In the RC mass the priest says this prayer during the mixing of the water and wine "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity." It is a shorter and clearer version of the prayer in the Tridentine Missal.
It exists as well in our Orthodox rite, although it forms part of the preparation prior to the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, and is said by the deacon as he pours the water into the chalice.
"O God, Who wonderfully created and yet more wonderfully restored the dignity of our human nature, grant that, by the mystery of this water and wine, we may come to share in the divine life of Him Who humbled Himself to share in our humanity."
That is much closer to the Tridentine wording. I wonder if it predates the Schism.
Possibly.
The rite I vaguely referred to as "our Orthodox rite" above is the rite of the Gauls as reconstructed by St John of Saint-Denis in the last century from ancient sources. I have only this weekend purchased his commentary on his sources and method but haven't yet read it. If I'm able to find anything about the prayers of the preparation rite I'll post back here.
Ah. I thought you were referring to one of the traditional orthodox liturgies.
In the RC mass the priest says this prayer during the mixing of the water and wine "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity." It is a shorter and clearer version of the prayer in the Tridentine Missal.
It exists as well in our Orthodox rite, although it forms part of the preparation prior to the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, and is said by the deacon as he pours the water into the chalice.
"O God, Who wonderfully created and yet more wonderfully restored the dignity of our human nature, grant that, by the mystery of this water and wine, we may come to share in the divine life of Him Who humbled Himself to share in our humanity."
That is much closer to the Tridentine wording. I wonder if it predates the Schism.
Possibly.
The rite I vaguely referred to as "our Orthodox rite" above is the rite of the Gauls as reconstructed by St John of Saint-Denis in the last century from ancient sources. I have only this weekend purchased his commentary on his sources and method but haven't yet read it. If I'm able to find anything about the prayers of the preparation rite I'll post back here.
Ah. I thought you were referring to one of the traditional orthodox liturgies.
Well, I would say that the Liturgy according to St Germanus is a traditional Orthodox Liturgy, but there are so many traditional Orthodox liturgies that I realised after posting that my wording was vague and for that I apologise. It's how those of us who use that rite refer to it among ourselves and, having just spent the past week on retreat among such people, I forgot my audience here.
For clarity, the prayer doesn't exist in the Byzantine or other local Eastern, Mediterranean, or African rites. However, it does exist in the Roman rite and may well have existed in the Gallican and other Western European texts. I'll post here if I discover that to be the case.
Indeed, but it often feels odd that we charge a fee for those services, and not for baptisms. From a practical point of view they are all ceremonies marking life events that we mainly offer to people who have little or no contact with church.
I'm not entirely sure but I have been told that what you pay for is the organist and the building.
And I would assume that the idea is that salvation is free. You don't need to be married to be saved.
Is it possible that Cyprian is quoting from the Western rite Orthodox liturgy which to an outside observer looks much like the Roman rite (minus perhaps the prayer for the pope ?
It is equally possible that it comes from the pre-schism Byzantine rite liturgy.
However I would ask Cyprian from what time does the text of the Western rite Orthodox liturgy date in its present form ?
I must have cross-posted with you and have only just seen your post.
There are various western rites used within Orthodoxy. The Roman rite is certainly the most commonly used among them and its use was given a blessing in the 19th century.
The Gallican-tradition liturgy I was referring to was restored in the 1940s, primarily by St John of Saint-Denis (Eugraph Kovalevsky) for use by the church that was then known as the Western Orthodox Church (founded under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1936). over the weekend I bought two of the three volumes of St John's academic commentary on the restoration of this rite. I'll slowly make my way through it as a means if practising my very poor French.
Yes, as someone who was quite secular and atheistic when my child was baptised, my thinking was:
i) You Church-y People hold that this is a prerequisite for salvation, so you can hardly deny it to a child, can you?
ii) Insofar as it's about welcoming the young 'un into the Christian community - well, right now he's coming from outside it to inside it, so there's no fee there. Once he's older, being a member of that community will have obligations!
My views now have shifted only to the extent that I'm not sure about (i) anymore.
