@dancooper6002 Of course not. They do it to themselves.
The ACC uses 1928 Book of Common Prayer. ACNA In my opinion is not Traditional Anglo Catholic.
Actually, I have to retract my statement. Since I've wrote that comment and come to know more about the ACNA prayer book, it is in fact very Anglo-Catholic and more in line with the 1549 than the 1662.
I've been confirmed in the ACC but because of where I live going to that Church is not an option.
I visited an ACNA last Sunday, and it was very Anglo Catholic, high Church, and reverent. The priest at this Church loves the E. Orthodox Church, and it definitely showed in his homily.
That said I do wonder about the stability of this body because of diversity of understanding of Liturgy, and theology.
The ACNA seems to be a big tent type Anglican Church. The 2019 ACNA BCP has so many prayer options. There are many merits to that. Not everyone is always going to agree, and bickering just leads to Congregationalism is so called "Anglican Churches." In the ACNA, one could take the presences of Jesus Christ in the Holy Communion in or under the elements to just 1 degree away from Transubstantiation. On the flipside, the liturgy could permit the reformed/protestant sacramental theology of real spiritual presence by participation of the people in their heart by faith, but nothing in the elements themselves.
@@Psalm144.1 I think you've accurately described the situation, but that is exactly why I wonder about the stability of this position.
I don't want to go to Liturgy only to find myself in debate with a Calvinist......One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism.
I'm seriously considering the E. Orthodox Church.
Lord bless you 😇.
Joe Rhodes if you go to the E. Orthodox Church, I would greatly respect and appreciate the honesty. It remains to be seen if the Big Tent idea works in the long run. I personally identify with the Protestant and Reformed theology as described in the 39 Articles. Currently, those beliefs are not threatened by Anglo-Catholics or Anglo-Orthodox in the ACNA. But you have to do what your heart believes to be true.
As I understand that the prayer book was approved without change regarding this matter.
shamrock1961 it was changed at the June 2019 house of bishop’s meeting. When the first printing was distributed at the provincial assembly, a sheet of corrections noting typos and the change to the rubric was included.
A. This is what happens when people who have never been Anglicans are ordained without a vetting process (some even made bishops!).
B. My biggest complaint of the 2019 book was its complete lack of beauty in language. It reads as though it was written by a group of theological scholars with no understanding of the beauty in the English language.
C. Since most everything in this book betrays a purely Calvinist view with no regard for Anglicanism's reformed Catholic heritage, YES!, it must be changed. There is already no love for us Anglo-Catholics in ACNA.
Calvinist?! Really? While the book may not be Catholic enough for some Anglo-Catholics, it is far too Catholic for conservative Anglican Evangelicals.
I am saddened for you folk. We had the same problem in the 1976 Prayer Book in Australia: liturgy by committee ...yuck! Thank heaven our new Book is good English and a joy to use. .....by the way Sydney diocese refuse to use it ....did anyone mention Calvinists? Blessings! Fr Dan Octigan
@Karl Webb I'm curious to know what about the 2019 Prayer Book makes it Calvinist? Like what, it includes the 39 Articles in the back? The ACNA 2019 BCP is very much more so like the 1549 than the 1662. For instance, "we offer these gifts of wine and break..." sounds very sacrificial and not as much towards a reformed sacrament as I'd like. No language like that occurs in the 1662 before or during the administration of the Lord's Supper.
Karl Webb, you complain about the BCP 2019, do yourself a favour and look at the train wreck known as the Book of Alternative Services that is the standard prayer book used in the ACC.
The ACNA clergy involved with the 2019 BCP are all from Anglican (Episcopal) backgrounds! You claim that there was no vetting process, yet look at what heretics exist within TEC! John Shelby Spong, Barbie Harris, Kathy Jeffers Schori, Gene Robinson, Mary Glasspool, and Mikey Curry are all people who should have never been ordained as priests, and never should have been consecrated as bishops!
The ACNA exists because of the heretical unorthodoxy of the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) and the Episcopal Church (TEC), we are truly Anglicans!
GAFCON Anglicanism is saving Anglicanism from the heresies being brought into the communion by heretical people such as Spong!
@@michaelcaza-schonberger9282 Thank you for confirming what I probably already knew. I do not belong in ACNA. I'm off to the Continuum. Farewell and God bless.
