Question for Episcopal brethren...

[ZooMom]

I came across this link on another board,

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/41685_52038_ENG_HTM.htm

and I wondered if some of our Episcopal brethren might have some insights or explanations for this practice. Is it normal practice, or is this a fringe group? I have no intentions of challenging your answers, or of posting this in any other forum for discussion. I am merely curious. :)


Peace be with you!

Sandy

[AveMaria]

Definately not normal practice, I can tell you that. Some Episcopal parishes have permission from their Bishops to experiment with liturgy a bit (my parish, for example, sometimes incorporates bits and pieces from other Anglican Prayer Books), perhaps this is an instance of that?

I can definately see how this would raise red flags for some people - I'd be very curious in knowing what context this was done.

I'm woefully unfamiliar with the Women's Ministries, perhaps someone else may come along who can say more. Anyone?

[gtsecc]

We gather around a low table, covered with a woven cloth or shawl. A candle, a bowl or vase of flowers, a large shallow bowl filled with salted water, a chalice of sweet red wine, a cup of milk mixed with honey, and a plate of raisin cakes are placed on the table.



When all are seated on the floor and comfortable, one of the women lights the candles saying,



"Mother God, Giver of light, let this flame illumine our hearts and minds. May its warmth remind us of the love in which you embrace us all. We thank you, Mother, for light."



Placing both hands on the fabric covering the table, one of the women says,

[gtsecc]

That seems closer to "When shall we three meet again?" than to the Eucharist I am accustomed.

[gtsecc]

I am fairly sure there are a number of parishes that will not allow women to celebrate the Eucharist.

[AveMaria]

It's a little too new-agey for my comfort zone, and I definately wouldn't call it a Eucharist - the rubrics make no mention of a validly ordained priest, for one!

I do think context is important, though - where was this done, and why? How was it framed? Was it done to spark discussion? Was it done as an act of rebellion? Who were the participants?

Definately not the sort of thing I'd knowingly attend, and for for the record, I'm a fairly liberal 'Piskie. I don't have a problem with using feminine language or the idea of the sacred feminine, but I do have issues with the fetility/womb aspects, which seem more neo-pagan to me.

In fact, speaking as a woman who has no children and who will not be having children, this particular liturgy feels very exclusive to me, which is a bit ironic, considering it was probably meant to feel inclusive.

[RobNJ]

That seems closer to "When shall we three meet again?" than to the Eucharist I am accustomed.

That's what I was thinking!! :doh:

[PaladinValer]

Although I personally don't see anything heretical, it does seem a little odd. I myself have been to similar liturgies and, while I found them enjoyable in a refreshing new perspective sort of way, I always preferred the more traditional way.

I believe such liturgies however are done to present a powerful point: although God is referred to as "He," "Him," (etc) because "He" prefers a father-son relationship with us, "He" isn't, in reality, a he or a she. Rather, God is beyond any gender conotation while having both male and female traits (for example, God as the Judge is more male, while God as a Healer is more female).

I do believe that we Christians often forget the "feminin" side of God (something, I do admit, the Jews understand better than us about God) and that this side is of no less (or greater, mind you) importance than His masculin side. In reality, we need to be mindful of God's "gender nature" while remembering the way He would like us to have a relationship with Him.

I don't mind folks calling God, "Mother God" ("Goddess" would be a bit of a stretch, IMO), but so long as, in this attempt to "balance" the understanding of God, it doesn't suddenly overtip the scales to the feminin, which would bring us back to square one!

[LADY DI]

I came across this link on another board,

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/41685_52038_ENG_HTM.htm

and I wondered if some of our Episcopal brethren might have some insights or explanations for this practice. Is it normal practice, or is this a fringe group? I have no intentions of challenging your answers, or of posting this in any other forum for discussion. I am merely curious. :)


Peace be with you!

Sandy

That is something I would expect to hear at an Wiccan gathering, not in a church. :eek:

[Bonifatius]

I don't think it's necessarily Christian (or is it?) as Christ himself doesn't appear in the text. I find it rather strange to call this a "Eucharist"

[ZooMom]

Thank you for your responses. :) What made it more disturbing to me was an online Scripture search for 'cakes' or 'raisin cakes', as was suggested in the other forum. Further thoughts?


Peace be with you!

Sandy

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

What the liturgy is saying is that the prohibition on offering raisin cakes to the "Queen of heaven" in the OT was not a command of God, but rather the oppressive patriarchal society opposing perfectly valid worship of God as feminine.

Even for me, that's stretching Biblical exegesis a little too far.

[wonderboy92577]

I think that the Lambeth report made it clear (I THINK it was Lambeth) that individual parishes, dioceses, or Provinces do *not* have the authority to alter the doctrine of the church if they wish to remain in communion with the See of Canterbury, and thusly, the rest of the Anglican Communion. Is this perhaps just another example of ECUSA's blatant disregard for unity, mutual respect, interdependence, and lateral acceptance of clergy and laity as equals regardless of home parish? Probably. US of A is the greatest nation in the world, but as Anglicans, we Americans aren't doing so hot.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No, it's just a submission from one particular small group to a webpage that welcomes submissions.