A liturgical question: despite the fact that I’ve gone and inserted it into my user handle willy-billy, I realise I’m in fact a bit vague about the thinking behind the part of the Mass known as the ‘peace’ or ‘pax’. When I’ve participated, it’s always seemed to me more a sign of love or friendship than ‘peace’ as such. And in fact I’m not entirely clear what it’s doing in the Mass at all.
I suspect my problem is two-fold: not understanding liturgy or the liturgical tradition generally; and maybe not really understanding the specifically-Christian resonances of ‘peace/pax/eirene’. Can anyone enlighten me?
It occurs to me that the handshake offered at the peace in many churches was, so popular legend has it, originally a sign that you were unarmed and, indeed, intending peace.
It occurs to me that the handshake offered at the peace in many churches was, so popular legend has it, originally a sign that you were unarmed and, indeed, intending peace.
That is the origin of the handshake - while you are shaking hands you can't be drawing your sword,,
If one is inserting an office hymn into a (pre-1970s) version of BCP Morning or Evening Prayer, is there a traditional place to do so? The English Office book has it after the first or second reading (depending on the office) before the canticle, but that feels slightly off to me.
If one is inserting an office hymn into a (pre-1970s) version of BCP Morning or Evening Prayer, is there a traditional place to do so? The English Office book has it after the first or second reading (depending on the office) before the canticle, but that feels slightly off to me.
Percy Dearmer, and the Alcuin Club Manual both advocate for before the Psalms, which would be after the Venite at MP, and after Praise ye the Lord/The Lord's name be praised at EP. It is what we do here and it seems to fit better than before the Benedictus and the Mag, which are taken straight from the Roman Breviary without taking into account the slightly different set up to the BCP office.
If one is inserting an office hymn into a (pre-1970s) version of BCP Morning or Evening Prayer, is there a traditional place to do so? The English Office book has it after the first or second reading (depending on the office) before the canticle, but that feels slightly off to me.
Percy Dearmer, and the Alcuin Club Manual both advocate for before the Psalms, which would be after the Venite at MP, and after Praise ye the Lord/The Lord's name be praised at EP. It is what we do here and it seems to fit better than before the Benedictus and the Mag, which are taken straight from the Roman Breviary without taking into account the slightly different set up to the BCP office.
Yes, that's what we do at Our Place, BCP here being the 1662 version. It does indeed sit better, as PDR says.
I don't have a copy to hand, but I don't think the 1662 BCP disallows the insertion of a suitable Office Hymn. I'd hazard a guess that it re-appeared during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, as a result of The English Hymnal's many translations of mediaeval (or earlier) hymns.
Certainly, a hymn could (and often does) replace the anthem, and IIRC the Church of My Yoof used to sandwich the sermon between two hymns.
Actually, I guess that, if the first hymn sets the tone/theme of the service, it might well be most appropriate at the very beginning, in line with what Enoch, and TheOrganist, have said.
Perhaps I've been over-influenced by The Blessed Percy, but Ritual Notes (FWIW) also prescribes the Office Hymn between the Venite, and Psalm(s), at Matins. RN says it goes before the Magnificat at Evensong, but that seems to be in imitation of Roman Vespers, and IMHO it's better before the Psalm(s), as at Matins.
As there appears to be no definite instruction, local custom takes over, which may, or may not, be a Good Thing!
If one is inserting an office hymn into a (pre-1970s) version of BCP Morning or Evening Prayer, is there a traditional place to do so? The English Office book has it after the first or second reading (depending on the office) before the canticle, but that feels slightly off to me.
Percy Dearmer, and the Alcuin Club Manual both advocate for before the Psalms, which would be after the Venite at MP, and after Praise ye the Lord/The Lord's name be praised at EP. It is what we do here and it seems to fit better than before the Benedictus and the Mag, which are taken straight from the Roman Breviary without taking into account the slightly different set up to the BCP office.
That sounds like a sensible approach that I will try. Thank you!
The Elizabethan injunction allowed a metrical psalm before and after the service, but parish church services at that time were said, and metrical psalms are not office hymns. If one wants a hymn there it needs to be either a general call to worship type hymn or something to fit in with the penitential opening to the service. The office hymn does not seem quite appropriate for that position. To my mind having the office hymn before the penitential introduction rather isolates it from the psalms and lessons to which it is intended to give an emphasis. I suppose I have been got at enough by the liturgical handbooks to the point where I tend to think any singing before the words "O Lord, open thou our lips" at MP and EP as a mild liturgical faux pas.