One of the rubrics from the 1552 prayer book states that the remaining bread and wine was to be used by the priest for his personal use.
"And to take away the supersticion, whiche any person hothe, or myghte have in the bread and wyne, it shall suffyse that the bread bee such, as is usuall to bee eaten at the Table wyth other meates, but the best and purest wheate bread, that conveniently maye be gotten. And yf any of the bread or wine remayne, the Curate shal have it to hys owne use."
And it was clarified that “the bread and wine that remain” are the unused and unconsecrated elements. So that rubric doesn’t address the subject at hand.
@@TimothyMatkin Are you sure? What "supersticion" would there have been with unconsecrated bread?
The Blessed Sacrament must be handled with great reverence and respect. This rubric must be changed!
Michael Rossouw it has been
Please also stop the sacrilege of calling the elements "bread" and "wine." If they are but bread and wine, to hell with them, to paraphrase Flannery OConnor. If they are but bread and wine, it matters not what become of them. Correct your theology and your language will follow. Correct your language and your practice will follow. Much appreciation to this minister for taking this seriously.
Paul called it bread and wine
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
Paul still caked it bread and wine, while also calling it the body and blood of Christ
Do you dare refute The Holy Apostle?
@@ReformedMunk Paul also said if you do not discern the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, you eat and drink condemnation on yourself. Catholics never refer to consecrated wine as just wine, but the Precious Blood. If you call it just wine, you are indicating it is no more than wine. Now that is perfectly acceptable among Anglicans and Episcopalians. You would only dump it out if it were just wine as the new BCP. This is based on a heretical theology. This minister is trying to elevate practice without elevating language. And you cant elevate language without elevating the theology. Sadly, you likely elevate the theology within a church with tolerates heresy.
That is an inevitable consequence of a Calvinistic view of the Sacrament that denies that the Body and Blood are truly present in and with the elements. One need not accept the Roman teaching of transsubstantiation to confess the Real Presence.
I believe you have misunderstood Calvin's view of the elements. Calvin adhered to a faithful understanding of Real Presence, albeit one that was separate from and unique to both the historic RCC view and Luther's view.
How does the Real Presence exist without some form of transformation? And does it matter what you call it? There are certain points where everyone means the same thing, but they like to argue.
Ken, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Until Anglicans can agree on the meaning of the Eucharist it won't matter too much what the rubric says.
Fr. Matkin, Grace & peace! - This was a very helpful video and explanation.
Since you referenced ecumenical practices, allow me to share a view expressed by United Methodist Bishop Ole Borgen, in his "John Wesley on the Sacraments," and echoed by Nazarene theologian Rob Staples in his "Outward Sign and Inward Grace: The Place of Sacraments in Wesleyan Spirituality."
Wesleyan/Methodist Christians, as children of Anglicanism, affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Like the Anglican Articles, they reject transubstantiation (and consubstantiation) as explanations of Christ's real presence. Bishop Borgen describes Christ's presence as "'Dynamic' in that it is related to God's action." Therefore, as Staples explains, "Christ's presence in the sacrament is not something static . . ."
Of note, the United Methodist and Nazarene rituals both pray, ". . . Make them . . . be FOR US the body and blood of Christ" (emphasis added). Thus, some Methodists might argue (as Borgen and Staples do) that the concern that you have raised "would impose a form of necessity upon God."
However, Staples also admits that "ecumenical interests may be compelled to see otherwise."
All of that to say, some Methodists would certainly agree with you. Others would be convinced by Borgen and Staples that what the 2019 Prayer Book has proposed would not be sacrilege.
I offer this, not as an argument against your video, but rather as an ecumenical voice that may also explain some of the thinking that may have gone into the 2019 Prayer Book and that may be held by some Anglicans.
Blessings,
Todd+
President, Wesleyan-Anglican Society
Simple answer: it's not the 1928 American!!
+ Rev. Dr. Mel McMinn ThD
Was this corrected in subsequent editions?
I escaped from ECUSA after the adoption of the 1979 BCP.
"Allowing" is not the same thing as "requiring." If any priest is dumb enough to pour out excess consecrated wine, his parish should deal with him. But I don't consider the language a "fatal flaw" in an otherwise good BCP. It's a whole lot better than the '79, after all.
