laudable Practice

Last week an excellent liturgist and theologian in the Roman Catholic tradition tweeted this: I never understand why folks insist that the Eucharist is meant for eating and not for adoring. Not because it's not meant for eating. It is. That's communion. But why can't the two go together? It's my grand gripe about much sacramental theology today. What immediately caught my attention was the question: "why can't the two go together?" A classically Anglican response would be to say 'Yes, communion and adoration must go together and cannot be separated'. A key text from Augustine appears in the writings of Andrewes, Sparrow, and Taylor on the subject.  In his homily on Psalm 98 , Augustine said: He ... gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped. For Sparrow , the expression of such adoration of Christ as we partake of Him in the holy Sacrament is that we kneel to receive: It is to ...

Many thanks to The North American Anglican for publishing my essay ' Draw near with faith: Is closed communion historically Anglican? '. The essay seeks to be a response to issues raised by the (in the very best sense of the term) provocative ' Is open communion historically Anglican? ', highlighting that neither 'open' nor 'closed' work as appropriate descriptions of historic Anglican practice.  Rather, historic Anglican practice was shaped by a more Hookerian approach, "deeper and richer than vacuous 'open table' discourse, while also more explicitly focussed on the Christological center than can be the case with ‘closed communion’ practices". Below is the section of the essay which addressed the role of the Catechism and the Rite of Confirmation in giving expression to this Hookerian approach. ------ 'The solemn promise and vow of your Baptism': Catechism and Confirmation What, then, of the Prayer Book’s requirements regardi...