I suppose I have been got at enough by the liturgical handbooks to the point where I tend to think any singing before the words "O Lord, open thou our lips" at MP and EP as a mild liturgical faux pas.
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
As for a hymn before Magnificat, whether it's Evensong or Vespers, it gives time to charge the thurible.
A possible need to draw your sword explains why at least some of us drive on the left, so we pass right-to-right.
Indirectly; my recollection is that it's to do with mounting your horse while carrying your sword.
Basically it's because most people are right handed and so wear swords on the left of the body. If you're riding along and see another rider approaching, you want to be able quickly to draw your sword - or to shake hands of course.
I suppose I have been got at enough by the liturgical handbooks to the point where I tend to think any singing before the words "O Lord, open thou our lips" at MP and EP as a mild liturgical faux pas.
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
As for a hymn before Magnificat, whether it's Evensong or Vespers, it gives time to charge the thurible.
You're not in Virginia, mate. Incense would result in a less pleasurable fire in the form of burning at the stake in quite a few parishes around here...
In some respects I agree with them most of the time, though I would not mind incense on the great feasts - provided it was done in a restrained manner. For a start, our ceiling is high enough for it. The rest of the time I enjoy the steady plod of MOTR but liturgically aware Anglican worship in preference to the histrionics on both ends, and so, seemingly, does the local congregation.
A possible need to draw your sword explains why at least some of us drive on the left, so we pass right-to-right.
Indirectly; my recollection is that it's to do with mounting your horse while carrying your sword.
Basically it's because most people are right handed and so wear swords on the left of the body. If you're riding along and see another rider approaching, you want to be able quickly to draw your sword - or to shake hands of course.
Not just draw your sword, but also use it against the other rider without cutting your own horse’s head off.
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
This is a pet peeve of mine. Saying we will keep silence and then either charging straight on, or talking through it. We used to have a curate who did this regularly: "And in the silence let us think about A, and B, and C". By the time she got to Z we'd had no silence at all.
The Elizabethan injunction allowed a metrical psalm before and after the service, but parish church services at that time were said, and metrical psalms are not office hymns. If one wants a hymn there it needs to be either a general call to worship type hymn or something to fit in with the penitential opening to the service. The office hymn does not seem quite appropriate for that position. To my mind having the office hymn before the penitential introduction rather isolates it from the psalms and lessons to which it is intended to give an emphasis. I suppose I have been got at enough by the liturgical handbooks to the point where I tend to think any singing before the words "O Lord, open thou our lips" at MP and EP as a mild liturgical faux pas.
I'd forgotten about the Elizabethan injunctions, but I think PDR is right about the choice of hymns, depending where you put them.
A wise old retired priest once told me that he held three points of silence in a Communion service (his choices were before the Collect, at the end of the Intercessory prayers and just after receiving Communion). And this eased in the congregation to enjoying spiritual silence as part of worship. And he gradually extended them from half a minute to 3 minutes. One day an elderly parishoner said to him. 'Do you know which part of the service I like best, vicar? It's the bit where you say nowt.'
FWIW, I'd be happy if we kept quiet at those points, though perhaps having the third silence immediately after the post-Communion hymn, and before the post-C prayer. Father NewPriest may well be open to suggestion...
Another minister that I knew would ask the organist to play meditative music just before the congregation took Communion to put them into a receptive frame of mind. It's these little spiritual touches that can 'lift' a worship service for the congregation.
One of our organists does that during Communion - though she usually employs the piano, often playing something classical (Bach, Schubert - a piece by Robert Schumann last Sunday, it was).
One of our organists does that during Communion - though she usually employs the piano, often playing something classical (Bach, Schubert - a piece by Robert Schumann last Sunday, it was).
The organist at St Sanity is one of the very first to take communion after the sanctuary party to enable a quick return to the loft to play a suitable piece while others take.