Mike G. I've recently begun to study the theology of the 1662 BCP vs. the ACNA 2019 BCP. I don't think the ACNA BCP is as close as I was hoping it would be in terms of reformed theology.
Viva 1928 Prayer Book.
The bread and wine should be consumed.no doubt
Ive always had doubts about the fidelity of acna
This entire complaint is faulty, ill-conceived, a-historical, and un-Anglican. The Anglican fathers taught that the body and blood of Christ are in heaven and not here; they are not transubstantiated. The true locus of the real presence is the believer, and the figurative locus is the bread and wine in reverent usage. There is no getting around this fact of Anglican eucharistic theology: Christ is only tropically, figuratively present in the elements. One must look elsewhere for the res.
Daniel is exactly right. The real presence of Christ is not in the bread or wine made by priests with magic hands/words, but in the hearts of those who receive God's grace by faith. We are not Roman Catholic.
I disagree. I agree with your statement: "The Anglican fathers taught that the body and blood of Christ are in heaven . . . they are not transubstantiated." I disagree with your statement: "Christ is only tropically [is that in the Caribbean or Hawaii?], figuratively present in the elements."
A number of Anglicans (including Wesley) taught that Christ is "spiritually present" in the bread and wine; that we do truly receive the body and blood of Christ as we partake of the bread and wine, but after a spiritual and mysterious manner. I think that is different from and much more than "figuratively."
However, in terms of what to do with the remaining elements, you may refer to my previous comment.
Chuck, one need not have a Roman view to believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine (though not due to "magic hands/words." And, the traditional Anglican view both denies Rome's transubstantiation and affirms the real and spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine. However, that does not mean that Fr. Matkin's concern is the only way to understand how to handle the remaining elements. (You can refer to my previous comment for a different understanding.)
So the locus of the Real Presence is the believer? And the locus of the figurative presence is in the elements?So . . . every time I come across the term “Real Presence”, it is referring to believers? The prayer of humble access is taking about eating our own flesh and drinking our own blood? Is the scripture in error when it says that he “took bread” and said “this is my body”? Was it supposed to say he took his disciples and said that? You make no sense at all.
Timothy, good morning, Yes "real presence" as you say, and no the Scripture is never wrong, although I am often wrong in interpreting it. God certainly extends his grace in the sacraments, and to those who receive him by faith ("And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith" Article XXVIII) receive God, his real presence, his spiritual presence. This is the union of which John speaks in Ch. 6. It is the "commingling" that Cyril of Alexandria (& Cranmer) delight in. At the Last Supper, as Cranmer says, when Jesus said "This is my body; do this!" he was certainly not saying that his corporal body was in two places: in the body from which he spoke and in the bread that didn't look like flesh, but bread. And isn't his physical, corporal body now in heaven at the right hand of the Father? This does not demean the sacrament in the least, but God's real spiritual presence is available to us each by faith. To ex opere operato locate God's real presence do bread sitting on an altar waiting to be adored demeans faith - the means by which grace is received as intended in 1662 (1552 The Black Rubric), it makes the priest - not God - the consecrator and sacerdotal intermediary between God and his people, and it is transubstantiation, albeit without the elaborate explanation that Roman Catholics assign to it. It is not Anglican, but Roman. It is a 1830's addition that betrays the historic Anglican formularies including The Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, the Homilies, and the ordinal.
There are other ways to dispose of the Eucharist. Eating and drinking is the norm, but in certain circumstances this isn't possible.
Name one.
@@xtusvincit5230 A priest once told me about finding hosts in the pews and said he would not eat them, so he destroyed them another way.
Excellent apologetic. Father Timothy, a solution: copy the rubric from the 1928 Prayer Book.
Or just stick with the ‘28 in toto!
@@fr.jamesjohnson1567 As we do in the APA.
I am a 76 year old Anglican Christian, who, in my teenage years served both as an Acolyte and Assistant to the Priest on Sunday's and partly during the week, and I can recall on many an occasions after Communion was administered, a quantity of excess wine remained in the Chalice. The Priest would then proceed to drink it all down, as if the say, "never let good consecrated wine go to waste". Years past, before I found out that he became an "alcoholic", even as he continued to serve as a Priest. Now I can believe that he poured out more than was necessary, so as to get his "fix". Priests are humans, yes? 🙏🏽
There was nothing wrong with the prayer book from 1928! Why in the world is this important! Absolute nonsense! Can never leave good enough alone! New doesn’t always mean better!!,
It's a great prayer book.
