In prior parishes I have served, I attempted to use “real bread”. the reason for returning to wafers was that there was no way to keep the reserved bread for the sick from becoming inedible in a matter of days. Sometimes it was mold, other times it became as hard as concrete. Otherwise I concur, especially to the idea that the amounts should be an actual nourishing amount. Alas, we have bought onto Brylcreem sacramental theology…a little dab l do ya.
Yeah, this makes sense. I should have added reservation as another one of the regular arguments given against the use of real bread. I confess that I'm a bit iffy on the practice of reservation anyway (I don't condemn it but don't think it is ideal) -- but in a parish committed to having reserved sacrament on hand, it makes sense that one would need to use wafers.
At the parish I'm a member of, we use wafers only for certain major services where there are likely to be too many recipients for our small usual loaves to cover (Christmas, Easter, etc.). Typically, the hosts consecrated during the Vigil will be placed in the aumbry and then used where the reserved sacrament is needed throughout the year (and consumed on Good Friday), while we still use real bread for our ordinary celebrations. I think it's the tidiest way to maintain both reservation and real bread if you're someone who leans in both of those directions (as I happen to be).
I was very blessed to make the communion bread for the last community I served with. I can't describe what it's like making something you know will be used by the Spirit to be Christ's body. I think using "real" bread and wine (Especially homemade or local elements), makes the elements an actual offering of the people of God to the Lord. If you'd like some Communion bread recipes to use with your community, I have several :3
I fully agree. My old parish's Spanish service and children's service used real bread for exactly the reasons you identify. If we ran out of bread and had to use wafers, the kids would say, "That's not bread!" They know what nourishes, and we should use bread and wine that actually nourish and make the heart glad. We can of course keep a few wafers on reserve for visiting the sick and other times of need. But regular Eucharistic bread should be delicious and special as a reminder of Christ's nourishing salvation.
Ben I think you know I'm no great fan of wafers, but a couple of things in partial dissent:
-The old rubric says it "suffices" that the bread be the usual bread but that is a bottom line not a single form; Elizabeth I mandated, without violating that idea, a thicker form of wafer that would more readily have evoked the unleavened bread of the Passover, I suspect.
-The preference of the Western church has been for unleavened bread, of which the unappealing (yes) wafer is one form - while I'm not advocating unleavened bread as a necessity there is theological question here relative to the eastern preference for leavened bread.
-Most controversially (?!) I think the popular "liturgical scone" SSJE and others use made with baking powder, sugar, and oil, is not at all closer to being real bread than the wafers are. I would suggest that it's really "cake" - and that whatever we might learn from your critique (which I appreciate), giving people dessert for the Eucharist is a different kind of problem altogether.
I do take the point about the SSJE bread — I wonder where you’d draw the line between ‘scone’ and ‘bread’; the use of baking powder and rather copious amounts of honey might be a point not in SSJE’s favor. I really appreciate this; I was thinking of adapting SSJE’s bread for my weekly Communion service but now may not.
re: leavened vs unleavened bread, I suppose it is a question - which I think could reasonably be answered either way - of how determinative historical western Christian practice ought to be for our contemporary use. My preference for leavened vs unleavened bread is rather minor, what I am most concerned about is that it is bread.
I do wonder a bit about how best to read the evidence of the Elizabethan injunctions. I appreciate and agree with the note that Elizabeth’s call is for the use of the breads called for in the 1549 BCP, which were indeed different than those used prior to the 1549. But I do still see a tension, at least, between the injunctions and the prayer book. This was raised by the Admonition to the Parliament, which complained that the prayer book was not being followed in matters of communion bread. And Whitgift’s response, at least, wasn’t to argue that the Elizabethan injunction was in fact in harmony with the prayer book, but just to punt to the principle of adiaphora, and say that it doesn’t matter what sort of bread is used. Perhaps other 16th c. conformists did argue for the compatibility of the injunction and the rubric, but I haven’t come across it in my reading — would be glad to be corrected, though!