I read her post "just before the congregation" as fitting our timetable of sanctuary party, then organist, and then congregation. The organist does not have time to return to the loft before the congregation starts to take but is playing by the time the first row at the altar rail has taken.
One of our organists does that during Communion - though she usually employs the piano, often playing something classical (Bach, Schubert - a piece by Robert Schumann last Sunday, it was).
The organist at St Sanity is one of the very first to take communion after the sanctuary party to enable a quick return to the loft to play a suitable piece while others take.
The organist at our place is one of the last to receive, but for a similar reason. Our pattern, which is typical of Presby churches in these parts, is that the congregation receives first, then the choir, then the organist, elders and minister last. The result is that the organist is able to start playing (and the choir to start singing in the case of a hymn or motet) as soon as the congregation starts to receive, then silence as the last (organist, elders and minister) receive.
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
This is a pet peeve of mine. Saying we will keep silence and then either charging straight on, or talking through it. We used to have a curate who did this regularly: "And in the silence let us think about A, and B, and C". By the time she got to Z we'd had no silence at all.
We tend to have distinct silent pauses after the Epistle; after the Gospel; and sometimes before Communion. I find it is hard to stretch any pause much beyond a minute as someone will start talking.
The organist plays quietly during communion; but organ, not piano. The one thing I have not quite got him convinced to do - mainly because he plays two churches of different denomination - is to finish improvising when the last communicant leaves the rail. I take the ablutions after the blessing, so I do not need a couple of minutes of 'cover' at that point.
On the question of Elizabethan injunctions, hymns, with a few exceptions such as While shepherds watched, which is a paraphrase, and the anthem in its proper place, were generally regarded as illegal until a legal decision in the early nineteenth century.
I'm fairly sure that music, and/or singing while people receive at Communion goes back at least to the eighteenth century.
I'm sure I can remember a discussion on a thread a few years back about whether the celebrant should communicate before or after everyone else, and I seem to remember a preference for before. Some thought that receiving last was a mark of ostentatious and false humility. I seem also to remember that one reason for the priest communicating first was to reassure the congregation that the chalice had not been laced with poison.
Hehe...but, in the days of non-communicating at Mass, it would have been relatively easy to get rid of an unpopular priest...
Ahem.
Re the minister receiving last, I conducted a service of Holy Communion by Extension at a neighbouring church, and deliberately held back, just in case there wasn't enough to go round.
I seem also to remember that one reason for the priest communicating first was to reassure the congregation that the chalice had not been laced with poison.
Another is that it ritually completes the Sacrifice, at least in places where that's not a loaded word.
In this neck of the woods the word 'sacrifice' is not so much loaded as figurative as it "the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in remembrance of the one, true sacrifice" or a 'sacramental participation in the one true and eternal sacrifice.' I have probably cribbed those phrases of old school High Anglicans, Brilloith, and/or Nevin.
I receive first during the Agnus Dei which is supposed to cover the altar party's communion in our church. I then turn to the congregation and invite them to receive. The minister receiving last would seem very odd to me, having been an active Anglican since I was 15, though I have seen it in Lutheran and Reformed churches
I'm sure I can remember a discussion on a thread a few years back about whether the celebrant should communicate before or after everyone else, and I seem to remember a preference for before.
Yes, there was some discussion about this before. If I recall correctly, it's more accurate to say that Anglicans (and, of course, Catholics) had a preference for "before," while many in other traditions had a preference for "after."
Some thought that receiving last was a mark of ostentatious and false humility.
Again, a lot depends here on context—the expectations, understanding and historical practices of any given community or tradition. In a tradition such as Anglicanism where the norm is for the clergy to receive first, receiving last could indeed be seen as a mark of ostentatious and false humility. But in a tradition where the norm is for the clergy to receive last—and to be served by someone else—then serving oneself before anyone else is served could be seen as a mark of ostentatious and false sense of importance. (The minister of the church of my childhood had the practice of serving himself, then serving the elders who then served the congregation. I can remember conversations among many of my family members who many years after he first arrived still thought that was very strange and unseemly.)
I tend to think either is okay in theory, and both can be honestly defended. Either have the potential to convey positive or negative messages. There is value, I think, in being consistent with one's own tradition, in explaining to people why that tradition is what it is, and not looking too askance at those whose tradition is different.
