Communion by Extension - Essay Example

?#655238 Communion by Extension Introduction Communion by Extension is a religious ceremony practiced in Christian churches wherein the faithfuls areallowed to partake the earlier-consecrated bread and wine even in the absence of an officiating priest. This rite has been part of the practice since the earliest times, and has been observed in the Episcopal Church in Scotland and in other parts of the Anglican Community for quite some time (Turner, 2003 p 1-3). Communion by Extension is an extension or expansion of the rite of Holy Communion in areas and at times wherein priests are not available for whatever reason. Holy Communion or Holy Mass is a weekly ceremony in church where the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist are observed culminating in the consecration of the bread and wine for the communion of the faithful. Three churches in Great Britain have introduced this service – the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church and the Church of England – amidst considerable controvery, according to Tovey (2009 p 1). It is the objective of this paper to examine this practice for its theological, liturgical and other considerations or implications with the end in view of adding enrichment and expanded understanding of the rite in the midst of the ongoing animated discussions on the subject. It is also hoped that the analysis may aid in providing guidance to non-ordained ministers who may be positioned to officiate in such a rite of the need to take extreme care in the officiating in the face of such unresolved milieu. What Is Communion by Extension? The Holy Communion, from where the Communion by Extension is derived or expanded, is a weekly memorial of the Lord’s Last Supper when he asked his disciples to remember him in the breaking of the bread. This memorial is institutionalised in the ceremony called the Holy Communion wherein the priest, representing Jesus Christ, consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ to be paretaken by the faithful as their communion with Christ. Where or when a priest is not available, the Communion by Extension is followed. The Communion by Extension consists of the same rite parts as the main rite, minus the consecration which is a solemn rite in itself presided by the priest. This practice of extended communion was officially allowed under the Guidelines approved by the House of Bishops in October 2000. Under the guidelines, communion by extension may be done only by explicit permission from the Bishop, emphasising the rite’s exceptional nature. Even when a parish has already secured a written authority to use the Commission by Extension service, the Sunday Holy Communion which is the main regular service must continue as a regular ceremony. The extension service may be led only by a person specifically authorised by the Bishop, and this person must ensure that proper care and dignity must be given to every detail of the ceremony so that it does not lose its solemnity and essence. Such a permission is always considered provisional and presumes that the service is not in itself a celebration of Holy Communion but enables the worshipping community to participate “by extension.” It is also presumed that the rules for its conduct shall strictly follow the Guidelines in form and substance. The act of allowing the faithful to receive communion without being part of the consecration in a Communion by Extension assumes that the gathering of the people is not a substitute for the Sunday service, which is mandated as a regular service, and is allowed only because a priest is not available to preside over a eucharistic celebration. Under this assumption, the receiving of the reserved sacrament is identified as part of the earlier Eucharistic rite and is therefore symbolically identified and linked to the universal church (Taylor, 2009 p 164). This Communion by Extension has been approved in the Anglican Church under heavy questioning over such authority granted to the laity. Some Theological Considerations A non-ordained person who is assigned to officiate in a Communion by Extension service has to take into consideration some theological, liturgical and other issues related to the pratice in order for him to perform equal to the role. The granting of authority to non-ordained persons to preside over the communion service was achieved not without heavy questioning among the bishops in the Anglican church, and even in the other churches (Tovey, 2009 p 18). Tovey (2009 p19) cites a statement in 1995 issued by the bishops affirming the centrality of the Eucharist. The bases for these opposing arguments rested upon the fear that the authority may blurr the distinction between a priest and a deacon, and consequently, even the relationship between the pastoral and the sacrament ministry, or even the connection between the Eucharist and the works of charity and justice. It was even feared that the authority may diminish the continual need for vocations (Tovey, 2009 p 