Rubrics for Reopening

We do not presume, to come to this blog, trusting in our own wisdom. I am not worthy to lead my own parish, much less a diocese or archdiocese. Therefore, while I have opinions on everything, that does not mean they are all informed or wise. Opening the doors of churches for public worship during a pandemic comes with a risk that is above and beyond the constituent risks we have long accepted as the cost of doing God’s business.

As dioceses are working out their plans for how to return to public worship, there will no doubt be suggestions and statements made with the best of intentions, that run contrary to the godly order that has formed Anglicans for 500 years. Perhaps there is some ancient wisdom from a time that was no stranger to pestilence and politics. I offer the following thoughts rooted in the rubrics of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer: 

Congregation Size

So many as intende to bee partakers of the holy Communion, shall sygnifie their names to the Curate, ouer night: or els in the morning, afore the beginning of Matins, or immediately after.

[So many as intend to be partakers of the holy Communion, shall signify their names to the Curate, over night: or else in the morning, before the beginning of Matins, or immediately after.]

The first rubric for the 1549 Massse (mass) requires those desiring to receive communion to notify the priest before the celebration. This rubric, slightly modified, remains in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. As we will likely be asked to adhere to numerical limits in our gatherings, it is clearly in our tradition to ask for a registration beforehand. Granted, this was not done to limit the numbers of those present, but this seems to be the only way to ensure government compliance with social distancing and the size of gatherings. The upside to registration is that those who register are making a conscious decision in advance and must prepare themselves and their families. The potential downside, depending on the size of the parish, is that not all who wish to register may be able to attend on a particular Sunday.

The Future of Livestreaming

Then so manye as shallbe partakers of the holy Communion, shall tary still in the quire, or in some conuenient place nigh the quire, the men on the one side, and the women on the other syde. All other (that mynde not to receiue the said holy Communion) shall departe out of the quire, except the ministers and Clerkes.

[Then so many as shall be partakers of the holy Communion, shall tary still in the choir, or in some convenient place hear the choir, the men on the one side, and the women on the other side. All other (that mind not to receive the said holy Communion) shall depart out of the choir, except the ministers and Clerks.]

I draw attention to this rubric, prescribed during the offertory, as a possible solution for the theological confusion we find ourselves in broadcasting or livestreaming our masses. We know that the Holy Eucharist is the “new rite” where previous types and shadows come to an end. But we also know that a YouTube mass is not the same thing. Without meaning to, we have added a type and shadow. We want people to know the Sacrifice is being offered, even in their absence, and we want their spiritual participation, but we are discovering unforeseen consequences: ‘virtual communion,’ expectation of on-demand liturgy, etc. Perhaps the way forward is to broadcast the mass, but not show in its entirety the liturgy of the altar. Those who cannot receive aren’t banished, this is not punishment, but an act of charity preserving both the mystery of the sacrifice and the recognition that some, through no fault of their own, cannot receive. I think this might be a better solution than altering the ceremony and theology of the Eucharist and not broadcasting at all – which seems to be the two most common options.

Communion on the Tongue

And although it bee redde in auncient writers, that the people many years past receiued at the priestes hades the Sacrament of the body of Christ in theyr owne hands, and no commaundemet of Christ to the contrary: Yet forasmuche as they many tymes conueyghed the same secretelye awaye, kept it with them, and diuersly abused it to supersticion and wickedness: lest any suche thynge hereafter should be attempted and that an uniformitie might be used, throughout the whole Realme:  it is thought conuenient the people commoly receiue the Sacramet of Christes body, in their mouthes, at the Priestes hande.

[And although it be read in ancient writers, that the people many years past received at the priest’s hand the Sacrament of the body of Christ in their own hands, and no commandment of Christ to the contrary: Yet forasmuch as they many times conveyed in the same secretly away, kept it with them, and diversely abused it to superstition and wickedness: lest any such thing hereafter should be attempted and that an uniformity might be used, throughout the whole Realm: it is thought convenient the people commonly receive the Sacrament of Christ’s body, in their mouths, at the Priest’s hand.]