I seem also to remember that one reason for the priest communicating first was to reassure the congregation that the chalice had not been laced with poison.
Another is that it ritually completes the Sacrifice, at least in places where that's not a loaded word.
Or where that's an alien word in the sense that it's not part of a particular community's understanding of what happens in the Eucharist.
Comments
Ah. I thought you were referring to one of the traditional orthodox liturgies.
Well, I would say that the Liturgy according to St Germanus is a traditional Orthodox Liturgy, but there are so many traditional Orthodox liturgies that I realised after posting that my wording was vague and for that I apologise. It's how those of us who use that rite refer to it among ourselves and, having just spent the past week on retreat among such people, I forgot my audience here.
For clarity, the prayer doesn't exist in the Byzantine or other local Eastern, Mediterranean, or African rites. However, it does exist in the Roman rite and may well have existed in the Gallican and other Western European texts. I'll post here if I discover that to be the case.
And I would assume that the idea is that salvation is free. You don't need to be married to be saved.
I'm so very sorry, @Forthview
I must have cross-posted with you and have only just seen your post.
There are various western rites used within Orthodoxy. The Roman rite is certainly the most commonly used among them and its use was given a blessing in the 19th century.
The Gallican-tradition liturgy I was referring to was restored in the 1940s, primarily by St John of Saint-Denis (Eugraph Kovalevsky) for use by the church that was then known as the Western Orthodox Church (founded under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1936). over the weekend I bought two of the three volumes of St John's academic commentary on the restoration of this rite. I'll slowly make my way through it as a means if practising my very poor French.
i) You Church-y People hold that this is a prerequisite for salvation, so you can hardly deny it to a child, can you?
ii) Insofar as it's about welcoming the young 'un into the Christian community - well, right now he's coming from outside it to inside it, so there's no fee there. Once he's older, being a member of that community will have obligations!
My views now have shifted only to the extent that I'm not sure about (i) anymore.
I suspect my problem is two-fold: not understanding liturgy or the liturgical tradition generally; and maybe not really understanding the specifically-Christian resonances of ‘peace/pax/eirene’. Can anyone enlighten me?
That is the origin of the handshake - while you are shaking hands you can't be drawing your sword,,
That has always been my understanding. While I am reluctant to disagree with an aristocrat, I'm not quite convinced by Palomides....
Indirectly; my recollection is that it's to do with mounting your horse while carrying your sword.
@SirPalomides , that's beautiful.
Percy Dearmer, and the Alcuin Club Manual both advocate for before the Psalms, which would be after the Venite at MP, and after Praise ye the Lord/The Lord's name be praised at EP. It is what we do here and it seems to fit better than before the Benedictus and the Mag, which are taken straight from the Roman Breviary without taking into account the slightly different set up to the BCP office.
Yes, that's what we do at Our Place, BCP here being the 1662 version. It does indeed sit better, as PDR says.
Certainly, a hymn could (and often does) replace the anthem, and IIRC the Church of My Yoof used to sandwich the sermon between two hymns.
Local usage...
Office Hymn, introductory sentence, General confession, Preces and responses
Venite followed by Psalm(s), 1st lesson
Te Deum/ Benedicite, 2nd lesson
Benedictus/ Jubilate
Creed, responses, collects
Anthem, sermon (hymn)
Prayers/ Litany, Offertory Hymn, Blessing
Second hymn is dropped if we have the Litany.
Perhaps I've been over-influenced by The Blessed Percy, but Ritual Notes (FWIW) also prescribes the Office Hymn between the Venite, and Psalm(s), at Matins. RN says it goes before the Magnificat at Evensong, but that seems to be in imitation of Roman Vespers, and IMHO it's better before the Psalm(s), as at Matins.
As there appears to be no definite instruction, local custom takes over, which may, or may not, be a Good Thing!
That sounds like a sensible approach that I will try. Thank you!
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
As for a hymn before Magnificat, whether it's Evensong or Vespers, it gives time to charge the thurible.
Basically it's because most people are right handed and so wear swords on the left of the body. If you're riding along and see another rider approaching, you want to be able quickly to draw your sword - or to shake hands of course.