It's not like it's been inserted into the prayer book. Simmer down!

[PaladinValer]

How the heck does that liturgy "change" doctrine? All it does is remind people that God can be seen as feminin. Whoop-ie-do-dah-day for crying out load.

Simmer down indeed!

[AveMaria]

Exactly - it doesn't change doctrine. (Now, if it suddenly appeared in the BCP, this discussion might be a little bit different!).

I realized earlier today that my big beef with that ritual is the label "Woman's Eucharist" - it's clearly not a Eucharist (no ordained priest, no consecration, etc), and as a woman, I find it much less inclusive than most of the stuff in the BCP. I also dislike the concept of "Man's Eucharist" or "Woman's Eucharist" or any other sort of specific Eucharist.

[pmcleanj]

I realized earlier today that my big beef with that ritual is the label "Woman's Eucharist" - it's clearly not a Eucharist (no ordained priest, no consecration, etc), and as a woman, I find it much less inclusive than most of the stuff in the BCP. I also dislike the concept of "Man's Eucharist" or "Woman's Eucharist" or any other sort of specific Eucharist.
Exactly. The label is a misnomer -- or possibly an intentional attempt at a cognitive disjunction. As PaladinValer points out, the action of the ritual ("liturgy" would be a misnomer) is not heretical, as a private or small-group exploration of their spirituality, or of their spiritual attitudes towards specific aspects of their own lives. But it isn't Eucharist.

The label "liturgy" would be a misnomer, because "liturgy" means "the people's work", or "personal duty for the common good". Participation in this rite would be a personal choice, for personal spiritual exploration or experience (similar, if Wigglesworth doesn't mind the comparison, to celebrating a spiritual meal of crackers and grapejuice with your spouse in the absence of presbyterial epiclesis).

Come to think of it, in an all-woman congregation that shares a common experiences of motherhood and common understandings of feminine sexuality, it wouldn't be any more exclusive, than a spousal agape meal is exclusive simply because it includes only the two spouses.

The distinction is that with a private non-sacramental worship rite, the community came first and created the rite. In the true Eucharist, the Sacrament comes first and creates the community. Which is why we cannot afford to have closed table-fellowship: to do so pre-empts the Eucharist's role in creating the Eucharistic community.

[AveMaria]

You just explained it so much better than I ever could have! :)

I do have concerns about how this..whatever we want to call it (I think we've ruled out Eucharist and Liturgy - how about ritual?) is being perceived by the greater Christian community. That article is posted and linked on several Christian forums and websites, and some of the comments/discussion are disturbing, to say the least.

A few people have pointed out that this ritual works in context as a discussion piece. Unfortunately, it is being seen by the greater Christian community as "proof" that the ECUSA has gone off her rocker.

[Polycarp1]

As described, it's a bizarre bit of liturgical practice.

But it might be interesting to examine exactly what is acceptable practice in ECUSA.

The requirement is that the principal service at any Episcopal parish church be conducted as (a) Rite I, using either Prayer of Consecration, (b) Rite II, using any of the four Prayers of Consecration, (c) a form "approved for Trial Use" by General Convention, as and when they choose to do so (as was the case from 1967-1979), or (d) a form specifically and explicitly approved by the Bishop of the Diocese. (Of course, a parish without a priest or choosing not to celebrate the Eucharist on a given Sunday may use Morning Prayer.)

A Eucharist which is not the principal service may be conducted according to An Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist" (http://www.saintgabriels.org/bcp/400.html). Note that there are specific, if generalized, requirements for what is said, and that it is not license to make up what you choose, except in accordance with specific guidelines.

On the first Wednesday of each month, our parish has a "Healing Eucharist" at which the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is combined with an informal Eucharist. We've used various liturgies in the course of this, including one locally written and approved by our diocesan bishop for trial use and a beautiful but unusual Prayer of Consecration from the New Zealand BCP. Any such prayer must be within the context of what the diocesan approves; it's not at the discretion of the rector or local parish Worship Commission to go beyond the guidelines of the Prayer Book, General Convention, or the diocesan bishop -- one of the three must provide justification for use of a given liturgy.

[Wiffey]

I think that how we worship IS a direct extention of what we believe. Liturgy is the tangible expression of theology, so I'd be concerned about what message an aberrant liturgy would send to the community.

Just my 2 cents-I'll shut up now...
Wiffey

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Indeed, Wiffey. And if this had been an official liturgy of the ECUSA, there would be cause for concern.

It wasn't. It isn't.

[AveMaria]

Amen to that, Karl.

So, is it time to move along to something other than this, or the Windsor Report, yet? *crossing fingers and praying hopefully*