Just on the present issue Ben - I always advocate Arab bread, khubz (think pita). Tastes like bread and tears but doesn’t crumb so easy to use. Recipe available!
The detail and historical context is helpful here. I appreciate these deep dives into the “why” of our practice! I admit I always feel a little silly trying to explain the wafers to my young kids (“See the, uh, bread?”), which to me is a good rubric for whether something in church needs better justification or just a better practice.
Thank you!! And yes, I think you're right -- I think that 'can I explain this in a way that makes sense to a kid' is not a bad metric for thinking about our ecclesial practices.
Interesting read! We used "real bread_ for the Holy Eucharist at our Episcopal University Centre. Calvin doesn't get much credit for his Eucharistic theology. His "Institutes" reveal his sense of awe regarding Holy Communion.
Thank you! And yes, I think that’s right — in fact, in the 19th c. among many US Presbyterians Calvin’s Eucharistic theology was seen as shockingly “high”!
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. By this same logic, do you think immersive Baptism is preferable to pouring water? That way, it is a better analogue to Jesus's burial and resurrection.
Yes -- I do think that full immersion baptism is indeed preferable (though not necessary for a valid baptism), for the reason you say. And in fact, the Prayer Book says that infants should be "dipped" when baptized, which seems to mean full immersion. It's a rubric that does not seem to have been followed in practice, alas. But yes: agreed.
Just a couple weeks ago at a small informal Eucharist with real crusty bread I was down on the floor picking up and consuming the crumbs, so that's more of a gut-level problem for me than it is for you.
But this is good food for thought (so to speak) so thank you.
I agree that the best ingredients available should be used for the sacrament and also the idea of bread and wine as common things elevated by God plays on the symbolism. Fortunately, in the United Methodist Church we still use real bread but also, alas, grape juice.
The main reason I am not convinced right now is that when it comes to sacraments I think uniformity is greatly desirable. There are already so many comparisons that can be made between different churches, I would hate for one to be "Oh that church's sacrament is delicious but that one [doesn't have any good bakers/can't afford artisanal bread]" etc.
Secondly, one could just as easily argue that the refreshing transformational power of the Sacrament coming via an element that is humble and not valued in "this world," is also quite an apt idea?
I do take this point! I guess I don't know that I see this as something in which total uniformity is necessary. I hear where you're coming from about the point of using a humble element, but I actually think this applies better to ordinary bread of some sort than the wafers. Because wafers *aren't* humble and ordinary, it seems to me, in the sense that they are a food item that is only used for the eucharist and nothing else. But I'm thinking your point over.
"uniformity" with whom or with what? The ritualists with their ridiculous notions of "union with Rome" and "COE not being Protestant" (some of Ben's readers still love to argue this nonsense) switched back to the wafer because that what the papists were doing. But even in the Roman Church the wafer is only in the Latin rite - and not the eastern-Catholic rites where bread was and is used. Not to mention that uniformity should not be with a fantasy place but with Jesus and the Last Supper.
Your 3rd footnote I think is exactly why real bread is controversial. I am all for real bread and agree it would be better for the exact reasons you explain. But unfortunately the promotion of real bread is often correlated with different theologies of what the Eucharist is. A previous parish of mine would send the remaining real bread home to random people. For more reformed minded folks, this is fine, but for those who have a more Sacramentalist view, it is downright scandalous. For the sake of not causing offense, I think continuing to use the wafers or using real bread but doing it like the EO do would be best
Very rich, indeed, my friend. Let us strive onward to press into the depth and wisdom that comes with how we symbolise the sacraments. Everything matters in our practice with how we approach this. Down to how it is taken (ripped from a whole piece or separate). I have been thinking a LOT about this in my Protestant tradition, and long for a deeper understanding and reverence of the Eucharist, specifically. Thanks for writing this! I’d love to see even more pieces on the Eucharist.