My question is if according to the 39 articles the elements are the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual and heavenly manner received in faith..... further transsubstantiation is unbiblical and offensive to the scriptures. So why does it matter?
Placebo...
Since it is not the Body and Blood of Christ it really does not matter.
I Belong to The ACC And They use 1928 book of common prayer.
Edmund Banks I belong to the true Anglican diocese in Canada (the Anglican Network in Canada is a diocese of the ACNA), we use the 2019 BCP, or the 1962 BCP of the ACC. If you’re using the 1928 version, then I question if you’re actually apart of the “Anglican Church” of Canada.
@@michaelcaza-schonberger9282ACC probably means "Anglican Catholic Church" in this case
Sounds all too legalistic if you ask me. Yes, Christ's presence is in the wine. BUT, Christ's presence is also within the ground that the remaining wine is poured on. Christ's Spirit permeates all there is, was and will be. Blessings And Grace 🙏
Schismatics will never agree about anything. It’s their nature.
Roman Catholics within the Roman Church can’t agree about anything either, so what’s your point?
Orthodox would call you schismatics too, so how do you know who the true schismatics are?
@@ReformedMunk by seeing that the Eastern Chruch schismed in the 11 th century?? That Roman Catholic Theology is correct on the papacy and magisterium.
Rome isn't unified either. Just lip service.
Sacrilege? Founding a church to satisfy the lecherous old pig of a King who wanted to divorce his wife is the blasphemous sacrilege.
The issue was not desire. It was annulment. Catherine was unable to provide a male heir. That's a very big deal for a king. Also, he felt that the pope would undermine his power as a king. That's another very big deal. The third was the "reformation" itself. Like most Latin Christians, Henry did not want the reformation to affect England's church
It just proves you Anglicsnd have no belief in or respect for the Real Presence. Th÷ Devil was guiding whoever wrote that, not the Holy Spirit.
Timothy Matkin wants to be a Roman Catholic so badly, he can hardly contain himself. He is either completely ignorant of the historical Anglican tradition or he is an outright liar. My money is on the latter.
JS Lovell I disagree
Sir Sounds you have no clue what you are Blabbing about. This Father Timothy Knows more than you give him credit for.
@@edmundmb I am giving him a lot of credit. That is why I said I don't think he is ignorant and rather is blatantly lying. That is why he doesn't cite his sources. His comments in the video in no way represent the Anglican tradition. He can say "I disagree", but that doesn't make an argument. We are talking about historical facts and documents here. Matkin represents the Anglo-Catholic revision of the 19th century and his theology runs directly counter to the theology of Cranmer and the Reformers for the first 3 plus centuries of Anglicanism. You don't have to take my word for it. Go back to the sources. Read Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Jewel, Hooker, Parker, Ryle and there are a host of others. Don't be fooled by the redefinitions and sleight of hand of the Anglo-Catholics. The doctrine of "real presence" never meant what they are trying to say it means. Christ's spiritual presence for those who ate in faith in no way imputed certain sacred physical properties to the elements. The leftover bread could be taken home and eaten for lunch. It was not to be set aside or reserved. Cranmer explicitly rejects what Matkin says in this video in his writing on the sacraments. I defy Matkin to cite a source from the Anglican in support of his position in this video prior to 1830.
books.google.com/books?id=ZiJLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=thomas+cranmer+thus+our+saviour+christ+like+a+most+loving+pastor+and+savior+of+our+souls&source=bl&ots=R-feV-yvvK&sig=ACfU3U23GYQ6uD9YoHZX41E-sXZfCjKJ0w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijzMXJzpLjAhXC1FkKHdrBAOIQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=thomas%20cranmer%20thus%20our%20saviour%20christ%20like%20a%20most%20loving%20pastor%20and%20savior%20of%20our%20souls&f=false
"Figuratively, He is in the bread and wine and spiritually, He is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporeally, He is only in heaven; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." -Thomas Cranmer.
Nice source. Perhaps Archbishop Cranmer (and all the names you mentioned) envisioned the Anglican Church to become more reformed than many people realize.
Yea JS Lovell Keep Blowing Your Smoke. Wow