58-67). Even in the Roman Catholic Church, the opposition was high, also running along almost the same lines of arguments. Paul Avis in Tovey (2009 p 58-59) questions the “theological, sacramental and liturgical integrity of the service because it lacks the element of offering to God and fragments the integrity of the eucharistic action.” David Philips in Tovey (2009 p67) tersely observes that the communion by extension reserves the sacrament, symbolically dismembring the eucharist. But at the same time that the controversy rages, the support for the cause is not necessarily absent. The Archbishop of Canterbury made this expression: “The question to be asked is not the validity of such a practice but about whether it is really true that God has left that community without a particular grace. If God has given that grace, then the natural expression of it is in ordaining someone to take the responsibility.” (Taylor, 2009 p149). Given such an environment, a non-ordained officiant, in the performance of his role, must be fully aware of such pre-dispositions so that he can properly place himself and the service in the order that it must be. If at all, he must make sure that the feared blurring during his jurisdiction is not perceived in any way. Some Liturgical Considerations The Church of England has seen two opposing trends in its development in the last fifty years. One is the conviction that most main acts of public worship should be sacramental. The other is the continuing reduction in the number of priest-presiders at the eucharist (Walker, 2008 p 11). The sacrament is presumed to exist wholly for the act of worship and must be fully consumed as soon as the service is over, which is why “the priest and such other of the communicants as he shall call unto him shall immediately after Blessing reverently eat and drink the same.” (The Book of Common Prayer 1662 in Walker, 2008 p 12). Paul Avis (Tovey, 2009 p 58) cites liturgical integrity in opposing the Communion by Extension. Hughes et al (2002 p23) define liturgical integrity as requiring unity of action, without which the essence is lost. It is feared that by extension in communion, such unity of action is absent. Conclusion Communion by Extension is a service that has been in practice in the church for a while. The most fundamental reason for its approval is that the people who cannot access a regular service, as in a Holy Communion or Holy Mass, to be in communion with Christ and the church may do so, in the absence of a priest, by its extension. The Communion by Extension therefore resembles a full worship except the absence of the eucharist or the reenactment of the Lord’s instruction in the Last Supper. In a communion by extension, the people participate along the same proceeding details as the main rite and participate in the communion with Christ using the consecrated bread and wine in an earlier Main celebration. There are theological, liturgical and other considerations that one must take into account when tasked to officiate in such an extended service. Especially that the rite came under heavy fire even before it was approved, it is important for an assigned person who is not a priest to understand these oppositions that were articulated so that he may be guided properly in the performance of his role as officiant. First and foremost, he must understand the theology of the communion by extension, that Jesus Christ‘s death and resurrection may be relived in the memorial of his Last Supper with the consecrated bread and wine as being or representing Jesus Christ as the offering at every communion rite. Secondly, the officiant must fully understand that the communion by extension that he is tasked to lead is not a Holy Communion, which can only be presided over by an officiating priest, but that despite that it is not the main rite, the service must be presided over with the same intensity, integrity, reverence, adoration and sense of community as if it is really a part of the main ceremony. Finally, the officiant must remember that he is fulfilling a role for an assembly of people who are experiencing eucharistic deprivation (Dallen, 1994 p 21). When he presides over a Communion by Extension, he facilitates the communion of the faithful with Jesus as if they really participated in his memorial. What can be more fulfilling than that? References: Dallen, J. (1994). The Dilemma of Priestless Sunday, Liturgy Training Publication, Chicago, 1994 Hughes, A. and Club, A. (2002). Public Worship with Communion by Extension. Cambridge: Grove Books Taylor, N. (2009). Lay Presidency at the Eucharist?: An Anglican Approach. New York: Mowbray Tovey, P. (2009). The Theory and Practice of Extended Communion. England: Ashgate Publishing Turner, M. (2003). Communion by Extension: Workpack for Parishes, Local Ministry Department, Diocese of Lichfield, Lichfield, 2003 Walker, D. (2008). Communion by Extension: Discrepancies between Policy and Practice, Rural Theology, Vol 6 No 1,pp11-25, Rural Theology Association, 2008 Read More