“If the analogy is that Christ’s blood refreshes and gladdens you just as wine refreshes and gladdens you, you should drink enough wine to refresh and gladden you! And indeed, taking a bit more time to eat and drink allows one to more fully reflect on the nourishment that Christ gives invisibly through (as well as outside of) the visible nourishment of the bread and wine.”
Hailing in from west coast American parishes, I can say that most west coast Episcopal Church dioceses seem to encourage freshly baked loaves of bread made by parishioners. They're as good as anything you'd serve at a dinner table. The only time we use wafers is for those with gluten allergies, so as to avoid having bread touched by the priest who has handled the primary loaf. At least for some Episcopal dioceses, wafers are not that common and we hew to the BCP rubric. We also tend to tear off sizeable "chunks" of bread, in line with your encouragement to heartily consume.
It strikes me that your argument works quite well for Baptism and debates over partial vs. full immersion. Should we encourage full immersion for similar reasons of symbolic adequacy and power? I write, btw, as a high church Episcopalian who, like your attitude towards wafers, does not think that sprinkling invalidates the sacrament. I just think that my own baptism, which was in the raging Klamath river years before I discovered the Anglican tradition, resembled much closer St. Paul's descriptions at the beginning of Romans 6. It felt like a death and resurrection!
And then there is the matter of gluten-free bread, which results in a bread that is not of the same texture as the usual bread. The advantage of "real bread" is that this makes the bringing of the elements forward into more of a gifting, more of a real sign of "what human hands have made." This offering, no less than the sacrament are part of what makes the Eucharist so dear for me.
In prior parishes I have served, I attempted to use “real bread”. the reason for returning to wafers was that there was no way to keep the reserved bread for the sick from becoming inedible in a matter of days. Sometimes it was mold, other times it became as hard as concrete. Otherwise I concur, especially to the idea that the amounts should be an actual nourishing amount. Alas, we have bought onto Brylcreem sacramental theology…a little dab l do ya.
Yeah, this makes sense. I should have added reservation as another one of the regular arguments given against the use of real bread. I confess that I'm a bit iffy on the practice of reservation anyway (I don't condemn it but don't think it is ideal) -- but in a parish committed to having reserved sacrament on hand, it makes sense that one would need to use wafers.
At the parish I'm a member of, we use wafers only for certain major services where there are likely to be too many recipients for our small usual loaves to cover (Christmas, Easter, etc.). Typically, the hosts consecrated during the Vigil will be placed in the aumbry and then used where the reserved sacrament is needed throughout the year (and consumed on Good Friday), while we still use real bread for our ordinary celebrations. I think it's the tidiest way to maintain both reservation and real bread if you're someone who leans in both of those directions (as I happen to be).
I was very blessed to make the communion bread for the last community I served with. I can't describe what it's like making something you know will be used by the Spirit to be Christ's body. I think using "real" bread and wine (Especially homemade or local elements), makes the elements an actual offering of the people of God to the Lord. If you'd like some Communion bread recipes to use with your community, I have several :3
I fully agree. My old parish's Spanish service and children's service used real bread for exactly the reasons you identify. If we ran out of bread and had to use wafers, the kids would say, "That's not bread!" They know what nourishes, and we should use bread and wine that actually nourish and make the heart glad. We can of course keep a few wafers on reserve for visiting the sick and other times of need. But regular Eucharistic bread should be delicious and special as a reminder of Christ's nourishing salvation.
Ben I think you know I'm no great fan of wafers, but a couple of things in partial dissent:
-The old rubric says it "suffices" that the bread be the usual bread but that is a bottom line not a single form; Elizabeth I mandated, without violating that idea, a thicker form of wafer that would more readily have evoked the unleavened bread of the Passover, I suspect.