To state the obvious, I am not an epidemiologist. However, I do not care for germs. I know that good ole fashioned hand washing with soap and water is preferable to hand sanitizer. I also know that at the offertory, the priest’s hands are washed with water. It is usually convenient during the offertory, if the sacristy is close, to wash hands again. All thing being equal, the priest’s hands should be the cleanest in the church. In addition, if the traditional ceremony is followed, the priest wipes his fingers on the corporal before touching the host and keeps the fingers together never touching anything else until the ablutions after Holy Communion. Done properly, administration to the tongue is more hygienic than on the hand. People are touching everything; bulletins, hymnals, purses, children, chairs, etc. From the offertory to the ablutions, the priest’s hands should shine like the top of the Chrysler Building. The above rubric addresses the confiscation of a host to keep at home for superstition. This is the reason why you must receive on the tongue at Papal masses, so no one keeps the Host as a souvenir. We can be superstitious with hand sanitizer. Anti-bacterial is not anti-viral.

Communion in One Kind

The last bit is not from the rubrics of the 1549, but from the Sacrament Act of 1547, the relevant parts still have the force of law in the United Kingdom today:

Primitive Mode of receiving the Sacrament; The Sacrament shall be administered in both Kinds, Bread and Wine, to the People: After Exhortations of the Priest, the Sacrament shall not be denied. Not condemning the Usage of other Churches . X1

And forasmuche as it is more agreable bothe to the first Institucion of the saide Sacrament of the moste precious bodye and bloude of Savyour Jesus Christe, and also more conformable to the commen use and practise bothe of Thapostles and of the primative Churche by the space of Five hundred yeres and more after Christs assention that the saide blessed Sacrament shoulde be ministred to all Christen people under bothe the kyndes of Breade and Wyne, [X2then] under the forme of breade onelie; And also it is more agreable to the first Institucion of Christe and to thusage of Thapostells and the primative churche that the people being present shoulde receive the same with the preist [X2then] that the Priest should receive it alone; Therfore be it enacted by our saide Souvarigne Lorde the King with the consent of the Lordes spirituall and temporall and the Commons in this present parlament assembled and by thauctoritie of the same, that the saide moste blessed sacrament be hereafter commenlie delivered and ministred unto the people, within this Churche of Englande and Irelande and other the Kings Dominions, under bothe the Kyndes, that is to saie of breade and wyne, excepte necessitie otherwise require: And allso that the preist which shall ministre the same shall at the least one day before exhorte all persons which shalbe present likewise to resorte and prepare themselfs to receive the same, and when the daie prefixed comethe after a godlie exhortacion by the Minister made, wherin shalbe further expressed the benefitt and comforte promised to them which worthelie receive the saide hollie Sacrament, and daunger and indignacion of God threatened to them which shall presume to receive the same unworthelie, to thende that everie man maye trye and examynn his owne conscience before he shall receive the same, the saide minister shall not withowt laufull cawse denye the same to any parsone that wool devoutelie and humblie desire it, anny lawe statute ordenance or custome contrarie therunto in any wise notwithstanding; not condempninge hereby the usage of anny Churche owt of the Kings Majesties Dominions.

 Offering the Sacrament in both kinds is a foundational result of the Reformation, English and Protestant, and is enshrined in the Prayer Book. However, the legal context of the 1549 Prayer Book acknowledges that necessity may otherwise require a suspension of this right, such as a Pandemic. The law does not suspend the administration of the chalice to the celebrant, but to the people. Fighting over the chalice too much for the sake of the Prayer Book is to miss an important, and common sense, exception.

The Book of Common Prayer, 1549 or 1979, did not envision our present circumstances, but that doesn’t mean its rubrics and customs are of no use to us now. Quite the contrary, the stability of prayer and the constancy of ceremony, is good medicine for our anxiety. While not exactly a vaccine against the vicissitudes of Coronatide, following our rule of prayer will certainly mitigate the symptoms.