You're not in Virginia, mate. Incense would result in a less pleasurable fire in the form of burning at the stake in quite a few parishes around here...
In some respects I agree with them most of the time, though I would not mind incense on the great feasts - provided it was done in a restrained manner. For a start, our ceiling is high enough for it. The rest of the time I enjoy the steady plod of MOTR but liturgically aware Anglican worship in preference to the histrionics on both ends, and so, seemingly, does the local congregation.
Not just draw your sword, but also use it against the other rider without cutting your own horse’s head off.
Meat?
This is a pet peeve of mine. Saying we will keep silence and then either charging straight on, or talking through it. We used to have a curate who did this regularly: "And in the silence let us think about A, and B, and C". By the time she got to Z we'd had no silence at all.
Never knowingly eaten horse meat but I've not heard anyone speak well of it. Tough is the usual comment.
I'd forgotten about the Elizabethan injunctions, but I think PDR is right about the choice of hymns, depending where you put them.
A wise old retired priest once told me that he held three points of silence in a Communion service (his choices were before the Collect, at the end of the Intercessory prayers and just after receiving Communion). And this eased in the congregation to enjoying spiritual silence as part of worship. And he gradually extended them from half a minute to 3 minutes. One day an elderly parishoner said to him. 'Do you know which part of the service I like best, vicar? It's the bit where you say nowt.'
Well done, that priest.
FWIW, I'd be happy if we kept quiet at those points, though perhaps having the third silence immediately after the post-Communion hymn, and before the post-C prayer. Father NewPriest may well be open to suggestion...
The organist at St Sanity is one of the very first to take communion after the sanctuary party to enable a quick return to the loft to play a suitable piece while others take.
Organ (and piano) at Our Place are quite close to the chancel, which is handy.
But I presume Rublev's quoted example refers to music being played before anyone (except the priest/servers?) receives?
We tend to have distinct silent pauses after the Epistle; after the Gospel; and sometimes before Communion. I find it is hard to stretch any pause much beyond a minute as someone will start talking.
The organist plays quietly during communion; but organ, not piano. The one thing I have not quite got him convinced to do - mainly because he plays two churches of different denomination - is to finish improvising when the last communicant leaves the rail. I take the ablutions after the blessing, so I do not need a couple of minutes of 'cover' at that point.
I'm fairly sure that music, and/or singing while people receive at Communion goes back at least to the eighteenth century.
I'm sure I can remember a discussion on a thread a few years back about whether the celebrant should communicate before or after everyone else, and I seem to remember a preference for before. Some thought that receiving last was a mark of ostentatious and false humility. I seem also to remember that one reason for the priest communicating first was to reassure the congregation that the chalice had not been laced with poison.
Ahem.
Re the minister receiving last, I conducted a service of Holy Communion by Extension at a neighbouring church, and deliberately held back, just in case there wasn't enough to go round.
There was. Just.
Another is that it ritually completes the Sacrifice, at least in places where that's not a loaded word.
I receive first during the Agnus Dei which is supposed to cover the altar party's communion in our church. I then turn to the congregation and invite them to receive. The minister receiving last would seem very odd to me, having been an active Anglican since I was 15, though I have seen it in Lutheran and Reformed churches
Again, a lot depends here on context—the expectations, understanding and historical practices of any given community or tradition. In a tradition such as Anglicanism where the norm is for the clergy to receive first, receiving last could indeed be seen as a mark of ostentatious and false humility. But in a tradition where the norm is for the clergy to receive last—and to be served by someone else—then serving oneself before anyone else is served could be seen as a mark of ostentatious and false sense of importance. (The minister of the church of my childhood had the practice of serving himself, then serving the elders who then served the congregation. I can remember conversations among many of my family members who many years after he first arrived still thought that was very strange and unseemly.)
I tend to think either is okay in theory, and both can be honestly defended. Either have the potential to convey positive or negative messages. There is value, I think, in being consistent with one's own tradition, in explaining to people why that tradition is what it is, and not looking too askance at those whose tradition is different.
Or where that's an alien word in the sense that it's not part of a particular community's understanding of what happens in the Eucharist.