-The preference of the Western church has been for unleavened bread, of which the unappealing (yes) wafer is one form - while I'm not advocating unleavened bread as a necessity there is theological question here relative to the eastern preference for leavened bread.
-Most controversially (?!) I think the popular "liturgical scone" SSJE and others use made with baking powder, sugar, and oil, is not at all closer to being real bread than the wafers are. I would suggest that it's really "cake" - and that whatever we might learn from your critique (which I appreciate), giving people dessert for the Eucharist is a different kind of problem altogether.
Thanks so much for this, Dean McGowan.
A few thoughts in response:
I do take the point about the SSJE bread — I wonder where you’d draw the line between ‘scone’ and ‘bread’; the use of baking powder and rather copious amounts of honey might be a point not in SSJE’s favor. I really appreciate this; I was thinking of adapting SSJE’s bread for my weekly Communion service but now may not.
re: leavened vs unleavened bread, I suppose it is a question - which I think could reasonably be answered either way - of how determinative historical western Christian practice ought to be for our contemporary use. My preference for leavened vs unleavened bread is rather minor, what I am most concerned about is that it is bread.
I do wonder a bit about how best to read the evidence of the Elizabethan injunctions. I appreciate and agree with the note that Elizabeth’s call is for the use of the breads called for in the 1549 BCP, which were indeed different than those used prior to the 1549. But I do still see a tension, at least, between the injunctions and the prayer book. This was raised by the Admonition to the Parliament, which complained that the prayer book was not being followed in matters of communion bread. And Whitgift’s response, at least, wasn’t to argue that the Elizabethan injunction was in fact in harmony with the prayer book, but just to punt to the principle of adiaphora, and say that it doesn’t matter what sort of bread is used. Perhaps other 16th c. conformists did argue for the compatibility of the injunction and the rubric, but I haven’t come across it in my reading — would be glad to be corrected, though!
Just on the present issue Ben - I always advocate Arab bread, khubz (think pita). Tastes like bread and tears but doesn’t crumb so easy to use. Recipe available!
The detail and historical context is helpful here. I appreciate these deep dives into the “why” of our practice! I admit I always feel a little silly trying to explain the wafers to my young kids (“See the, uh, bread?”), which to me is a good rubric for whether something in church needs better justification or just a better practice.
Thank you!! And yes, I think you're right -- I think that 'can I explain this in a way that makes sense to a kid' is not a bad metric for thinking about our ecclesial practices.
"It takes more faith to believe it's bread than to believe it's Jesus!"
Interesting read! We used "real bread_ for the Holy Eucharist at our Episcopal University Centre. Calvin doesn't get much credit for his Eucharistic theology. His "Institutes" reveal his sense of awe regarding Holy Communion.
Thank you! And yes, I think that’s right — in fact, in the 19th c. among many US Presbyterians Calvin’s Eucharistic theology was seen as shockingly “high”!
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. By this same logic, do you think immersive Baptism is preferable to pouring water? That way, it is a better analogue to Jesus's burial and resurrection.
Yes -- I do think that full immersion baptism is indeed preferable (though not necessary for a valid baptism), for the reason you say. And in fact, the Prayer Book says that infants should be "dipped" when baptized, which seems to mean full immersion. It's a rubric that does not seem to have been followed in practice, alas. But yes: agreed.
Just a couple weeks ago at a small informal Eucharist with real crusty bread I was down on the floor picking up and consuming the crumbs, so that's more of a gut-level problem for me than it is for you.
But this is good food for thought (so to speak) so thank you.
I agree that the best ingredients available should be used for the sacrament and also the idea of bread and wine as common things elevated by God plays on the symbolism. Fortunately, in the United Methodist Church we still use real bread but also, alas, grape juice.
The main reason I am not convinced right now is that when it comes to sacraments I think uniformity is greatly desirable. There are already so many comparisons that can be made between different churches, I would hate for one to be "Oh that church's sacrament is delicious but that one [doesn't have any good bakers/can't afford artisanal bread]" etc.
