Talk:Black Rubric

This article in its present form is inaccurate and misleading. To illustrate my point I reproduce its text with comments interspersed in italics


 * The Black Rubric is the popular name for the declaration enjoining kneeling at the end of the order for the administration of the Lord's Supper in the prayer-book of the Church of England, so called because it was printed in black letter in the prayer-book as revised by William Sancroft in 1661 S. was only one of the chief revisers. It is not, strictly speaking, a rubric at all as it is intended for the direction of the people and not for the officiating clergy Rubrics are "stage directions" for both ministers and people as opposed to what is said. Nor did Sancroft originate it, as it dates back to the second prayer-book of Edward VI (1552), whose council ordered that the communicants should receive the elements kneeling, and explained in the "rubric" that this attitude was not used to express belief in transubstantiation. The "rubric" was omitted in the Elizabethan prayer-book of 1559, and this omission was one of the cherished grievances of the Puritans. In the Savoy Conference of 1661 the Presbyterians demanded its restoration, but the bishops were not at the time inclined to grant it; the connection between the Savoy Conf. and the legal revision is tenuous -- the latter involved no only the all the bishops, but also the Lower Houses of Convocation and Parliament where there was a greater desire to conciliate the moderate puritans at the last moment, however, it was replaced with a verbal modification and so it appears in the revised prayer-book of Charles II and is still retained in the English prayer-book better say that is was reinserted in the 1662 revision and so forms part of the doctrinal standards of the Church of England (Canon B5). It was removed It was not removed - it was never inserted into CW from the alternative Common Worship of the Church of England in 2000.
 * If there are no serious objections, I will rewrite and provide references in a few days time - suggestions welcome!--Jpacobb (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

PROPOSED REWRITE:
 * The Black Rubric is the popular name for the declaration justifying kneeling to receive communion found at the end of the order for the administration of the Lord's Supper in the prayer-book of the Church of England. After Parliament had approved the second prayer-book of Edward VI (1552), John Knox and others argued before the Council of Regency that the Holy Communion should be received sitting; but were refuted by Archbishop Cranmer. As a result of this clash, the Council acted on its own authority, and ordered the inclusion of the Declaration which had to be pasted in as a correction slip to the first printing.  Although printed in black, it looked rather like a rubric; but, strictly speaking, it is not one as it deals with theology rather than being an instruction as to what is to be done during, before, or after the service.  (Traditionally rubrics were printed in red, hence their name from the latin ruber.)  The declaration explained kneeling was an expression of humble reception of the sacrament and did not imply belief in transubstantiation or favour adoration of the bread and wine.


 * The "rubric" was omitted from the Elizabethan prayer-book of 1559 This omission was one of the cherished grievances of the Puritans and in the Savoy Conference of 1661 the Presbyterians demanded its restoration; but the twelve bishops who took part were not willing to grant it.  However, the revision of the prayer-book in 1662 involved all the bishops, representatives of the clergy and both Houses of Parliament. At a late stage in the proceedings the "rubric" was reintroduced with a verbal modification and formed part of the book as finally approved.  It therefore forms part of the doctrinal standards of the Church of England (Canon A5), but has never been inserted into the alternative forms of worship (such as Common Worship) authorised or allowed by Canons B1,B2 and B4.


 * It is debatable whether the verbal change "Corporal" in place of "real and essential" was purely verbal or implied some type of recognition of the "real presence". For example, Frere claims it does ; Griffith Thomas says the opposite.