Secondly, one could just as easily argue that the refreshing transformational power of the Sacrament coming via an element that is humble and not valued in "this world," is also quite an apt idea?
I do take this point! I guess I don't know that I see this as something in which total uniformity is necessary. I hear where you're coming from about the point of using a humble element, but I actually think this applies better to ordinary bread of some sort than the wafers. Because wafers *aren't* humble and ordinary, it seems to me, in the sense that they are a food item that is only used for the eucharist and nothing else. But I'm thinking your point over.
"uniformity" with whom or with what? The ritualists with their ridiculous notions of "union with Rome" and "COE not being Protestant" (some of Ben's readers still love to argue this nonsense) switched back to the wafer because that what the papists were doing. But even in the Roman Church the wafer is only in the Latin rite - and not the eastern-Catholic rites where bread was and is used. Not to mention that uniformity should not be with a fantasy place but with Jesus and the Last Supper.
I understand that history, but I don't consider preferring wafers to be inherently "Romanist" or "papist"
No its not, but the reason the switch was made because it was perceived as such. yet another thing the ritualists were fantasizing about lol
Your 3rd footnote I think is exactly why real bread is controversial. I am all for real bread and agree it would be better for the exact reasons you explain. But unfortunately the promotion of real bread is often correlated with different theologies of what the Eucharist is. A previous parish of mine would send the remaining real bread home to random people. For more reformed minded folks, this is fine, but for those who have a more Sacramentalist view, it is downright scandalous. For the sake of not causing offense, I think continuing to use the wafers or using real bread but doing it like the EO do would be best
Of course or the hope is that most of the Anglican Communion will return to 1662-esque theology so people won't find that scandalous
Very rich, indeed, my friend. Let us strive onward to press into the depth and wisdom that comes with how we symbolise the sacraments. Everything matters in our practice with how we approach this. Down to how it is taken (ripped from a whole piece or separate). I have been thinking a LOT about this in my Protestant tradition, and long for a deeper understanding and reverence of the Eucharist, specifically. Thanks for writing this! I’d love to see even more pieces on the Eucharist.
“If the analogy is that Christ’s blood refreshes and gladdens you just as wine refreshes and gladdens you, you should drink enough wine to refresh and gladden you! And indeed, taking a bit more time to eat and drink allows one to more fully reflect on the nourishment that Christ gives invisibly through (as well as outside of) the visible nourishment of the bread and wine.”
Hailing in from west coast American parishes, I can say that most west coast Episcopal Church dioceses seem to encourage freshly baked loaves of bread made by parishioners. They're as good as anything you'd serve at a dinner table. The only time we use wafers is for those with gluten allergies, so as to avoid having bread touched by the priest who has handled the primary loaf. At least for some Episcopal dioceses, wafers are not that common and we hew to the BCP rubric. We also tend to tear off sizeable "chunks" of bread, in line with your encouragement to heartily consume.
It strikes me that your argument works quite well for Baptism and debates over partial vs. full immersion. Should we encourage full immersion for similar reasons of symbolic adequacy and power? I write, btw, as a high church Episcopalian who, like your attitude towards wafers, does not think that sprinkling invalidates the sacrament. I just think that my own baptism, which was in the raging Klamath river years before I discovered the Anglican tradition, resembled much closer St. Paul's descriptions at the beginning of Romans 6. It felt like a death and resurrection!
And then there is the matter of gluten-free bread, which results in a bread that is not of the same texture as the usual bread. The advantage of "real bread" is that this makes the bringing of the elements forward into more of a gifting, more of a real sign of "what human hands have made." This offering, no less than the sacrament are part of what makes the Eucharist so dear for me.
I like this—tho I’m not sure a tiny piece of leavened bread is so much more nutritious than a wafer
The Ritualists were the biggest writers of historical fiction, with the completely a-historial idea of the Middle Ages.